From: Secret Squirrel <nobody@secret.squirrel.owl.de>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 21:08:02 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: FUCK YOU: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly
Message-ID: <19970614125035.32717.qmail@squirrel.owl.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Ray Arachelian wrote:
>> Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it.  But to say
>> anyone has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there
>> is NOT cool.  What I leave on my computer is my private business,
>> and NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  Whether
>> or not they have root.

>I'm not saying that people have a "right to surf (?) it without your
>permission." That's a violation of your property rights, a trespass.
>But if you connect to my web site, I should be allowed to record
>whatever info leaks from your computer. Don't like it? Cut the flow
>or don't come.

"Trespass" is a misleading term.  The person "trespassing" doesn't
have to leave their chair.

What really happens is that somebody sets up a machine that will
transmit information when it receives certain combinations of bits.
Then the machine is made available to the whole world.

It is most reasonable to put the burden for security on the person who
wants to make their machine available to the whole world.

The legal approach has several problems.

1. It is ineffective and gives a false sense of security.

2. It undermines the demand for secure machinery.  (Intentional: the
people in governments believe secure machinery threatens their
positions.)

3. It brings up problems with borders and seignority.

4. Such laws are expensive to enforce if we are to observe legal
customs like "innocent until proven guilty."

5. The legal prohibitions break down under the very circumstances when
we most want our systems to remain secure: times of war and times of
social unrest or revolution.

Panther Modern