[cap-talk] Computer Bill of Rights: (was Re: "ambient authority" on wiki.erights.org)

[Tony Bartoletti]

Hi John,

At 07:15 PM 6/14/2009, you wrote:
>The difference between a right and a permission appear to be that 
>your permissions can be revoked or attenuated, whereas rights 
>cannot.  Is it true that we have zero rights on computer 
>systems?  What rights should users have on a computer?  Like:  the 
>right to know how their personal information is being used.

This is actually an excellent topic from which to reason, especially 
about terminology such as "authority, capability, permission".

>Does anyone want to come up with a computer bill of rights?

First, given that computers are not yet sentient enough to have 
rights of their own ... I must assume that by "Computer Bill of 
Rights" you mean "Human rights as expressed or exercised through the 
use of computers".

Ultimately, the issue becomes, how are human rights "modulated" or 
interpreted in the context of computer use?

My very first thought on rights w.r.t. computers is to compare them 
to individual rights w.r.t. automobiles.  (Of course, any "human 
rights" tend to be modulated country-by-country, but I will assume 
that the U.S. Bill of Rights (and the U.N. Declaration on Human 
Rights) is a model from which to work.

I believe that once I completely "own" my automobile, I am free to do 
with it whatever I like.  But in fact, there are certain things I 
cannot do.  As one would expect, it depends upon how such "use" steps 
upon the rights of others.

I have the right to "own" an automobile, and on my own property (in 
many jurisdictions) I can even drive it without any license.  I 
cannot use it to make a noise so loud as to disturb the sleep of my 
neighbors, and I must gain permission (a valid license) to pilot it 
down the road, as the "people" (expressed through the formation of 
legitimate government) have a right to be reasonably safe upon the highways.

In my own home, I can disassemble my automobile and turn it into lawn 
furniture if I so choose ...

The subject of computers is equally tricky, but I tend to side far 
more toward the individual than to society here, owing that it is not 
(yet) very easy to mortally harm someone with a computer (short of 
dropping it on their head from a second story window).

The EULAs (End User License Agreements) that come with computer 
hardware and software are expressions manufacturers use, wherein they 
would like you to think that you don't really "own" your computer, 
but rather are granted use with certain restrictions.  They don't 
want you to reverse-engineer the machine, for fear that you will 
rip-off their intellectual property.  But by my way of thinking, 
unless you actually use the information so gained in some fraudulent 
enterprise (selling knock-off copies, etc) then you should have the 
right to fully understand what you "own".

Governments will naturally take certain interest in trying to 
restrict individual's use of computers, as these (together with the 
networks that join them) represent a venue for expression, assembly, 
storage, theft, and even for attack (against other computer/networks, 
friend or foe).  The U.S. Second Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) was 
originally intended to help ensure that it government became overly 
opressive and unresponsive to all civil means of adjustment, the 
people would have a fighting chance to re-establish "of, BY, and FOR" 
the people.  That was in the day when government might was largely 
soldiers with rifles, and potentially out-numbered by a populace so 
motivated.  Today, governments wield far more menacing arms, and one 
cannot grant individuals commensurate arms without catastrophic results.

Computers represent, in my view, the best substitute for "arms" in 
the sense of the Second Amendment - helping the individual to act on 
a playing field with power closer to that of large organizations and 
government.  Consider how quickly police misbehavior, once easily 
covered up, is today "broadcast" by a thousand watching 
eyes...  Conversely, we allow that when law enforcement demonstrates 
"probable cause", a court can grant them warrant to search, to 
wiretap, etc.  If application-level VoIP encryption serves to thwart 
this - I just don't know how to resolve it.

Do we have a human "Right to Keep Secrets"?  If a technology comes 
along that makes mind-reading possible, should it be outlawed?  I 
tend to think that my "personal use" of a computer (excluding the use 
of it to hack others) is essentially like an extension of my own mind 
and memory.  If I want to encrypt certain contents, that is akin to 
locking away my own "thoughts".  Even if presented a "warrant to 
search" I do not feel I should be compelled to "remember" the key, 
and cannot be held guilty of possessing the "evidence" that 
authorities "believe" I have encrypted.

In your estimation, what capabilities (in the common use of the word) 
do computers grant or support that makes individual rights 
"different" than they would be via the use of pen and paper, 
telephone and radio?  I assume the issue is one of leverage...

I cannot agree that "we have zero rights on computer 
systems".  Unless I have zero rights with pen and pencil.  In what 
sense did you ask this question?


Cheers!  ____tony____

P.S.  I seem to find my emails to this list highly "moderated", so I 
send to you directly.







Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb at llnl.gov>
Cyber Security Research and Development
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900