4 ms·

Thomas M. Cooley's 1879 analysis of privacy of telegraphic correspondence (the "hampered by fears" link in the Guardian article) is fascinating: https://archive

Thomas M. Cooley's 1879 analysis of privacy of telegraphic correspondence (the "hampered by fears" link in the Guardian article) is fascinating: https://archive.org/details/jstor-3303981/ https://archive.org/details/jstor-3303981/

dang 11y ago
That would make a great submission in its own right, if you want to post it. Maybe wait a day or two since HN tends not to go for pile-on stories.
zaroth 11y ago
This is so beautiful... what I was trying to say here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10384748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10384748 In brief, then, the doctrine that telegraph authorities may be required to produce private messages, on the application of third persons, is objected to, on the following grounds:-- 1. That it defeats the policy of the law, which invites free com- munication, and to the extent that it may discourage correspondence, it operates as a restraint upon industry and enterprise, and, what is of equal important, upon intimate social and family correspondence. 2. It violates the confidence which the law undertakes to render secure, and makes the promise of the law a deception. 3. It seeks to reach a species of evidence which, from the very course of the business, parties are interested to render blind and misleading, and which, therefore, must often present us with error in the guise of truth, under circumstances which preclude a discovery of the deception. 4. It renders one of the most important convfeniences of modern life susceptible at any moment of being used as an instrument of infinite mischiefs in the community. It is not necessary to enumerate these mischiefs. Any one can picture to his own mind what would be the condition of things in any neighborhood, if its whole correspondence were exposed to the public gaze. A single instance, in which the veil of confidential secrecy is thrust aside, will introduce some of these evils, but it will suggest the possibility that any moment all the others may follow. Inviolability of Telegraphic Correspondence. Supreme Court of the United States. Thomas Snell et al. v. The Atlantic Fire and Marine Insurance Company. February 1, 1879
- cokernel 11y ago
  A minor nit: Thomas Snell et al. v. The Atlantic Fire and Marine Insurance Company is the opinion which follows Thomas M. Cooley's opinion you are quoting here.
  - zaroth 11y ago
    Oh that's funny, I copied the header text off the scanned page but it's for the next article in the book. Thanks for pointing that out.

dang 11y ago

That would make a great submission in its own right, if you want to post it. Maybe wait a day or two since HN tends not to go for pile-on stories.

zaroth 11y ago

This is so beautiful... what I was trying to say here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10384748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10384748 In brief, then, the doctrine that telegraph authorities may be required to produce private messages, on the application of third persons, is objected to, on the following grounds:-- 1. That it defeats the policy of the law, which invites free com- munication, and to the extent that it may discourage correspondence, it operates as a restraint upon industry and enterprise, and, what is of equal important, upon intimate social and family correspondence. 2. It violates the confidence which the law undertakes to render secure, and makes the promise of the law a deception. 3. It seeks to reach a species of evidence which, from the very course of the business, parties are interested to render blind and misleading, and which, therefore, must often present us with error in the guise of truth, under circumstances which preclude a discovery of the deception. 4. It renders one of the most important convfeniences of modern life susceptible at any moment of being used as an instrument of infinite mischiefs in the community. It is not necessary to enumerate these mischiefs. Any one can picture to his own mind what would be the condition of things in any neighborhood, if its whole correspondence were exposed to the public gaze. A single instance, in which the veil of confidential secrecy is thrust aside, will introduce some of these evils, but it will suggest the possibility that any moment all the others may follow. Inviolability of Telegraphic Correspondence. Supreme Court of the United States. Thomas Snell et al. v. The Atlantic Fire and Marine Insurance Company. February 1, 1879

cokernel 11y ago
A minor nit: Thomas Snell et al. v. The Atlantic Fire and Marine Insurance Company is the opinion which follows Thomas M. Cooley's opinion you are quoting here.
- zaroth 11y ago
  Oh that's funny, I copied the header text off the scanned page but it's for the next article in the book. Thanks for pointing that out.