Tim's Latest Treatise said:
> 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.
Like I could disagree with this one.
> Thinking that "the law" will fix this problem (if it even _is_ a
> problem!) is wrong-headed.
I said NOTHING of the kind, just that the law does, every now and then, give
you an advantage. Where it does, take advantage of it.
> 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.
It was just an example, of limited application, based on one of the most
restrictive state privacy statutes in the country. (WA)
> Technological means are our best protection.
Obviously.
> "The laws of mathematics, not the laws of men." (I think Eric Hughes
> came up with this, but I could be wrong.)
Mathematical meditations, I understand.
> >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?
Okay, so aside from 'physical violence' law (broadly defined) has no
purpose? Where were you BEFORE I want to law school, Tim?
> (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.")
Yes. You already know I have polycentric leanings.
> Meanwhile, we don't need more stinking laws allegedly protecting our
> privacy while actually interfering with our ability to make and form
> voluntary relationships.
Agree..and then some.
> >> 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."
A thoughtful post.
> Top-down rule from a strong man is actually computationally
> expensive. Direct communication is more efficient. The street knows
> this well.
Like I could argue with this.
> Kevin Kelly's book "Out of Control" is another book folks here
> should read.
My reading list is large enough already. :)
~Aimee
