On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 2:47 PM, John Andersen
I agree with this analogy, it states exactly why we have regulations preventing anyone from opening your mail or bugging your phone without court approval in MOST jurisdictions. Society has made assertions of an expectation, if not a total right, to privacy in legal interactions with others, be it verbal, or written, or transactions.
Those things that cause people difficulty are due to expectations of privacy in places that such was never asserted or offered.
Public places, are by definition public, (oddly enough) and video/audio monitoring are not forbidden. You may hold a conversation in Times Square, but you would never have the expectation that it was private, even if you spoke Klingon.
The largest source of confusion and false expectation is the internet. There is not now, nor has there ever been an expectation of privacy on this medium.
Right or wrong, this is the situation today, and if you use an encrypted protocol you _may_ usurp some privacy, but its still unclear that you have a "right" to it.
I think people become too easily confused with the attempt to claim privacy in a public network (by what ever means) and the actual transmission of illegal information.
Yes, they are. And actually, people too easily forget what privacy is lately. People forget, that the actual problem is: it is wrong that I try to hide (encrypt) my conversations, when using internet (by default no expectation of privacy)? It is about right and wrong, and if I have the right to protect my privacy. And if protecting my privacy is an evidence that I'm doing something wrong. I can get back to the analogy I put before - ones' private life with his/her spouse. Is it wrong to encrypt such a conversations/pictures/talks? Especially as there is no expectations that your communications over internet are protected? You know how easy is for some sysadmin somewhere on route to intercept it. And to post it on youtube, just because it looks interesting. What I was saying is, that the blanket statement - if you do not have something to hide, why should you care to encrypt it - is totally flawed, and when the medium (or environment) does not offer (suggest) some expectations of privacy, it is perfectly OK to perform some actions to protect(hide) the conversation. One can even whisper in her party's ear on Times Square for that purpose alone, and noone should tell that this is wrong. Btw, this is very good reading on the topic (the pdf at the bottom of the page): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 -- Svetoslav Milenov (Sunny) Even the most advanced equipment in the hands of the ignorant is just a pile of scrap. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org