Fred,
I see these little, basic freedoms being challenged in whirl of judgement against this or that virtual red zone. Melissa is such a red zone. No one wants to take the first step so govt. steps in and the MSFT GUID # watermark is suddenly cast in an entirely different light.
So now we have a new form of copdom on the rise - the rise of the virtual agent/cop who is out to make virtual domains safe from ourselves.
Yup, that's the whole crux isn't it. The issue has always been how much privacy is OK without letting the bad guys have their way. So private institutions providing services to consumers (banks, telephone companies, you name it) are all subject to subpoena when transactions between these institutions and potential criminals (which is all of us) take place. Of course they're also subject to people who find a way to access the data without a subpoena in order to perpetrate blackmail or fraud.
Soon, look for a proclamation of sorts from the govt that basically says "we hereby recognize that the Internet is an integral component of the nation's economy and it and its users must therefore be protected by whatever means are available". Sounds pretty non-controversial. In reality it opens the door to having the govt force any software company that wants to operate commercially put watermarks in its programs and documents ala Microsoft. Like all such "safeguards" in the "real" economy it will only work to catch amateurs and those who forget to cover their tracks. Meanwhile the offset is the potential for blackmail against the rest of us who use the software without considering how it could be used against us as we act as individuals in some domains, corporate employees in others, etc. all with the same tools automatically linking it all together to create our virtual profiles.
Paul, re: your note that they won't find the Melissa hacker because he will have stolen his identity from others...probably true, but it doesn't mean the govt can't take advantage of the data. They can still put two and two together. If they have documents on file that were written by this person in his public life, or can obtain such documents from people he may have corresponded with, they can still do a lot to make this person squirm. We'll see....
BTW, the other thing to consider is that even netizens are extremely selective in their libertarianism. The anti-spammers are an example. Nobody likes spam, but is it the network service provider's job to take action against people using their networks to send spam? Today it is because a broad coalition that includes most that call themselves "netizens" agree wholeheartedly and actually take paramilitary action against companies that don't comply (ie, hacker attacks in the name of "good" censorship). Of course this is just an example of service providers being forced to perform a popular form of content filtering isn't it? The slipperly slope was already being explored before the MSFT watermarks and Melissa. Now we get to see how much farther it will go.
Phil |
