From: tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: Re: Problem with Laws in Cyberspace
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:02:05 MDT
Organization: University of Utah, CompSci Dept

>>This privacy protection would of course extend into the electronic mail,
>>and other forms of interpersonal communication.
>
>While this is a nice idea, I see severe problems with 1) implementing/
>enforcing it and 2) abuse of the constitutional guarantee in unintended
>ways.  In number 2, I am talking specifically about lawyers.  The legal
>system is already jammed with lawsuits, and this opens the door for even
>more.  Basically, you could give someone a memo to carry down the hallway,
>and, if he or she reads it, you could sue them.  In my opinion, lawyers
>are only interested in making money for themselves, and they would not
>be above encouraging someone to do such a thing.

Interestingly, we are both trying to achieve the same thing: avoid a fascist
state.  I am concerned that the government (or other organization) currently
has the power to entirely know anything they wish to about an individual-
which has extremely unhappy endings (Big Brother)

I think that you are somewhat correct- that the lawyers would blow the whole
thing into an incredible mess.  However, should we legalize murder because
it would cut down on court usage?

If someone lived in a cyberspace medium- then ALL OF THEIR LIVES would be
accessible to anyone who wanted to see what they were doing.  The amount of
manipulation and control available to such an information-seeker would
be simply incredible.  The cost of this is too high!  An individual deserves
the right to privacy.

A way to avoid legal problems is to define two types of actions: public actions
and private actions.  

 A public action would be accessible to all- and would occur anywhere in the
cyberspace when permissions were "turned on".  
In the exterior world, public actions would consist of only those things which
you declared public- by posting them in a certain spot, or by declaring them
with a prefix.  All other actions would be private.

 A private action would be any other action.  If a messenger boy read my idea
for a patent and stole it, I would damn well want him to pay me back!  Any
other thing that I said I would not want leaking out and being told to anyone-
or I deserve the right to sue.  

 Some nice people (especially those who have no enemies) would by default
make nearly all their actions public.  Those who have enemies have the right
to protect their privacy, even if it means jamming up some information courts.

>I generally find it hard to agree with the idea of introducing legislation
>that is impossible to implement or enforce without creating a fascist state.

How is it a fascist state?  No one is CONTROLLING you, it is making you freer
to do what you want in your own privacy.

>I would rather educate than legislate: teach people that their e-mail is
>not private or secure, and teach them how to encrypt it.  

Are we going to be forced to encrypt every action we take in the real world?
Or is there some mechanism by which we can prevent people from spying on
every single thing we do, as the media does today for certain individuals?

>The individual is
>then responsible for their own mistakes.  Otherwise, the burden is shifted:
>someone accidentally sees your e-mail - because you didn't take appropriate
>measures - and you sue them for violating your privacy.  Maybe they are
>innocent of any wrong-doing, but you are certainly guilty of stupidity!

I agree on one point- one should only be able to claim for damages.  If 
someone sees my e-mail it does not matter, even if it were private, UNLESS
they caused me damage through it.  Tangibility of damages would shift the
onus onto the individual seeking claims.




Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace