Subject: Rimm Mail and Ethics of Distribution

From: Declan McCullagh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 22:35:43 -0700 (PDT)

I've added Pete Madsen from CMU's Center from Applied Ethics to
fight-censorship, and I'd like to invite him to respond to some of Marty's
points. As I understand it, an ethical analysis would consider Marty's
rights as sender and Mike's responsibilities as recipient. Pete, what do 
you think?

As a side note, I'm moving my Rimm/CMU files to this account in
preparation for putting them online. Of course, I don't speak for the EFF. 

-Declan

[replies set to f-c]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Return-Path: [email-masked]
 Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 15:56:28 -0400 (EDT)
 To: Mike Godwin <[email-masked]>
 Subject: Re: FYI, exchanges between Rimm and Godwin
 
 I specifically asked you not to redistribute my note to you, but you did
 so publicly. While what you did may not be illegal (I don't know), I am
 curious to hear how and why you think releasing my private e-mail is
 entirely ethical. Couldn't I accuse you of being unethical for doing so?
 
 ~~
 
 Marty

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic>
 Subject: Re: FYI, exchanges between Rimm and Godwin
 To: [email-masked] (Martin Rimm)
 Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
 Cc: [email-masked]

 Marty, remember when I told you long ago that I'm more of a chess player
 than a poker player? That means I prefer to make all my moves out in the
 open.
 
 From a chessplayer's perspective, your motives were transparent:
 
 1) If I'd kept your response secret, you could have said that you'd sent me
 corrections, but add that I did not acknowledge them. You'd have played up
 this argument with Sirbu and Hale, whom you cc'd with that message.
 You'd also have turned me into a collaborator with you on the issue of
 keeping some of your words secret.  
 
 2) If I'd revealed what you'd said, allowing public review of both your
 comments and my responses, you'd have the advantage that I'd circulate
 your (deceptive) words, plus the extra added benefit of being able to
 claim that I'd violated some (hazy and unarticulated) rule of ethics.
 
 It was a nice gambit, all told, but you can surely see why I opted for (2)
 -- your reliance on others to keep your secrets is too basic a tactic in
 your arsenal, and I could not allow myself to play along with it.
 
 The best choice, as always, was simply to let you speak and then analyze
 what you'd said.

 --Mike

 > I specifically asked you not to redistribute my note to you, but you did
 > so publicly. While what you did may not be illegal (I don't know), I am
 > curious to hear how and why you think releasing my private e-mail is
 > entirely ethical. Couldn't I accuse you of being unethical for doing so?
 > 
 > ~~
 > 
 > Marty
 > 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Return-Path: [email-masked]
 Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 17:18:08 -0400 (EDT)
 To: Mike Godwin <[email-masked]>
 Subject: Re: FYI, exchanges between Rimm and Godwin
 
 So what would you do if you were me? I have 120 pages of e-mail from my
 professors that demonstrate their close involvement. Would you publicly
 release this e-mail if you were me? Could they complain releasing their
 e-mail was not ethical?
 
 Marty
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Return-Path: mnemonic
 Subject: Re: FYI, exchanges between Rimm and Godwin
 To: [email-masked] (Martin Rimm)
 Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 16:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
 Cc: mnemonic (Mike Godwin)

 Marty, I think the thing you should do is tell the whole truth.
 This continues to be my advice.
 
 > So what would you do if you were me? I have 120 pages of e-mail from my
 > professors that demonstrate their close involvement. Would you publicly
 > release this e-mail if you were me? Could they complain releasing their
 > e-mail was not ethical?
 >
 > Marty
 >

###

---

From: Michael Loomis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 01:56:52 -0400 (EDT)

Excerpts from declan: 24-Oct-95 Rimm Mail and Ethics of Dis.. by Declan
[email-masked] 
> points. 

Marty's invocation of ethics is as valid as Marty's cyberporn study. 
Mike gave no assurance that he would keep Marty's messages confidential.
 It is far too much to expect an opponent to keep information
confidential that is useful to them without some assurance of
confidentiality.  Mike's action would be bad etiquitte if Mike and Marty
were involved in a friendly relationship, but clearly that is not the
case either.

> As I understand it, an ethical analysis would consider Marty's

What about Marty's responsibility as a sender and Mike's rights as a
recipient?  

While applied ethics are all and good, we should also remember the more
theoretical point that neither "rights" nor "responsibility" are
particularly well-defined--that both words have their dangers.  For
instance, William Connolly write this about the problem with
responsibility.

"We may come to think of responsibility as an indispensible social
practice that typically contains elements of injustice, as a necessary
activity inherently susceptible to inflation by those who impose utopian
dreams of unity, salvation, freedom, or agency onto life."   (William E.
Connolly, "The Augustinian Imperative:  A Reflection on the Politics of
Morality", page 101)

Rights are subject to the same problem.  If this theoretical point were
kept in mind perhaps we would be subject to less self-righteous whining.

Of course, Marty's invocation of this issue is a political move by
someone who has lost a debate.  I doubt that any morality or etiquitte
will stop such behavior, but perhaps we can learn to more quickly
discern the hollowness of such appeals.

Michael Loomis