From: tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: Re: Problem with Laws in Cyberspace
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:41:03 MDT
Organization: University of Utah, CompSci Dept

>>If someone lived in a cyberspace medium- then ALL OF THEIR LIVES would be
>
>Well, this will never happen, but that isn't really the point.

You have GOT to be kidding!  "This will never happen?"  In whose dream world will
it never happen?   Not only WILL it happen, it nearly HAS to happen.  My
arguments follow:

 1) Our technological world depends more and more on information transfer (that is
all it will depend on in the future).  Therefore, one will make more money by 
being able to absorb and transmit information in a higher bandwidth.  Cyberspace
immersion is the maximal bandwidth possible.  All people who wish to make money will
move into fuller and fuller immersion- until their whole waking day is within
cyberspace.  (It will start with video phones, move to computer displays, move then
to head mounted displays, and so on)

 2) The resources to keep so many humans alive will become too much with the expanding
populations.  A person in cyberspace will consume much less resources (they do not
drive cars around, they use no expensive transport systems (energy wise), they only
use brain and computational power.  Therefore, every society rewards those who produce
the same amount with less resources- and more and more people will move into it.


Our FUTURE is cyberspace, and it is naive to assume otherwise.  A simple cursory look
at previous technologies demonstrates that once their utility becomes worthwhile they
explode.


>Back to your point:  You are an entity in cyberspace, and are therefore
>composed of data and code that must be stored somewhere.  That storage,
>and your communications and interaction with the world via message passing
>in memory or over a network is not secure.  YOU MUST KNOW THIS!  You have
>not taken reasonable measures to ensure your privacy.  The immediate scheme
>that comes to mind to protect yourself is to be self-encrypting.  The
>other is to be physically secure - in your own physical memory, with control
>over all interfaces.

Self encryption is not secure at all if "they" have direct access to your
output.  Encryption will not work unless there already is some guarantee of
privacy and rights over information.

>Legislation is intended to control your actions.  It is telling you what
>you can and cannot do.  It provides an excuse for government or other people
>to cause you problems if you do not conform.

I want control over other people- removing their right to murder me.  I also
want control over their right to access my information.  Hopefully, there will
be a plethora of legislative systems (governments) to choose from- you will choose
yours, and I will choose mine.

>Since the government also typically provides "back doors" for its agencies
>to get around legislation, they would undoubtedly set things up so that
>the legislation does not apply to it.  Thus, the legislation has created
>both your fascist state (government spying on you) and mine (government
>telling you what you can and cannot think - imagine: you overhear a "private"
>conversation and you can be sued for it; now you must "unlearn" the
>information.  Ideas are a virus which infect your mind!).  You lose, no
>matter what.

This is true- and is entirely wrong and evil.  I will move into whatever sector
does not have such ultimate control.  The government should not have the right
to do whatever it pleases for the "good of all".

>In the end, no matter how things turn out, you are responsible for protecting
>your rights.  The government, courts, constitution, or whatever, cannot and
>WILL NOT protect you.

As I said- encryption does not work if they directly monitor your output (after
decryption).  Thus, you suggest there is no hope.  I suggest that the government
itself must be WITHIN THE LAW- not above it- and that there is a hope for a secure
future.

>Hmmm.  You stupidly allowed someone to read your mail, and this somehow
>caused you damage, for which you sue and win. 

If you stupidly walk out into a street, and get shot by someone in a gunfight, then
it indeed is partially your own fault.  But their action is still wrong.

If there is REAL DAMAGE- then you should be recompensed.  If you DIE, or are INJURED,
or LOSE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS- then you deserve to get payback as a result of 
their reading your mail.  If you lose 100 dollars- then you take it to small claims
court- where there are no lawyers whatsoever.

CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION- PROTECT INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace