From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 07:37:32 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Oil Change software snoops through hard drive
Message-ID: <adf5630101021004a745@[205.199.118.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:44 AM 6/24/96, Jennifer Mansfield-Jones wrote:

>I thought Alan was implying that Oil Change might be licensed by other
>software vendors, and then supplied as a "service" without warnings.
>For instance, one might purchase the NiftyKeen Win95 graphics editor,
>and find in a footnote on page 58 of the manual that the product will
>automatically update itself unless the user explicitly refuses the
>Customer Convenience Package during installation.
>
>In any case, I don't think it's a bad idea to point out the potential
>problems -- some people just don't notice these things unless the
>implications are spelled out in at least as much detail as the glowing
>marketer fluff.

I certainly agree that airing of issues is useful, and that of course there
is nothing wrong with such discussions.

There is a kind of tension on this list between two points of view, both
ostensibly "privacy-oriented":

1. There are potential privacy problems out there. We need laws to protect
people.

2. There are potential privacy problems out there. People need to protect
themselves.

This tension shows up in the debate about collection of public information
(dossiers), with folks in the #1 camp often arguing for laws restricting
the collection and dissemination of information. Folks in the #2 camp tend
to argue that public information is just that, and that information not
protected by contractual arrangements is, well, just not protected. That if
one doesn't want Fred the Retailer to know one bought a lawn chair, one
should take measures to hide this, that there should not be laws making it
illegal for Fred to make note of this purchase (as that opens all kinds of
cans of worms about inspection of records, etc.).

Anyway, I saw in Alan's remarks the beginnings of a #1 camp position, that
we may need legislation to protect consumers against the evils of Oil
Change. Maybe he did not mean this...he can clarify what he meant, of
course.

To me, Oil Change is a potentially useful service, with controllable
privacy implications. So long as it is voluntary, what's the problem?

I suppose I see many issues in the light of the dichotomy above, and I try
to speak up to make the #2 camp positions whenever I think appropriate.

--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."