X-Message-Number: 21298
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:34:07 +0100
From: Henri Kluytmans <>
Subject: Does information have rights ?

Thomas Donaldson wrote :

>Oh dear, we may once more be in strong disagreement. 

Hold your breath ...   We are not in complete disagreement. :-)

>You make a distinction between "information" and "person", 
>and on it base a conclusion that the "information" should have 
>no rights and cannot be a person.

I think we only disagree in the details, but we do reach the 
same result.

>Now rights (and responsibilities) come not from any objective
>physical facts but from social arrangements between those who
>participate in them. 

Indeed, I'm aware of that.

>If I keep the information needed to make
>a duplicate of myself as of a given date (which I will likely
>renew often) then IF this method is to work as a means of 
>preservation, that information will have to have rights. 

This is where we disagree!

In my view the information itself should have no rights, but 
the original person should have the rights (even when that 
person is not in an animated state anymore). 

Let me show you some analogies :

When somebody writes a book, and he puts copyright on it,
you don't say : "The book has rights.", but you say : "The 
writer has the rights of the book.".

Or :

In most countries it's illegal to steel an object that 
somebody owns. But you dont say "That object has rights.", 
you say "That object is owned by that person.".

A physical object and information are passive things, they do 
not feel, therefore they cannot be hurt, therefore it seems 
only rational not to give them rights.

And just to make clear that it is not unusual for de-animated 
or erased persons to still have rights. Even in our current 
society this is very custom :

Remember the recent issue of that guy who was concerned about 
Ted Williams hanging upside down in a cryostat. Isn't that 
an example of somebody who is concerned about the rights of a 
de-animated person?

Or look for example at the expression :

"Let him rest in peace."

Doesn't this imply a concern about the rights of a de-animated, 
or eventually "erased" person. (With erased I mean : when the 
worms have finisched their meal.)

>if you want to live in a society in which your information
>has no rights, you can do so --- but you may have abolished
>one way to survive for much longer.

I think our disagreement is only a question of precise formulation.
The result would be the same, in both cases it would be against the 
rules of the society to just erase the information that would be 
needed to restore a person.

Also it should be just as illegal to create new persons from stored 
information without the explicit wishes of the original person
(i.e. to make illegal animated copies of a person).

>So explain your attitude to the information which totally
>describes a person.

As I said, our difference is in the details. Although IMO my 
definition of rights is a better one, because it's irrational 
to give passive objects or information any rights.

But never mind, let a laywer decide about that. As long as 
the final result will be the same, I do not mind that much.

Cheers,
>Hkl

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21298