From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: PKP/RSA comments on PGP legality
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:49:28 GMT

Vesselin Bontchev says:

>But he's a professor of LAW, not of ethics! And that message from Jim
>Bidzos contained legal threats, it didn't just say "hey guys, you are
>doing wrong things by unethically using out work, please don't"... I'm
>glad that somebody with enough professional experience has clearly
>showed that all legal threats from PKP & Co. are completely bogus and
>should be ignored.
>

Vesselin is concatenating two separate things in order to try to make his
case. This is fallacious. The legal arguments apply in the U.S. Bidzos'
message was sent to two specific U.S. people, and was not a general
post, much less to Europeans.

The ethical arguments are mine, not his, and in my view apply both
inside and outside the U.S.

Thus Vesselin's conclusion is a nonsense. The professor did not show
that legal threats are bogus. He said they probably wouldn't
prosecute, and if they did, worry about that then. Sounds pretty
silly as advice, to me, and Vesselin's summary of what the Professor
said bears no resemblance to what he did say.

>I am Bulgarian (a former Eastern Bolck country) - just this
>alone should make me damn much suspicious to the folks mentioned by
>you, so I don't give a dime about what they might think about my usage
>of PGP...

If Vesselin wishes to ignore the danger that his activities will put
him in bad odor with the U.S. Government, that's his privilege. He may
have no intention ever to try to visit here, or may think his
activities won't jeopardize his ability so to do, or to obtain U.S
Government research funds (or may never want any). That sounds like an
adult decision to me, and as long as he's willing to live with the
consequences, I don't have any problem with it as long as he's clear
that he's speaking for himself and not making an advocacy for anyone
else's behavior.

>I probably have much less experience with lawyers than you, but I
>certainly tend to believe a lawyer's oppinion more than yours...
>Unless, of course, this is the laywer of the opposite side, that's why
>I don't believe PKP's legal threats at all...

Just what makes Vesselin think the Professor is neutral. Judging from
his use of the word "tantrum" he is not. it seems Vesselin is saying
that he believes lawyers on his side, but not lawyers on the other.
This is an argument for accepting what Vesselin says?

>I see that he (Jim Bidzos) has "converted" you... :-)

So Vesselin thinks I don't have a mind of my own, and can't tell valid
argumentation from bogus. He, on the other hand does and can? Can't have
it both ways.

[ad hominem comments about Bidzos omitted]

>They don't have petents outside the USA, so there's nothing wrong in
>using it...
>

Yes, this has been the position of many. To hide behind legalisms to
ignore an ethical argument speaks for itself. To be consistent, such a
position would also mean that Vesselin would have to support all those
nasty U.S. laws he doesn't like. But no; Vesselin and his ilk like to
pick and choose--accept the laws that get them what they want, and
attack the ones (or absence of ones) that might prevent them from
getting what they want. This isn't a moral or ethical position, it's
naked self-interest, and Vesselin and others should stop pretending
it's anything else.

I have no problem with people taking such naked self-interest
positions as long as they're honest about them, rather than attempting
to cloak them in ethics or morality. Then those of us on the other
side of such issues can move to discussing remedies for any perceived
unfairness, rather than thinking we're in some logical or ethical
discussion.

David



Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.sources