From: The Deviant <deviant@pooh-corner.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 06:08:25 +0800
To: Rich Burroughs <richieb@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Oregon License Plate Site in the News Tonight!
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960809000709.28414A-100000@julie.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.94.960809180731.1185D-100000@switch.sp.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Rich Burroughs wrote:

> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 00:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Rich Burroughs <richieb@teleport.com>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Oregon License Plate Site in the News Tonight!
> 
> I wrote:
> > > I do think that the information should be able to be disseminated on the
> > > Net as long as it's legal.
> > >
> 
> "The Deviant" wrote:
> > Yes, but I can also see why its a bad idea to put somebody's VIN on the
> > Net... A clever terrorist would simply plant peices of metal with some
> > other loser's VIN's in their car before blowing up a building, (i.e. my
> > name's McVeigh (sp?), and this rider truck came from Oregon ;)... see my
> > point?
> 
> A clever terrorist could get the CD and do the same thing :)  They're
> clever, right?
> 

Yes, well, true, but my point was that not _all_ of that information
should be available AT ALL.

> > I do think that some information could be allowed (what your tag says,
> > your name, your mailing address), but what was put on he net was excesive.
> 
> That's a function of what information the State decides to make availble.
> The fact that it's on the Net or not shoudln't be the issue.  If I can buy
> it on a CD or march into a State office and get it, the same potential
> harms exist.
> 
> I persoannly think this info is a privacy threat.  But if it's legal to
> distribute in other forums, the Net should be no different, IMHO.  All Net
> terrorist hype aside.
> 

I agree.  If its available, the net is as good a medium as any.

 --Deviant
You know you've been spending too much time on the computer when your
friend misdates a check, and you suggest adding a "++" to fix it.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMgt+1DAJap8fyDMVAQHctQf+Mg3pI74FLc9VzfeZoLDUU0DLzM0UYKg/
7G1HVUXPOS3CRuc40vUTx+1LO/6uGyfDUvZeW/tGEOP0tKAJ9jWZZbrbvs3XBl+G
+HPu7f4rJcsLqRLEVW8wGbJ+Z15RjtrJaB/A/QUxFwmz8y6b8XN1uAAb1Myh2fiT
XMwHW6L+dGsMIKZpAf018kdktlSLsgY4lkgcMb1b6utZkonX5POSw7DCmThOmFNp
gSaL5eKmLRHpYI2SAL48sAXvPD3Yg397/3bApIi7X2EzAlfEttg0lYlt2IMIKNsi
R+Zovv+npr/uqU4mTfwCgshHMQTXfMaXeKz8S55nQt1Tsvc6ZOIPPA==
=Q2OD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----