From: nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:52:32 +0800
To: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: copyright & privacy (was Re: "Matchcode" technology sparks privacy flames.....)
In-Reply-To: <199709241736.SAA04219@server.test.net>
Message-ID: <97Oct8.183617edt.32261@brickwall.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Sorry for the delay, but I have been working massive overtime.

On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Adam Back wrote:

> Tom Zerucha writes:
> > On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > 
> > Technically, I am arguing for property rights in reputation.  Patent
> > and copyright are already recognized property rights in information.
> 
> And this is a good thing?

Possibly, possibly not.  Declan was arguing that information cannot be
protected.  I was simply pointing out that some is.

> > How about personal information such as credit card or social security
> > numbers or even tax records - you are saying if I can get them, I should
> > be able to publish them. 
> 
> Bingo!  What you don't want published don't publish.
> 
> Don't like it?  Don't reveal information you don't want published.
> Argue for chaumian credentials.

I don't think our tax authority will accept them.  I am compelled to
publish all kinds of information about myself (unless I had a few million
dollars to go to court on each individual issue, e.g. here it is illegal
to drive without insurance, but insurers will not underwrite you unless
you give them lots of information).

I can argue for chaumian credentials all I want, but I will be thrown in
jail because people with guns don't accept them.

If you really believe this, you can engage in your own acts of civil
disobedience in your country and see if they will accept your argument.

> btw. your "you are saying if I can get them, I should be able to
> publish them." is almost a tautology -- clearly if you get information
> you _can_ publish it anonymously.  Therefore anything that is
> obtainable is not private.  

This is like saying that if you keep one million pounds sterling in a
locked safe in your house on your property, and I can break in and get it,
that it is not stealing - anything not nailed down is unclaimed property?
I am entitled to the contents of your wallet if I can get it?

But extend that now if there was a law banning safes (the authorities
don't like them), and that your assets could not be hidden, so should be
kept someplace visible from the outside, and not otherwise protected.
Under this condition should laws against theft be enforced?

> Laws claiming to regulate what you can _know_ (data protection laws)
> are dumber yet, as it is legislating that you must forget something.
> And it is unenforceable -- who knows what you have on your database.

True, but laws can force you to pay damages.  A law attempting to force
restitution for vandalism is equally impossible (you can destroy something
you cannot recreate), but that does not mean vandalism is not a crime, nor
should it be discouraged or go unpunished.

> Copyright doesn't prevent squat.  It just sets up a procedure for your
> local force monopoly to harass you if you don't follow the procedure.
> 
> > (if I remember right the Berne convention says something is still
> > protected even if no formal steps have been taken).
> 
> More laws against gravity.

Laws against theft, rape, robbery and murder do not prevent said acts, but
only tend to discourage them.

> > If you are arguing that there should be no legal protection for
> > information of any sort (including patent or copyright) I think you have a
> > point.  We then would have an equal opportunity for information piracy. 
> 
> Scrap patents and copyright.  Disband WIPO police.

Agreed, but after my state scraps its demand for insurance and information
before I can legally drive, and when the federal government stops
demanding to see all my personal data (now including medical records).

Also, things might simply go to copy-protection using strong digital
signatures and licensing terms making you responsible for any piracy of
your copy (I know, scrap contract law, common law, etc. and then the
license will simply state that we will send thugs to kill you - since
there is no government - if we see this anywhere it isn't in our opinion
supposed to be - replace government force monopoly with private enforcers
sort of like Chicago in the 1920's).  It is not that things like copyright
and patent won't be enforced, but it might be in a more chaotic and not
necessarily better matter than what the government does.  Or work
technologically restricting the information to an even greater degree (a
DVD will only play to a TV if it sees a anti-piracy DS cert).

My argument is while government can compel me to publish information I do
not want to (i.e. violates my rights), it should simultaneously compel
third parties not to forward such information (limiting the potential
damage from that violation).  Scrap both or neither.

Only arguing for repeal of laws that constrain tyrants as much as citizens
is not arguing for liberty.  In the context of a libertarian society, or
even an anarchical society your arguments make a great deal of sense.  In
the current semi-socialism/faschism prevalent now, the effect is to only
penalize me for any attempt to protect myself.