From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 08:04:51 +0800
To: "James M. Cobb" <jcobb@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com>
Subject: Re: No Privacy Right in UK ?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD.3.91.951117174809.9898L-100000@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com>
Message-ID: <199511172316.SAA13692@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



"James M. Cobb" writes:
> Thanks for your inquiry.  The post "No Privacy Right in UK ?" 
> is closely related to cryptography in at least three ways. 

Actually, I was being rhetorical. It was an inappropriate posting.

> Cryptography is a means to accomplish an end: privacy.

Thats true, but it isn't a means to keep private investigators from
noticing that insurance cheats are perfectly healthy when they claim
to be horribly incapacitiated, which was what the article was about.

> Farther, the case discussed in the post was a prosaic example 
> of invasion of privacy by deception.

Actually, it was a prosaic example of the lengths to which human
stupidity is taken in our court systems. I'm reminded of the rule that
says you can't put a boobytrap in your home -- after all, a person
breaking and entering could injure themselves with it.

It has nothing to do with cryptography, though.

> Further, Clinton attended an elite university in the UK.  Can you 
> imagine what notions he may have found attractive there?

So what. Nothing to do with cryptography.

Take this elsewhere, I say.

Perry