List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

[Bruce Dawson]

On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:34, Derek Martin wrote:
> My point is, I and only I should be in charge of what of my private
> information is given to whom and when.  Seeing my address posted on an
> on-call list does not give you the right to give it to your neighbor,
> or anyone else.  Or at least it shouldn't.
> 
> Doesn't any of this ring true with you guys?

This conversation reminds me of one between a lawyer and an engineer.
They talk about the same thing, but one is talking in terms of policy
and the other in terms of mechanism.

The problem is that we've been using the word "should" entirely too
much. It *assumes* that parties in the conversation are not in
agreement, and that at least one party is trying to assert that
something/someone is right and something/someone is wrong.

Yet technology (the internet in this case) cuts both ways. It is a
mechanism, and as such can be used for good *and/or* evil. Only the
application of societial values can make it either good or evil.

Derek's assertion is that there needs to be mechanism behind one's
ability to protect privacy. In Derek's mind Travis' actions prove this.
In my mind, the mechanism doesn't exist yet - and probably won't because
our society has rendered the spam problem as a "policy fix". 

Therefore, in my forever cynical mind, a mechanism solution will never
happen. So this conversation is akin to the [in]famous emacs vs. vi
editor wars - there is no end in sight.

Can we take this thread off-line? No one else appears to be
contributing.

--Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20040312/c8051fcb/attachment.bin