From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 18:45:19 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy of information ownership
Message-ID: <adcff579000210040142@[205.199.118.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 5:55 AM 5/28/96, Bruce Baugh wrote:

>What specifically bothers me is the reselling of information that I chose to
>reveal for a specific transaction, most especially when I did so with an
>assumption of privacy. I'm happy to provide businesses with the info they
>need to see that I'm not going to stiff them on a sale. I am _very_ unhappy
>that some of them then turn around and sell that info to others, and doubly
>so when what gets passed on is wrong.

Contracts are the key. If Alice contractually agreed to hold data
confidential, then didn't, Bob would have a case for suing. If Bob revealed
information without a contract, Alice can do with it as she pleases.

And in most of the cases I was talking about a few days ago (I was gone for
the weekend and could not participate in this debate until now), Alice is
using various records or observations that are free for anyone to remember,
save, use, etc. Alice compiles a dossier on Bob based on press items,
public court records, bankruptcy filings, divorce decrees, and all the
various things that are available to anyone who is "observant."

(The government has attempted to interfere with this record-keeping and
-reporting, such as with the "Fair Credit Reporting Act," which makes the
"remembering" of bankruptcies, defaults, and other such indiscretions a
crime if the records are greater than 7 years, or somesuch. My point is
that such laws are not only unconstitutional, even under the "regulate
commerce" clause, but are laws which ultimately invite the government to
inspect the files and records of someone...so much for "secure in one's
papers.")

Face it, if one makes public utterances, or utterances on lists like this,
or one files for bankruptcy protection, or any number of such things, then
others can and will "remember" these things. How they use these
remembrances or who they pass them on to, or sell them to, has *never* been
something that the U.S. government has been empowered to control or
regulate. Until recently, of course. All to the worse.


>>When I walked off with your blood chemistry data, did you lose the use
>>of it for your future purposes?
>
>What I've lost here is privacy, something which does have monetary value to me.

As others have noted, the proper solution is to make contractual
arrangements with those doing blood analyses, or handling the data. It
works for financial data, more or less, and so on. There is no
justification (and many reasons against such a thing) for invoking some
nebulous "right to personal information."

>[example of info gleanable by my reading/posting to Cypherpunks and other
>sources out there for the world to see]
>>What do you propose as to the obligations I should have to you as regards
>>the disposition of this information?  For example, what if I receive a
>
>Things like that don't bother me, either. If I really didn't want to be
>associated with Cypherpunks that way, I could do things to protect my identity.

Fine, you draw the line at "Cypherpunks information can be revealed, but
you'd better not reveal XYZ." Others would use your same logic to argue
that even the "who cypherpunks" command information is "private" and not to
be compiled into a dossier or revealed or, God forbid, sold.

Again, what are the contractual relationships?

>On the other hand, say I sign up for a mailing list that charges a
>subscription fee, like Extropians. I would feel no ground for complaint if
>someone markets a list of Extropian subscribers - but I'd feel much ground
>for complaint if I learned the list owner were selling credit histories
>gathered during the subscription process. (Unless, of course, I assent to a
>clause to the effect that the list owner can do anything he wants with my
>credit info, as opposed to the specific purpose of getting payment for the
>list.)

Here you seem to be referring to contracts. A good start.

And much better than mere appeals to intuition about what ought to be
private and what ought to be public.

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."