cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-06-13 - Re: There’s no general right to privacy – get over it, from Netly

Header Data

From: tzeruch@ceddec.com
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Message Hash: 67b1cfc334207ec37a992825d6348735070256f44fa81b7d8d49eed6754e3d0a
Message ID: <97Jun13.135323edt.32257@brickwall.ceddec.com>
Reply To: <v03007801afc62e624e47@[168.161.105.191]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-13 18:42:06 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 02:42:06 +0800

Raw message

From: tzeruch@ceddec.com
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 02:42:06 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly
In-Reply-To: <v03007801afc62e624e47@[168.161.105.191]>
Message-ID: <97Jun13.135323edt.32257@brickwall.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Privacy? What Privacy?
> by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
> 
>      I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my
> civil libertarian colleagues, I believe you have no
> general right to privacy online. Sure, you have the
> right to protect your personal data, but you shouldn't
> be able to stop someone else from passing along that
> information if you let it leave your computer. That's
> your responsibility.

I think there is a confusion as to whether "The Net" is a public place or
not, and for most purposes it is.  When I say something in public, I
cannot expect it not to be repeated.  I should have no general right to
privacy in a public place.

When I email, if it is something I don't want to see posted everywhere, I
add a copyright notice of some sort - nonredistribution as a condition of 
use.

I don't think it is considered a breach of the first ammendment not to
allow a newspaper to serialize a book without compensating the author,
even if the book is available at a library.  And lots of things are
considered copyrighted without having the circle-c affixed to it. 

Libertarian means as much finding out about the rules and taking
responsibility for your acts (including unintentional publication), as
having rights.  If a site says they will not redistriubte the information,
and then does, it is a form of fraud.  If they don't say, or if they say
they do redistriubte data, it is up to me if I want to send them the data.

I think many people are uninformed, and simply want to use software
without spending the time figuring out what is going on, so it would help
if the various browsers had better Privacy settings (e.g. Lynx asks me if
I want to accept a cookie, yes, now, always, never, but my current
Netscape just has an Always - Warn (but if I cancel, the transfer stops) -
Never).

There is a minimal right to be informed that the browser allows collecting
all this data, and how to disable it.  I can't force people to read the
manuals, but I don't think it is proper to hide the anti-surveillence
controls on software, and disable them by default.

If a misunderstood or malicious application posted all the data in your
financial files without your knowledge and consent do you think you
shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that information
since you let it leave your computer? 

Give people an informed choice.  Consent isn't possible without knowledge,
and if people know what is going on, they can decide what data they
will allow to leave their computer for public cyberspace.

Thread