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

[Tom <tom(at)lemuria.org>]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 09:30:16AM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote:
> Tom, we essentially agree.
> 
> Others were saying "it's my private information that I am
> making available only to me".  I think the original example
> was an FTP server and I said that if it had "anonymous" or
> "guest" accounts, then permission for access was implicit.
> Then I went on to discuss the web servers.  Of course 
> challenge/response is a perfectly valid way to show intent.
> The main thing is that if you _don't_ attempt to deny access
> in some way, if you just set the server up on the standard
> ports and have no challenge/response system in place, then
> essentially you can be assumed to have granted permission
> for access.


absolutely. the internet is like the marketplace (aside from the fact
that everyone's yelling at once :) ) - if you put something up on a
billboard there, it damn sure is published. if you let your diary lying
around open there, you may have some abstract right for it to remain
your secret, but for all practical purposes I'm fairly sure you
wouldn't be able to prosecute someone passing by and taking a look.

now if you put your diary into a locked box in your stand, *then*
you've made it clear that its nobodys business what's in there.


privacy in a public place - say, this must be such an old topic that
all the IAAL people on this list are already bored to death. :)