At 10:27 AM -0700 4/24/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(commenting on Aimee's words)
>
>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.
Just so. Regardless of "no phone recording" laws, people continue to
do it. Linda Tripp got caught in this, and only because she
publicized her taping of her phone conversations with Monica
Lewinsky. Millions of other people do it everyday. Many modern phones
and answering machines make it easier than ever.
Thinking that "the law" will fix this problem (if it even _is_ a
problem!) is wrong-headed.
And the law has never stopped the NSA, CIA, and FBI from recording
and tapping at will (Shamrock, Echelon, Carnivore). Even if the tapes
cannot be used in court without a warrant, so what? They get what
they want by taping and tapping, whether they can use the results as
evidence or not.
Technological means are our best protection.
"The laws of mathematics, not the laws of men." (I think Eric Hughes
came up with this, but I could be wrong.)
>
>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.
Again, just so. The laws about tape-recording conversations have no
basis in any moral theory I can support. If I choose to "gargoyle"
myself and have a tape recorder, even a video recorder, running at
all times, how is this doing physical violence to others?
(Even contractual issues are amenable to this analysis. If Alice
doesn't want to be taped in her interactions with Bob, she can
negotiate an arrangement that he turns off his tape recorders in her
presence. If he violates this contract, perhaps she can collect. Some
day this will likely be done via polycentric law, a la "Snow Crash.")
Meanwhile, we don't need more stinking laws allegedly protecting our
privacy while actually interfering with our ability to make and form
voluntary relationships.
>
>
>> 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...
These are the myriad anarchies I referred to in my post, "The
anarchies my destination."
Top-down rule from a strong man is actually computationally
expensive. Direct communication is more efficient. The street knows
this well.
Kevin Kelly's book "Out of Control" is another book folks here should read.
--Tim May
--
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
