Re: cypherpunks-digest V1 #18

[khijol!erc@apple.com (Ed Carp [Sysadmin])]

> Now, a prudent service provider may wish to invest in crypto as a way
> to prevent fraud, just as many homeowners invest in alarm systems.
> But failure to do so doesn't make either sort of theft correct.

This is precisely the sort of argument that makes the least amount of
sense to those who are looking for a justification of some sort to
continue to rip "them" off.  After all, "they" are rich, so what's it
hurt? 

I am currently employed as an information management security consultant
for a rather large telecommunications company subsidiary (no, not Bell,
but you're close).  A discussion arose the other day between myself and
another consultant as to the ethics of theft.  If one steals a pen from
work, is that "really" theft?  Is stealing a box, or a truckload? 

You might be surprised to learn how many people think stealing a pen is
OK, but stealing a truckload is not OK.  Just because someone doesn't say
explicitely "don't steal this pen" some people think it's OK to steal it. 
But it's an ethics problem, and I feel a failure at the deepest levels of
our society that says that stealing in any form is OK. 

As for "stealing" radio signals that happen to stray onto your property,
my position is that it's not theft - any more than it's theft to read a
paper one finds in the restroom while sitting on the throne ;) The
Communications Act of 1934 spelled this out explicitly.  But the fools in
Washington let special interest $$$ seduce them into doing something
utterly foolish.  Again.  If it comes within my purview, then it's mine -
and if I choose to spend the time and effort it takes to decrypt it, well,
tough for the satellite TV industry.  I don't see them going after folks
without decryption gear, which is what they'd have to do if they really
wanted to make their position even marginally tenable.