From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:47:29 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Unicorn an NSA agent?  WAS: New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dre
In-Reply-To: <v03110705b05bfc2bc63c@[139.167.130.248]>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971005224053.006b9b98@schloss.li>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




[I'm not on cypherpunks anymore, anyone there who wants to put me through
the wringer without having to endure my response might not want to CC: me.]

At 10:41 PM 10/5/97 -0500, jf_avon@citenet.net wrote:

>Unicorn wrote:
>
>>  borderline activity.  It's hardly a settled point.  That you are so quick
>>  to advocate corporate ownership of potentially private e-mail out of hand
>>  and without argument tells us much about your real position, Mr.
>>  Moscaritolo.  Three words:  "Expectation of Privacy."
>
>Unicorn,
>
>In that piece of knowledge smashing, just as you do in most 
>of your posts, you again mixed up things to make sure that everybody 
>end up knowing less than when they started.
>
>It is peoples like you that ended up with using Expectation of 
>Privacy out of it's rightfull context.  Apart from various rulings of 
>various judges that probably smoked various  herbs, can you please 
>tell me how anybody can rightfully expect privacy when everything 
>that permits them to exchange information is *owned* by somebody else 
>and that the use of this equipment is there *only* for the activities 
>of the owner of the equipment?

Remember when the phone company used to lease you your phone?  Surely that
doesn't make the data that goes over the phone their property?  If my
doctor calls me at work with the results of a critical test, you believe
that data is no longer private?  I hope not.  You think whatever goes on in
a rental car I drive is the property of the rental company?  That if some
company rented the car they are entitled to read whatever papers I have in
there?  What about a hotel?  A leased apartment?  A restraunt back room?  I
challenge the "ownership gives the owner the right to all that occurs or is
produced on or in the property" premise because it is just not a valid one,
legally or (in my opinion) ethically.

>If it weren't of the business, the 
>damn computer wouldn't be there.

I know of many companies, consulting, law firms, accounting firms, in which
employees own their own machines, laptops for example, or PDAs.  Even where
this is not the case, I still resist the premise that ownership of a
computer translates to ownership of all the data thereon.  I'm sure hackers
would love it if they got title to all the data they download.
Unfortunately for this position it just doesn't work that way, nor should
it.  I suppose ISPs could take the position that encrypted data on their
systems must also be encrypted with the ISPs root key.  Are you telling me
you'd not have a problem with that because the ISP owns all the data on its
systems?

>And beside, the employee is not 
>paid to chat with friends, he's paid to work.  If he doesn't want to 
>work, just fine, but not on the company's pay...

Actually, most large modern firms I'm familiar with approve of and expect
some degree of personal business to be transacted in the work place.  Some
even state this explicitly in their corporate policies and define the level
of personal business that is appropriate.  Never have I seen one which
insists that no personal business of any kind is to be tolerated.  I doubt
such a firm would have a reasonable retention rate either.

>Somehow, you basic premises always blows my mind.  I think that you 
>are a *very* dangerous person.

I think I might take that as a compliment coming from someone who advocates
the  kind of data ownership views that you seem to.  I hope to be thought
of as dangerous by those kind of entities.

>I've been watching you for almost 
>three years over Cypherpunks and e$-etc and other forums.   
>Virtually *all* of your posts have this 
>blow-up-their-basic-premises-and-let-them-with-nothing-but-confusion  
>style.

Blame law school.

If my position on this issue makes me some kind of troublemaker, you better
point the same finger at Schneier, who (if quoted accurately) shares my view.

>Your style shows intelligence and skill in the way you do 
>it, which rules out idiocy on your part.  So, clearly, you have 
>an agenda

I do.  Unimparied privacy for individuals in all contexts.  Now tell me how
PGP5.5 contributes to that cause, particularly in the current political
climate.  The timing looks extremely suspect to me.  Challenging the
premise that corporates own the flesh and mind of every employee within the
walls of their facilities doesn't really strike me as something
pro-estlablishment or bearing the hallmarks of some sinister plot, unless
perhaps one is on a law-enforcement or far right corporate-facist spectrum.
 P2, the italian corporate-facist movement, held similar views after the
second world war, so your ideas are not new.  My view is, however, that
this is the wrong way for the world to progress.  If beliving that
employees don't sell their souls to large corporations because they accept
their paychecks is evil, call me evil.  At the same time I beleve that
companies don't tell their soul to a given government just because they do
business on a given "soil."  This strikes me as consistant.  Perhaps you
will disagree.

>I cannot help but having the nagging feeling that you're on  some 
>three-letter agency payroll because you have the uncanny habit of 
>disrupting and diverting some important discussion.

If correcting legal errors, highlighting the flaws in basic premises and
pointing out general gaps in logic, which is what I think I've been doing
for the many years I've been poking around on c'punks an elsewhere, is
disrupting and diverting, perhaps the "important discussions" are on the
wrong tact.

Glazing over the messy details of any policy, which seems to be what your
"disrupting and diverting some important discussion" clause is advocating,
is a rather sly tactic really.  "If all these privacy extremists would just
shut up about the details of our plan, we could get something done without
diversion and distraction."  Sound familiar?  Always look at those calling
for silence with suspicion.

>I always wanted 
>to killfile you but always refrained to do so just to be able to read 
>the last finely crafted basic premises-smashing abomination.

Actually, I don't even usually proofread my stuff.  I'm pleased it gives
you the impression of some fine craftsmanship, or bears the indications of
some grand conspiracy, but in reality its off the top of my head.  The
consistancy you see is probably because I don't waiver in my principles
when it comes to privacy.

>So, again, which of the three-letter agency sends you a paycheck?  

Clearly, any answer I deliver to this question only harms me.  I've seen
this trick before.

>Or are you doing is only for a secret decoration?

What kind of decoration?  Are you offering me one?  (Aside from "Snide
Asshole Lawyer of the Year" or something I mean).