From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 11:16:12 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Children's Privacy Act
In-Reply-To: <adcb2a8e0002100415b1@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960524154831.29645Z-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 24 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 6:45 AM 5/24/96, Rich Graves wrote:
> >I was certainly disappointed to hear a couple of cypherpunks the other day
> >discussing for-profit offshore data havens full of personal information
> >that is illegal to collect in the US as a business opportunity *they* were
> >interested in pursuing. I just can't see myself doing that, for anybody.
> >Gubmint or private, doesn't matter.
> 
> These off-shore data havens, possibly in Anguilla, possibly elsewhere, have
> long been a motivation for crypto anarchy.

Yes, but is it a motivation to do "good" or "evil"? Maybe this belongs on
PHILOSOPHYpunks. 

Who would control the offshore data havens? What would they have on me? I
am well aware of what TRW et al can do, but at least in theory (cough),
they're legally accountable (cough). 

I know you disagree, but I'm a big fan of statutes of limitations and the
firewalling of unrelated issues. Someone went bankrupt or beat her husband
seven years ago (or whatever), I don't want to know about it. I'd rather
ten (configurable) guilty men go free than one innocent man get punished.
These are artificial boundaries, yes, but they're boundaries within which
I'm comfortable living.

-rich