RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.

["Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe(at)usg.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott A Crosby [mailto:crosby@qwes.math.cmu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:52 PM
> 
 
> IMHO, whether or not access was intended should be judged 
> based on what
> level of access was granted. Access to private information 
> can be assumed
> to be unintended, no matter what the protocol. Access to 
> information that
> appears intended to be public should be consider to be intended.
> 
What is considered granting access? Does the fact that the machine
allows me to access the content mean that I was granted access to
that content? My personal thought is that the machine grants access
based on the policies that it is aware of. If those policies don't
match the intent of the operator, then it wouldn't be the "intruder"
who is at fault for accessing information not intended for them.

What if I want my personal data to be public? Theoretically, 
publishing my financial records shouldn't cause any problems 
for me as use of that information by someone other than me
is still illegal. (Or does somebody want to correct me on that?)
Nothing should be assumed about what was intended. (Aren't such
assumptions why we have laws like the DMCA in place?)

-Charlie