Subject: RE: Email Privacy eating software - If you think you've heard it all check this

From: Lillian Komlossy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:06:11 -0400

Just when we thought it could not get more - well.. "complicated", someone
sent me this article:
http://ecommerce.internet.com/opinions/article/0,1467,3551_415491,00.html
If there is any truth in this and it continues like this I wonder how many
people will stay connected to the 'Net".

Lil

Lillian Komlossy || Site Manager || http://www.dmnews.com ||
http://www.imarketingnews.com || 212 925-7300 ext. 232 ||
mailto:[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Book, Robert [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 12:45 PM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Email Privacy eating software

Hmmm, I think the federal government might have another opinion that topic,
re: Waco, etc., but this is far off the topic. It's an idyllic viewpoint,
though. But I'm afraid we're at the point in history where the phrase "a
life of freedom in the United States" is an oxymoron. And, if Carnivore
isn't as clear an example of that as one needs, then one is probably wearing
rose-colored glasses.

-----Original Message-----
From: David A. Higginbotham [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 10:54 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Email Privacy eating software

we have the right to own anything we can dream up and build, we do not
always have the right to use it for its intended purpose

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John Stracke
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 10:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Email Privacy eating software

Phil Neumiller wrote:

> I like this idea!  Yeah, if we can reclassify black boxes as munitions, as
> the NSA has
> done to encryption for years, then we can claim that we have the "right to
> bear black
> boxes".

...just like we have the right to own nuclear weapons.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |You buttered your bread, now lie in it.      |
[email-masked]|                                             |
\==============================================================/

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:59:32 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Lillian Komlossy <[email-masked]>

> people will stay connected to the 'Net".

There's no news there, nor any relevance to this mailing list.

No one with common senses expects to be both publicly visible and
anonymous "on the 'Net" or anywhere.  The saying "on the Internet no
one can tell if you're a dog" has always applied only to people lacking
modest clues about how things work or the motivation to use them.
The major irony of that "no one can tell" saying is that it applies at
least as much to the more than skin deep natures of old media reporters
and chatty heads.

Why should "the 'Net" be different from other media?  If you say unkind
things about someone or something, it's always wise to have empty or very
deep pockets, or proof that what you say is the truth.  It's been half a
dozen years since someone in the U.K. won a defamation case about pointed
words in netnews.  If non-U.S. (e.g. U.K.) legal rules that value truth
less than hurt feelings or reputations don't apply in your jurisdiction,
what's your worry?  The biggest danger in your words remains the harm they
can do to your own reputation.

Etoys.com vs etoy.com and many other cases have demonstrated the
fundamental weakness of aggressive consumer goods vendors' efforts
to right offenses against what they think are their good names.
As other media (e.g. the "Wall Street Journal") have long reported,
smart users of the monitoring described in that article cause the
"anti-corporate activist" to disappear or switch sides, usually with a
bribe such as fixing whatever originally angered the "activist."

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]