> Tim said, talking about 3rd party subpoena vulnerability:
>
> > We need to do our part to stop this kind of confusion. More people
> > might be using *technological* means to protect their identity and
> > privacy if they had less misplaced faith in the law protecting them.
>
> Well....this sentiment goes DITTO FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL WAYS & MEANS DEPT.
>
> First, the law can be used to the advantage of aforesaid 'technological
> means,' often giving hints. For example, somewhat in the context of this
> discussion, it seems possible to have electronic communication that does not
> imply third-party permission to record.
>
It sounds to me like you are suggesting gutting the threat models that
should be used during the design phase of any communication system. You
are implying that if there's a legal way of saying that something may
not be recorded then being recorded is no longer a threat. That is not
and never will be the case no matter what the court du jour may have to
say about it.
Further, I don't think individuals owe any obligation to the law as to
the participants, form, content or retention of private communications.
I don't see how the law can improve upon this opportunity for privacy.
In fact, based on past performance, I would expect exactly the opposite
effect.
[..]
> Finally, the law has an impressive track record, in stark contrast to
>'crypto-anarchy.'
>
> ~Aimee
>
I think an even more impressive track record is how people manage to
create and operate economies and communications under any number of
oppressive systems. Systems come and go and still people trade and
communicate. I suppose they have no choice...
Mike
