copyright & privacy (was Re: "Matchcode" technology sparks privacy flames.....)

[Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>]

Tom Zerucha writes:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> Technically, I am arguing for property rights in reputation.  Patent
> and copyright are already recognized property rights in information.

And this is a good thing?

> The "raw" FBI files Livingstone got are an example - they contain lots of
> unverified rumor and gossip and could be used to damage the people they
> are about.  Did Livingstone do anything wrong, and would there be a
> problem posting such information on the internet?

It would be a real boon for privacy if they were posted to the
internet.  The fall-out ought to reduce government reporting demands.

> How about personal information such as credit card or social security
> numbers or even tax records - you are saying if I can get them, I should
> be able to publish them. 

Bingo!  What you don't want published don't publish.

Don't like it?  Don't reveal information you don't want published.
Argue for chaumian credentials.

btw. your "you are saying if I can get them, I should be able to
publish them." is almost a tautology -- clearly if you get information
you _can_ publish it anonymously.  Therefore anything that is
obtainable is not private.  

Laws claiming to regulate what you can _know_ (data protection laws)
are dumber yet, as it is legislating that you must forget something.
And it is unenforceable -- who knows what you have on your database.

> > That is why many "privacy laws" are censorship in disguise.
> 
> Then on the same basis, are copyright laws.  If I can get a copy of MS
> Office, should I be able to publish that?  Copyright does not directly
> prevent me from obtaining the information, but it does prevent others from
> publishing the information without my permission.  

Copyright doesn't prevent squat.  It just sets up a procedure for your
local force monopoly to harass you if you don't follow the procedure.

> (if I remember right the Berne convention says something is still
> protected even if no formal steps have been taken).

More laws against gravity.

> If you are arguing that there should be no legal protection for
> information of any sort (including patent or copyright) I think you have a
> point.  We then would have an equal opportunity for information piracy. 

Scrap patents and copyright.  Disband WIPO police.

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* violated EAR today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`