From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:46:07 GMT
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs

In article <80ar1ql@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>
>It makes no difference at all what you "expect".  What matters is what
>you agree to in your contract.  If the apartment owner you mentioned
>wanted access to your apartment anytime he wanted, you can either
>comply or rent elsewhere.  

I expect the apartment complex to follow the law and the contract.
I always check for that clause; if it is not present I refuse to sign
the lease and I let them know why (although it is all boilerplate contracts
that I've seen).


>>"Property rights" are not as clear-cut as you assume.  The owner of a
>>computer system, like an apartment complex owner, has the right to ensure
>>that the physical system is protected but the data on it, like the contents
>>of the apartements in a complex, belong to the individuals who have leased
>>the use of the resources.
>
>Property rights ARE as clear-cut as I assert.  All the current craziness
>in the law has done is make me rewrite my subscription contract to reserve 
>all possible rights.  In other words, I'm stating what should be obvious.

As long as you make it clear that users can expect no privacy whatsoever...

Personally, if I pay someone (not the University which is a special case
since it is not a _commerical_ service provider) for computer access anyone
who claims that I can't expect my files to remain confidential won't get
any business from me.  Period.

That would be like me giving the key to my storage shed to the landlord
and telling him "if you see anything you like in my storage area, feel free
to help yourself!"

Obviously, a third party may still break in and steal my stuff.  But
my contract states that they will provide reasonable security -- if they
leave the gates open and lock-cutters lying around I can still sue them
for damages (due to breach of contract).


>If I decide that in order to use my system, you must stand on your head
>while administering oral sex to a camel, you will either do that or
>you will go elsewhere.  

I would love to see you attempt to enforce that clause.

Many subdivisions in the United States have covenants that prohibit the
sale of houses to anyone except Protestant caucasians.  If you tried to
back out of a sales contract based on that "legally binding" convenant you
will find yourself in an incredible amount of legal trouble.

Likewise, many states have laws that prohibit bestiality and/or oral
sex.  Simply putting your requirement to perform oral sex on an animal
could expose you to conspiracy charges.  (Ironically, Colorado has
neither law!)

I know you're taking an extreme position, but your "I reserve all rights"
may very well directly conflict with the ECPA and other laws.


>>BTW, the University of Colorado requires a "computing fee" be paid by the
>>students, so the students are directly paying for the use of such resources;
>>it isn't simply provided out of the philanthropy.
>
>I'll bet you pay, oh, maybe a few percentage of what it costs to offer
>you that service.  Spurrious to the issue.  What kind of contract
>did you sign in order to get your access?  Those are the rules you live
>by.

Completely irrelevant.  They charge a specified amount of money for
a specified service.  The fact that they lose money in the process 
(if they do) is _completely and absolutely_ irrelevant to enforcement
of any contract that exists between us.

(They may not lose money since the computers themselves may be gifts and
I don't use their printers -- many users may require nothing more than the
electricity to run the computers).

If the owners and I agreed, I could purchase the Empire State Building
for $1 and that sale would be binding.

(Personally, I was surprised when the University started charging for
computer access a few years ago precisely because that put computer access
into the contractual arena instead of the purely administrative one).

-- 
Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov/cs.colorado.edu