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.
Second, the law can be used indirectly to combat aforesaid 'technological
means.' The law will ALWAYS reach to provide a remedy. Somebody recently
proposed 'not keeping records.' This has been tried in a corporate context,
and not having 'a good faith electronic record retention policy' can get you
damage awards running into the millions in some jurisdictions.
Forum-shopping is being put in question in a number of legal contexts. We
are starting to see negative legal 'presumptions' imposed when certain
technologies are used ....and so on, and so on.
Third, the law changes. While 'crypto-anarchy' is a _process_ (quoting Tim)
sustainable business plans are needed to lay the foundations. And, there is
zero competitive advantage in knowing what the law 'is,' since won't stay
that way.
Finally, the law has an impressive track record, in stark contrast to
'crypto-anarchy.'
~Aimee
