X-Message-Number: 16859
From: "Trygve Bauge" <>
References: <003d01c103e6$9b616fa0$>
Subject: Re: Privacy in email communications
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 01:51:01 +0200

George Smith wrote:

>Dear Trygve Bauge:

>I have been openly supportive of your early efforts to offer suspension
alternatives >however I do not agree with your views on posting in public
places private emails without >first asking permission from the author
(Message #16799).

As many of you very well know, I usually respect it when someone mailes me
something and clearly types "Confidential" on it, and otherwise are polite,
reasonable and rights respecting in their request for confidentiality.

When asked to do so, I also delete the source of a letter, before forwarding
or posting the latter .

What I mainly did object to, was when someone mails me something that is not
tagged as confidential and is not tagged as copyrighted, and then get angry
when I quote from it, or forward it to others.
I quote from and forward mail all the time.
Letters that are sent to me and that are not tagged as confidential or
And the general rule is that most people writing me, do not object to such a

I do however, get enough complaints about use of band width as it is.
If I for each letter I forward had to ask the person who wrote me for
permission to quote or forward the letter before doing the latter, it would
easily double the messages sent, time used and bandwith consumed.

If someone trust my judgment as to what do do with the information, and want
confidentiality, they would just tag the letter as confidential. Then I
would keep it confidential unless I saw some very strong justification for
acting otherwise.

If someone really want something to be kept confidential, they should ask
for confidentiality upfront, and only send the letter once they have
received the promise of confidentiality.
I don't sign such agreements myself, because I like to see the message first
and then use my own judgment as to whether or not and when to keep silent
about the content.

At the same time I always insist on openness as a condition for assisting

>Additionally, I feel you would better serve your purpose by posting
summaries or updates >of what you are doing on the Cryonet rather than
filling it with your raw personal >correspondence.  I really do not feel
that the Cryonet ought to be treated as a journal for >correspondence but
used as a forum for idea exchange.

Much of the correspondance I post, I post because it contains some
information that others have asked me for and I think that other cryonisists
might be interested in seing as well.

E.g. where to get hold of electrical freezers, mobile LN2 plants etc.

I also thought there would be some interest by other cryonists in seeing the
Australian case unfold. And even more so: since very few are willing to
assist in post mortem sign up cases,
and these usually are ignored, forgotten and hidden from view, I thought I
wouldn't let the cryonic community get away with such a behaviour this time!

>Finally, as you have stated you do not respect the issue of email privacy,
you can neither >expect me to discuss with you issues of import which I do
not wish broadcast to the >world but which otherwise could aid you.

I think you should trust my judgment, and at least tag as confidential any
e-mail you want kept confidential. And if you are reasonable, civilized,
rational  and rightsrespecting in your request, you will probably see that I
only break the silence when it is reasonable, civilized, rational and rights
respecting to do so.

>I suspect now that others with similar positive intentions feel the same
>This is unfortunate.

Well, we can't all be the same, There are more than enough people who want
keep information secret. We all know what that can lead to (Chatsworth
Those that eagerly keep secrets, accomplish what one can accomplish by that

But maybe certain valuable achievments can best be accomplished by strict

I bet that we can accomplish more as a group by having both kinds of people
pursuing cryonics.

>Please reconsider this self defeating personal policy so that you can be
fully open to aid >from those who might otherwise bewilling to offer it.

I have a long standing policy of being fully open to the media, and using
openness for all it is worth. E.g. if openness attracts opposition, then one
can usually overcome this by more openness to the media, and by openly
organizing politically.

E.g. if you avoid short run opposition by keeping secrets this will most
likely come back and haunt you later when it is discovered or even if it is
not discovered because you then can't use what you know for all it is worth.
Then it is better to build solutions that can survive open scrutiny, it
might take a little longer in the short run, e.g. to find people that
will rent you a place to store corpses, but it pays off in the longrun,
because the people you then get to deal with know what you are doing and
that you are honest with them.

I spent a lot of time successfully fighting criminals in a public housing
projects some 5 years ago, using full openness. At the end even some of the
criminals came to me for assistance,
because they trusted me and my openness more than they trusted their own
knife sticking comrades.

I use civil disobedience as a means to fight protectionism and other laws I
regard as unconstitutional or as violating universal unalienable rights. But
I am open about it.

Most of the obstacles I have overcome over the years I have overcome through
full openness. Most of the obstacles I have experienced over the years I
have got myself into because of too little openness, not because of too much
It is a little late to change now, even if I wanted to, which I don't.

>With respect but some sense of sadness,

Don't be sad. Joy comes to anyone that has the integrity to do what oneself
sees as right.


Trygve Bauge

>George Smith
>CI member

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16859