Mike said, quoting me, quoting Tim: (I'm on lunch - billable hour sink this
place.)
>
> > 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.
Hell no I'm not. Just grepping for an example. I AM saying that in the
design phase of a communication system, the legal ramifications are often
ignored. Countless examples of where this has been detrimental.
> Further, I don't think individuals owe any obligation to the law as to
> the participants, form, content or retention of private communications.
Recognizing that the law does not agree with you, that's a valid opinion.
> 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, a valid opinion.
>
> > Finally, the law has an impressive track record, in stark
> contrast to 'crypto-anarchy.'
> >
> > ~Aimee
I knew that would catch a fish.
> 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...
I merely meant to emphasize that law should be taken into account more than
it is, and never underestimated.
~Aimee
Counsel for The Establishment
