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

[? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>]

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

[...]

>    but you
>    shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that
>    information if you let it leave your computer.

So I'm not premitted to say, 'I give you give you and only you this
infomation' and expect my goverment to help me if thay violate this
condtionn?

[...]

>    Businesses say that such a rule would stifle
>    Internet advertising and commerce and have recently released a flurry
>    of self-regulatory proposals.

Yes the good old self-regulatory smoke screan.

[...]

>         Yet this misses the point. Protecting your personal privacy
>    online is your responsibility.

Partly,  however there are actions where it is currently neccery for me to
release personal infomation,  I wish to be pretected from abuse of that
innfomation in that context.  In addtion such laws should encourage
protocls that reduce the need for personal infomation to be realsed.

[...]

>    But in truth, privacy is not a right but a
>    preference: Some people want more of it than others.

But in truth [Right foo] is not a right but a preference: Some peaple
want more of it than others.

>         Of course there's an essential right to privacy from the
>    government.

But what is worce big Bisness or big Goverment.  I see no real diffrentce
between a multinational comperny and a national goverment.  The only way
we can get protection from both is to play them off against each other.

Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  Buy easter bilbies.
Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay?  ex-net.scum and prouud     
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yukky' a convinceing argument