Re: "Matchcode" technology sparks privacy flames.....

[nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com]

On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Will Rodger wrote, quoting me:
> 
> > >I spent the weekend in West Virginia, where folks are more than 
> > happy to
> > >gossip with (and about) their neighbors. Nobody would try to shut 
> > them up
> > >through force of law. This principle does not disappear when the
> > >information being shared is digital.
> 
> > That's a bold assertion, but not one that squares easily with the 
> > half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the books at the federal 
> > level.
> 
> Which law, specifically, would gossiping with (or about) your neighbors
> violate?

Slander.

Were I to maliciously spread a rumor, and you got fired, or suffered
economic loss because of my gossip, you could sue me.

> And yes, some of the "half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the books"
> are misguided. Just as many argue laws against drugs, gambling, or
> FCC rules prohibiting the broadcast of "indecent" material are also
> unconstitutional -- and a waste of our police's time.

True, but there is also a large body of law that is civil instead of
criminal.  While we are on social policy, police also enforce
environmental laws which take property and affirmative action which
violate all kinds of freedom of association.

I can be damaged by information - which may be either wrong or out of
context.  Should I have no right to recover or correct such things?  If no
one had the right to the information in the first place (is personal
information part of my personal property?), do I have any rights if it is
both true and damaging (e.g. a felon with an expunged conviction - they
can legally answer "no" if asked if ever convicted of a felony, but the
historical record may show something different).

When we talk about reputation capital, it becomes something that can be
vandalized or stolen.  Were any other form of capital stolen or
vandalized, I could go for damages.

> I don't think the issue is whether or not individuals should "care" about
> others talking about them behind their back. I think the question is how
> to address it: through the force of law or not. I may not want to shut up
> the Net-Nazis through the force of law (I would argue against it), but I
> would certainly "care" what they say and speak out against it myself. 
> 
> Not all wrongs can be solved through the law.

And the converse, just because there is no law (or in the VPs words: "no
controlling legal authority") does not mean it is not a wrong.

virtue destroys vice, and truth destroys error.  What there is no solution
for is ignorance and apathy, and laws will neither inform people or get
them to take action.

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---