Re: FUCK YOU: There's no general right to privacy -- get over it, from Netly

[Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com>]

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> It's sad but not surprising that Ray didn't even bother to read the
> article before saying "FUCK YOU." Talk about clueless...

No, at the time, I didn't read the entire article, I did read the ENTIRE
snipped version you posted. You then later posted the whole article
stating "at least read the whole thing" and I did read the whole at that
point.  However, I didn't change my oppinion on this.
 
> He still misunderstands my position. I'm saying you have no property right
> in information others collect about you.

You say I misunderstand your position.  I say I disagree with it.  I
disagree to having no property rights to information others collect about
me. I believe that others should not have the right to collect information
about me without my consent.  There lies the difference. Why do you
continue to refuse to understand that I _DISAGREE_ with as opposed to
misunderstand your position?

This isn't about misunderstandings or personality conflicts Declan.  This
is about beliefs.

> Great. You want Congress to pass a law that says "Netscape shall release
> no more buggy browsers." Yeah, and mandate that pi is 3.14, right? 

No, I don't wish to have congress pass such laws.  I did however state
that I believe there should be a constitutional right to privacy in terms
of shared information - a built in Non Disclosure Agreement between all
interactions.  One does not exist, IMHO it should. 

If I chose to speak in public - as in this forum, I expect that my words
will not be private.  That's a given.  If I speak to XYZ Bank and apply
for a loan or credit card, I want that information to be private.

If I purchase a printed magazine, the publisher doesn't expect me to scan
it in and post it on the net, free for all to access.  In fact, if I were
to do that and persist in doing it, I would get sued for copyright
infringement.

I don't believe in software patents, but I do believe in copyright.  I
believe that what I do, or say should be copyrighted by default.  This
includes spending patterns, and such.  Very much ideal and non-reality,
yes, but it is my belief still.  I also believe Congress shouldn't be
populated by a bunch of money and power hungry slime bags.  That is also
ideal to me, but a non-reality.  Doesn't mean I shouldn't believe it, nor
does it mean I shouldn't have the right to disagree with someone that says
"Congress should be populated by weasels." 

Nor do I believe that TRW or the DMV should have the ability to sell my
information to others without my permission, or collect it for that matter
without a contrat that states how it will be used and who it will be
shared with. Can you name one Credit Card company that DOES NOT share its
info with TRW?  Yes, I can get a debit card, but information about
transactions on it will wind up in the hands of TRW.

That would be an ideal. Unfortunatly, I have been forced to give up some
privacy for things like credit cards and a driver's license.  I don't see
that I've had any other choice than to give up the ability to drive and
purchase things without having to carry large sums of cash.  I was forced
into giving up privacy.  Same as you I suspect.  That doesn't mean I agree
with the system.  It means I didn't have any other choice given basic
needs.  It doesn't mean that given the chance to change it by voting, I
wouldn't. 

Back to the strawman beatings:

I later cited the Netscape hole (or feature if you are paranoid) as an
example of something that could escape my machine and stated that whether
or not I secure my machine, if information escapes it by such methods, my
privacy has been violated.  This was given as a hypothetical example of
protecting one's privacy, yet still having it violated by leaks.

I cannot verify that Netscape's browser won't violate my security.  I am
forced to put some level of trust in it if I chose to use it.  Were I to
ask a Netscape representative whether their software were secure before
this bug/feature was discovered, would they say no?  Sure, I could use IE
or some other browser, but unless I carefully analyze the source code, I
wouldn't know if it had holes.  This paragraph is moot and I'm sure you
understand all this already.
 
> > Yes, I do take privacy seriously, and I do protect it.  But to say anyone
> > has the right to snoop my machines and see what I have there is NOT cool.
> > What I leave on my computer is my private business, and NOBODY HAS THE
> > RIGHT TO SURF IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  Whether or not they have root.
> 
> I'm not saying that people have a "right to surf (?) it without your
> permission." That's a violation of your property rights, a trespass. But
> if you connect to my web site, I should be allowed to record whatever info
> leaks from your computer. Don't like it? Cut the flow or don't come. 

The keyword here is "leaks."  It doesn't imply with permission.  It
implies the opposite; and here is where I brought the Netscape bug as an
example of a flaw in your thinking.  If they, whether on purpose or not,
have the ability to snarf anything my browser is willing to give them
without my permission, this too is a breech of my privacy.  In this
example, even though I have taken precautions to disable cookies and
DIDN'T enter information as to my email identity, it is still possible to
grab it off my hard drive without my permission.  

Ditto for the ActiveX component that those German hackers wrote to grab
info out of Quicken. Was it the fault of the person surfing that some dork
at Microsoft misdesigned their software?  And because of that, some hacker
got my credit cards and went shopping?  What recourse do I have against
that happening once it does?

How do these breeches fit into your ideals?  You can brush them off and
say "oh, those were bugs or flaws" but privacy has still been violated.
How do you feel they should be dealt with?

Shall we accept rogue software, and Big Brother Inside software as mere
flaws?  True, Netscape will say these were unintentional.  But if they
weren't, -- if they were intentional, would we stand for them and accept
them?

Earlier I asked you a similar line of questions, which you haven't yet
answered (at the time of this writing.)  Again, what recourse do you feel
you should have against such invasions of your privacy?  What
protection(s) do you feel you should have? (Other than stating, if you
don't want it to leak, don't let it - for which I've shown you plenty of
examples of exceptions.)


In yet another message you've stated "chmod 700 ~" as a cure.  Very funny.
A whole lot of good that would do against someone who obtained root, or
managed to grab my ISP's backup tapes, etc...  Doesn't mean I do not
understand that my ISP can't do this.  Doesn't mean Mitnick won't get
out of jail and break into my account.  It means I don't want them to.

Sorry, I still chose to DISAGREE with you.  You might be able to convince
me otherwise with logic, but you won't be able to do so with words such as
"clueless" and "if you only read the whole thing." (Granted the same does
apply to me using the "Fuck you" subject, but hey, free speech and all
that. :) 

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "If you wanna touch the sky, you must  |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com| be prepared to die.  And I hate cough  |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ | syrup, don't you?"                     |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die.     |.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================