[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cypherpunks
Subject:    Re: Using Brin to thwart ISP subpoenas
From:       Steve Schear <schear () attbi ! com>
Date:       2002-12-23 4:49:29
[Download RAW message or body]


At 10:16 PM 12/22/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>On Sunday, Dec 22, 2002, at 21:28 US/Eastern, Steve Schear wrote:
>
>>At 09:59 AM 12/20/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:10:18 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: Using Brin to thwart ISP subpoenas
>>>From: Charles Evans <cwe@chyden.net>
>>>To: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com>
>>>
>>>How long do you think it would be before the ISP described below would
>>>receive a cease and desist letter, ordering it to remove the cameras,
>>>in order to protect customer privacy?
>>
>>I guess it would depend on the ISP's posted privacy policy.  There are no 
>>regulations, AFAIK, that set some minimum standard for customer privacy.
>
>The customer privacy part would be an excuse.  Your legal-irony hack is 
>too clever to stand unchallenged.

It would be interesting.  In a way it would be a test of Brin.  One way 
might be to have property management companies build total surveillance 
into their leases.  Could a court prevent a company from becoming 
transparent to its customers.


>>If the ISP accepted only DMT or e-gold payments, which are anonymous, it 
>>would not be likely to reveal much about a customer's privacy during the 
>>course of normal office conversations except perhaps their email address.
>
>How do you mean anonymous?  Do you mean untraceable?

Well I'd never say untraceable, however, DMT does not require any meat 
space customer information.  See https://196.40.46.24/


If you can't join 'em, beat 'em.
   -- W's global policy of hegenomy

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]