cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1997-09-24 - Re: “Matchcode” technology sparks privacy flames…..

Header Data

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com
Message Hash: 6a20729e0f6e8386bf0b9758bd4489cf65215e422d4d8a8cc4516d3b1cfcacfd
Message ID: <v03007801b04efff9cb2c@[168.161.105.141]>
Reply To: <v03007803b04dd0d3f10b@[204.254.22.189]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-09-24 17:50:24 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 01:50:24 +0800

Raw message

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 01:50:24 +0800
To: nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com
Subject: Re: "Matchcode" technology sparks privacy flames.....
In-Reply-To: <v03007803b04dd0d3f10b@[204.254.22.189]>
Message-ID: <v03007801b04efff9cb2c@[168.161.105.141]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 11:26 -0400 9/24/97, nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com wrote:
>Truth was not mentioned specifically.  Gossip is rarely true after the
>first few iterations.  You are correct that if the gossip can be proven
>true that the position is defensible (but I would have to check some legal
>references if it is absolute).

Not all lies are libelous, nor should they be. "I love you," no?

>Technically, I am arguing for property rights in reputation.  Patent and
>copyright are already recognized property rights in information.

And these are divisive issues in the circles I travel in.

But no, technically you are arguing for property rights in //personal
information//. This is not a new concept. Brandeis and Warren first laid
the groundwork for this in their landmark (and misguided) 1890 law review
article. That article was written before the advent of modern First
Amendment jurisprudence and does not take free speech rights into
consideration.

Your scheme -- which is hardly novel -- is worthy of the same contempt.

-Declan



-------------------------
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/

Thread