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

[Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>]

> If I give XYZ corp any info I expect them not to sell that info without my
> permission.  Verily, that information is valuable, therefore if they want
> to sell it, they should get my permission, and should pay me for it.

The default case is total freedom of speech for both individuals and 
corporations, if you don`t want XYZ corp. to sell your information make a 
contract with them that they will not sell it, if you do want it sold but 
want to be paid, then a contract is again the answer. 

> I don't necessarily want government restrictions on privacy, however I
> would want a constitutional amendment to privacy that says: all I do is
> private unless I explicitly share it with others, and if I do share it,
> they may not pass it on to others without my permission.  

The first part is correct, everything you do IS private until you pass it 
on, if you don`t want transactions traced, don`t use a credit card, if 
you don`t want a shop to take information; refuse to give it or lie.
The second part is a restriction on free speech not based in a contract, 
there is no such thing as a default case of restricted speech. I agree 
that privacy is a valuable thing but it comes down to you to protect it, 
not the state and not the constitution.


> personal level, not on a corporate or governmental level.  Why I feel this
> way is an excercise for the reader.  Hint: Uncle Sam works for us since we
> pay him from our income.  We don't work for him (most of the time.)

I agree, if the people decide the state cannot collect information on 
them they are entitled to force the state not to do so. But between 
individuals and corporations it is a matter of a private contractural 
agreement.

> How many loons have used DMV records to stalk their victims?

I can`t answer this point because I don`t know if the US DMV reg system 
is supposed to allow anyone access to anyone elses records, if not then 
this is the fault of the government goons who failed in protecting the 
information.

> 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.

No, this is an act of trespass and is unauthorised use of your equipment, 
what it all comes down to is property: To break into your system is an 
unauthorised use of your equipment: A tangiable theft. To compare this to 
speech is a straw man.

> As for Radio Shack weasels, I don't give them info, or give them
> misleading info.  What's on my hard drives and in my machine's RAM is NONE
> OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS!

Quite so, if you don`t want to give radio shack information then refuse, 
lie or walk away. The only thing wrong with radio shack asking for this 
information is that the government mandates that such information must be 
true.

> At the last PC Expo, I registered as H.P. Lovecraft.  When I buy things
> that are purchased by credit card I know that info will leak out, and
> don't do this unless I'm willing to leak it out.

Exactly, YOU and no-one else makes the decision to release the 
information. Even this can be avoided by holding bank accounts in false 
names and running debit cards from them (I believe neither of these 
actions is criminal?).

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"