[43577] in Cypherpunks
Re: No Privacy Right in UK ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perry E. Metzger)
Fri Nov 17 18:27:35 1995
To: "James M. Cobb" <jcobb@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 Nov 1995 17:51:33 EST."
<Pine.BSD.3.91.951117174809.9898L-100000@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 18:16:05 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
"James M. Cobb" writes:
> Thanks for your inquiry. The post "No Privacy Right in UK ?"
> is closely related to cryptography in at least three ways.
Actually, I was being rhetorical. It was an inappropriate posting.
> Cryptography is a means to accomplish an end: privacy.
Thats true, but it isn't a means to keep private investigators from
noticing that insurance cheats are perfectly healthy when they claim
to be horribly incapacitiated, which was what the article was about.
> Farther, the case discussed in the post was a prosaic example
> of invasion of privacy by deception.
Actually, it was a prosaic example of the lengths to which human
stupidity is taken in our court systems. I'm reminded of the rule that
says you can't put a boobytrap in your home -- after all, a person
breaking and entering could injure themselves with it.
It has nothing to do with cryptography, though.
> Further, Clinton attended an elite university in the UK. Can you
> imagine what notions he may have found attractive there?
So what. Nothing to do with cryptography.
Take this elsewhere, I say.
Perry
