Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Dave Horsfall wrote:

> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 15:41:49 +1100 (EST)
> From: Dave Horsfall <dave@esi.COM.AU>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Breaking into girlfriend's files
> 
> On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Mark Terka wrote:
> 
> > GROAN! What the hell is this list about anyway?????? I think we are losing
> > perspective about encryption, privacy etc etc...
>                                 ^^^^^^^
> You said it.

[Watch now how the author perverts the notion of privacy...]

> 
> > Putting it quite simply, the individual was asking about how to make an attack
> > on an opponent. Whether that opponent is a girlfriend, spouse, competitor or
> > terrorist group, who cares? Lets save the sermonizing for Ann Landers...what
> > state the relationship is irrelevant.
> 
> And *HE* gave the reason - he wanted go rifling through his girlfriend's
> private files.  And here I was, thinking that this list was about "better
> privacy through cryptography" - I must have subscribed to alt.2600 by
> mistake...  Come to think of it, that's a better place for the original
> query...

And what has the author done here, but involve himself in the affairs of 
our poster requesting information on Norton...?  Some privacy he afforded 
the would be norton breaker, or even norton breaker's girlfriend.

Sure, Norton breaker should have kept his mouth shut, but a small comment 
at the end of a technical post detailing norton should have taken care of 
this.  Mind your own business next time smart guy.

> > The gentleman asked a question regarding a standard cryptographic problem...
> > how you can intercept and interpret encrypted information, either in theory
> > in practice. To make judgement calls is WAY out of line and a hell of a bad
> > precedent for this group.
> 
> Read it again - he specifically wanted to sneak into his partner's files;
> that is a clear invasion of privacy.

How much context do you have here?

I submit again, you should just mind your own business.  I hardly accept 
your judgement as to when information should or should not be released.

  Jeeze - I thought a Yank would have
> understood this...
> 

Not all of us are "Yanks" my friend.

> > I bet the poster would have gotten a more sympathetic response if he said he
> > had gotton his hands on a diplomatic cable....
> 
> And would you have been just as sympathetic if somebody wanted to rifle
> YOUR files?

Had I encrypted with Norton encrypt?  I would have been deserving of 
whatever attack ensued.  When the hell are people going to take 
responsibility for themselves.  Who are you to assume anothers 
responsibility for their privacy?  What will happen when your 
paternalistic regime is on vacation?

Let's make a government crypto subsidy eh?  Obviously people are such 
idiots that they all need government to supply them with crypto.  I guess 
you'd be the head of standards?  Deciding when and who gets which methods?

> > Oh boy! Pretty soon we will have this list as "cypherpunks giving advice to
> > the lovelorn..."!!! Lets cut the crap, stick to the problem at hand and
> > offer solutions to what the participants of the list know best, namely the
> > the use and analysis of cryptographic problems.
> 
> That has nothing to do with it - person A wanted advice on how to invade
> person B's privacy (he presumably doesn't have the guts to just ask her).
> Sorry, but privacy works both ways - she's entitled to it just as much
> as anybody else.

I see, and if I asked how to eavesdrop on digital cellular, your position 
would be that I should not know.  Obviously I intend, or could 
distribute such information to thousands who might violate the privacy of 
millions.  Funny how the general disclosure doesn't bother you, but the 
specific disclosure, one which affects no more than perhaps three people, 
does.

I suggest you get your perspectives in order.

> -- 
> Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) | dave@esi.com.au | VK2KFU @ VK2AAB.NSW.AUS.OC | PGP 2.6
> Opinions expressed are mine. | E7 FE 97 88 E5 02 3C AE  9C 8C 54 5B 9A D4 A0 CD
> 

-uni- (Dark)


073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!