Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!zog.cs.cmu.edu!dlc
From: dlc@zog.cs.cmu.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: soc.motss,news.misc
Subject: Re: News and Motss
Message-ID: <1018@zog.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 13-Mar-87 15:26:31 EST
Article-I.D.: zog.1018
Posted: Fri Mar 13 15:26:31 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Mar-87 09:11:27 EST
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Lines: 54
Xref: utgpu soc.motss:1310 news.misc:229

>In article <2990@ihlpg.ATT.COM> ejbjr@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Branagan) writes:
>There was a bill introduced last year to make reading of private
>mail illegal.  I don't know if it passed, but it should have.
>Companies have no more moral right to read private mail than they
>do to bug telephones.

    I'm really going to stick my foot in my mouth, but here goes.  I see
no problem in doing this as long as it is not just malicious snooping i.e.
there is reason to believe that something secret is contained in the
mesage or mail box.  There are many cases where special searches are allowed
whenever something of yours is at a place you do not own. Examples:

    1) Stores reserve the right to inspect packages, bags, etc.  If a store
       suspects that say some woman (not a sexist remark) put an item from
       the store in her pocket book, they may examine it when she leaves.
       Of course, that can't snoop too far.
    2) In some public schools, a search warrant is not needed to search a
       kids locker.  I think this issue has been kicked around in courts,
       and I don't know what has come about.  Is it really absolutely
       disallowed in all states, or state by state determinable?

I do feel that it would be nice to have the same privacy, not just for mail
but other data on a computer storage medium, as US mail, but right now it
is not technically feasible.  Of course, if you own the machine, then it
should be possible to maintain as much privacy as you wish.  The point is,
whenever you have property stored in a location that you do not own, the
same privacy rights often times do not hold that you would have otherwise.


Another example.  Let's say that you have a secret note on your desk.  Do
you expect that your boss be legally bound not to look at it?  How would
you enforce it?  Where do you draw the line?  There are certain areas of
morality that can not be legislated, even if you probably wanted to, because
they can not be enforced.  Computer storage devices can be thought of as
buildings with offices.  The person who owns the building should be able
personally or by designating someone be able to get into any office to look
for something.  If this right is abused i.e., malicious snooping, there
should be some policy for its treatment, even if its the owner.  If someone
breaches security e.g. breaks into your office, then of course security
measures should be tightened.  There are many areas in life that have no
legal status as far as moral or immoral, but we have personal implicit
ideas of what is moral/immoral.  Sometimes there are conflicts.  Would
you keep something that is yours and very private in your office, even if
it were in a locked drawer?  I suspect not since you don't want to assume
anything about everybody's sense of morality and you thus want more direct
control over who can access/see the item.  I see this as no different on
computers. Don't store, send, or expect anything that you consider private
from everyone.  If you must, then make it unreadable via encryption.  If
you want to leave interoffice memos in a place that everyone can read them,
you may want to make encrypted copies of some and destroy the original.
I hope this stuff doesn't seem too bogus.


						Daryl