From: chmilar@Apple.COM (Michael Chmilar)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: Problem with Laws in Cyberspace
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:04:03 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:

>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.

>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.

Yes, you have the _right_ to privacy, but that does _not_ constitute a
_guarantee_ of privacy.  You must take reasonable measures to create the
privacy.  If you perform an action or say something in public, it becomes
public, whether you want it to or not.  If you _think_ that you are in a
private place, but you are not, and someone overhears your conversation,
too bad - you lose.  Ignorance is not a defense.

If someone takes deliberate measures to circumvent your privacy (ie. tap
your phone line) then your rights have been violated.

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

Is this implemented in Modula-2, Ada, or C++?  Will there be a linker that
is capable of handling this?  ;-)


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.

>>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.

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.

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.

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.

>>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.

Hmmm.  You stupidly allowed someone to read your mail, and this somehow
caused you damage, for which you sue and win.  Now, your irresponsible
action and its followup have caused him damage - can he sue you?  How do
you spell lawyer?  M-O-N-E-Y G-R-U-B-B-E-R.
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace