🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:45:37 -0500, "Michael" <mgbaker@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>I'm not sure what the remedy is.
>
Nor does anyone else in this thread.
thanx for the input though, a few need to be reminded what us
"typical" users are thinking ;-)

>I do know that I do not want the government getting involved.
>
Amen!

>For all the analogies to ones house or cars and whatever else scanning and
>probing might be compared to, it is not a matter of personal safety or a
>threat to ones being.
>
Xactly! Not w/o choice anyway. There will be those who argue about
valuable personal info on the PC. 
Well, dufus, don't make that data available!
If you don't understand how a tool works, why are you using it?

>Mr. Navas made a comparison about not having to be an expert in automotives
>to drive, and one shouldn't have to be an expert in computers to operate one.
>But you know, you do have to take classes on safety and pass tests before you
>can get behind that wheel and drive that car.  Do people still wreck?  Do
>people still drive like idiots?  Yes.  There are tons of laws dedicated to
>the vehicle and driving .  Most are probably needed.  Because this involves
>personal safety and others well being.  Surfing the net does not.
>
>When LB first made me aware of Sharesniffer I wondered how it could be legal.
>Well, borrowing from others, knocking isn't illegal.  Standing on the street
>looking at your house isn't illegal.  If you don't want me to see you then
>close your blinds, or build a wall around your house.
>
I wondered how anyone could think this scenario would ever be
_illegal_
But there will always be a contingent of folks who would rather you
did the things they want you to do "for your own good"

relax, I'm not preparing to invoke Godwin's Law

>If anything should be illegal
it would be the application of force and/or fraud
and NOTHING else
But we must deal with the Real World <ho hum>

M Phrogg
-=-
"I oppose it because I believe individuals need the 
means to protect their own privacy whether from 
governments or criminals. We need to find a balance 
between individual freedom and state authority for 
(the presumed) general welfare and security. We want 
security, but there is no security if anyone has too 
much power." 
   ==Esther Dyson comments to tech.thirsty.com on why
   the UK's RIP bill is "clueless policy"