 needs this panel. And you wanted to talk about one of your ideas on habeas data you're calling it, right? Is that your term? You make up habeas data? It's not my term. I'm in the middle of writing on this. But as far as I understand it, Germany was the first to recognize an autonomy right to image and reputation. Their constitutional court, or their court of last resort, I suppose several decades ago, then the EU kind of caught on with its privacy directive. But then is this related to the right to be forgotten and all this stuff? I haven't heard of it put that way. But that's a good way to phrase some of the issues. Anyway, Latin America developed this independently largely as a constitutional writ, although there's some legislative recognition, constitutional recognition, and separately judicial recognition. I think the Philippines for forced disappearances has the strongest independent right, I think, judicially recognized, where habeas data includes this sort of right to go after specific public officials and recover your reputation or your image or something like that. Well, let's talk about it in a second. But let me lay some basic things. So we were talking, and I said something like, I don't quite understand what you mean by habeas data. If it's your version of it or what's going on in the world. But I said, I think it's the OAS and I'm sorry. Hold on a second before we get there up. So I was just going to say, I said something like, even if it's a fake right, I'm in favor of it. I didn't mean to disparage it. What I meant was, like in political theory and in our view of government, like even in American, say, Lockean, Jeffersonian, American political theory, there's this idea of civil liberties or civil rights versus natural rights and the natural rights are the ones that exist before government, right? Or outside government, like the right not to be murdered or something like that. But then there are civil rights, like they don't exist absent at some kind of a society wide agreement, like the right to vote, for example. And it doesn't mean that we disparage those, but they're not the same as natural rights. They can't exist without society or without a government. And then there's more prophylactic type of rights, which you call them rights, like say the right to be presumed innocent is not really a right because if you're actually guilty of a crime, you do deserve to be punished, but we have to attribute a right to you to be presumed guilty, be presumed innocent. What would you call that prophylactic? Call that procedural, right? Prophylactic means sort of like, you know, a condo is preventative. So it's sort of like, it's not a real right, but it's a right that we have to have, we have to insist that the government pretend like it's a right in a sense to limit the government. So it's not a natural right or not even a real right, but when you start, and then this ties into the American debate over like plenary powers and the bill of rights is limits on the government, the federal government's powers versus the 10th amendment sort of look where it's a government of enumerated powers. So the way I look at it and the way I think the more original founders looked at it was the bill of rights is pretty much superfluous and redundant and really irrelevant. Like the whole way that the rights were protected from federal violation was to just enumerate and limit the powers of the federal government. So they never had the power, they never had the power to violate rights in ways A, B and C. So you really don't need to enumerate the rights. So the rights view is like, you view the government's power as plenary or complete, like most states have, like the US states have. So you have to limit what they can do with rights but the federal government is unique in that it only has enumerated powers. But anyway, the point is- I was there, well, go ahead, you go. I'm just gonna say that the way we view rights is things that the government shouldn't invade but one way to stop the government from doing that is you could list the rights or you could just limit the powers of the government. And sometimes you limit the powers of the government by an enumeration of an artificial right, right? Like the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, due process, the sixth amendment, you have to presumption of innocence, that kind of stuff. Yeah, due process is a good example of your categories too. Well, I'll pause there because we could do a separate chat on enumeration in Gibbons v. Ogden and the commerce clause, but- Yeah, that's not really libertarian. It's just US constitutional stuff. And the reason I'm bringing this up is because when I talked to computer law about 20 years ago, which is kind of before internet law, there was a whole developing body of law on what's called like database type stuff. Like, does the government have the right to collect databases of information, like surveillance on its citizens or is that too dangerous to do? So there were various limitations in the law about what information governments could collect on you. If I'm not wrong, that's probably tied into this habeas data type stuff. Now, I would say there's no natural right for someone not to have data on you, but when it's in government's hands, we can limit what government does as a precautionary measure to keep them from violating rights, right? From abusing this position they have. I think whether there's a private right for someone not to have data on you is it kind of begs the question because under certain conceptions you could have a private right to recover a record or a pattern of information that is about your person or very central to your autonomy in a way. Especially if someone like say committed a trespass, like say, let's say someone broke into your house and they stole private information. That exactly happened to me. They broke into my study and cloned my laptop. These guys who were helping me with Airbnb and they distributed patterns of my personal laptop information to the car accident insurer, to my landlords with whom I had lawful contracts to do what I was doing. And then I think also to universities, kind of in mixed with mixed truth and false accusations. And so people often say, because I don't believe in IP because I don't think information is ownable. They say, well, then you can't stop identity theft and things like that. And like, or you can't, or if someone steals my private manuscript, I can't say it's worth more than a blank manuscript because that would be claiming own sure right and information, which is all confused and wrong. But if you think about it, there's no such thing as identity theft. It's a metaphor and there's nothing wrong with pretending to be someone else as long as you don't use it in a way to take things that they own. So I mean, if I steal all your private information or if I get access to it, let's say, let's say I get access to your social security number and all that stuff, that itself doesn't violate your rights. But if I use that to go to your bank and take your money that violates your rights because what they're doing is they're taking something you own, your money. And they're violating a contract with the bank and they're violating the bank's property rules as they're using the bank's property in ways the bank doesn't consent to. So they're doing all kinds of things that are already covered by libertarian theory in their action. It's sort of like if you have a house and you leave a door unlocked or even open, it makes it easy for someone to walk in and do something in there. But as soon as they walk in your house without permission, they're still committing trespass. So I would view that having your private information and your passwords and all that is like having the key to your house but it's the use of the key that is the violation, right? And it's like it's the use of the data. But anyway. I don't know if I or habeas data would agree with that. This is pretty new discovery. So the idea that this could be more of a fundamental or constitutional red or a more fundamental autonomy, right? It's pretty new ground for me as well. So with that background, why don't you just tell me what you mean by habeas data and what kind of what your questions are that we could talk about. Yeah, sure. So just to clarify the earlier question or the habeas data, as far as I understand it emerged in Latin America. I think Brazil may have been the first to call it that or enact a legislative remedy. And I think it was kind of for the in the Latin American experience it was part of imparo but evolved a little bit separately which is recourse to fundamental rights as a sort of writ just like habeas corpus in the judiciary where any individual can go and have a fast efficient remedy where the wheels the machinery of justice starts to turn saying, okay who violated your rights? Name that person. Let me ask a question. It's kind of isn't habeas corpus is like a common law type thing, right? Yeah, yeah. Well, we have it in in the American constitution you know, Lincoln's famous for having suspended the writ. That's what I mean. It's an American and a common law thing. So, but Brazil is the civil law system. I'm a little surprised they're using a common law term as part of their fundamental law in a civil law system. Yeah, well, I think, you know forgive me for confusing which Latin American country did what and when but Peru and Paraguay and others to put it in as a constitutional right. But what they're doing is they're borrowing common law terminology to modify their yeah, well, I mean they're blending civil and common law terminology. Habeas corpus is of course, you know the British I think it comes from the Magna Carta at some point or that's what I mean. It's like it's a British common law thing. And the Brazil is a civil law. Other countries developed habeas corpus a little bit independently. There's a Polish and a Russian version. I didn't. Yeah, I just think it's interesting that they're blending these systems here. Well, they're, yeah. I guess they borrowed the term which of course comes from Latin and of course there's Latin America. So there's that explain why don't you explain what habeas corpus is first and then we'll go to habeas data. Sure. So habeas corpus as I would call it a constitutional writ or remedy available in a court where you go to the court and you say, oh, any person actually I believe can go to a court and say such and such person is being held against his or her will. And the court tells the accused jailer or the accused custodian you are presumed to have the body appear before us and maybe bring the body show us the body. Yeah, I think it's a habeas corpus means produce the body, right? So you are presumed to have the body, you have the body. So bring this guy out of his jail cell where he's in the way. Bring him to court and let's decide what to do with him. So that's habeas corpus, it's a writ. And my friend Anthony Gregory by the way has written a whole book on that from a libertarian point of view, I think. There was a dude in the 70s and 80s or early 90s. I can't, his name is escaping me right now. Cook Kotner I think was trying to get an international recognition of habeas corpus, which was really cool because it's one of those fundamental things, right? If the state can take you at any time without having to show why take your person at any time then his power is greatly enlarged. So it's a very fundamental check on state power or even individuals cooperating with the state, right? Who might wanna kidnap someone. So I think that what they did, I don't know what it's called exactly but when you appropriate, I'm not familiar with all your internet identity imagery that's going on. Am I still talking? Yeah, I'm listening. I'm trying to get back to my screen. I think they captured some of that. They borrowed some of the meaning from habeas corpus and they put it in as a constitutional writ in many countries. I'd like to take it, assuming in the first instance it's in that regard that the first question in habeas data is do you have my information, my data to the state official who's jailing it, has it in custody with or without your permission, I suppose, because you kind of have one. Does it apply only to state actors or to private actors too? We'll take it in its narrowest sense and say it applies only to state actors, public officials or public registries, manual or automated. So in the narrowest possible way, this registry or this official has my information or information about me and by invoking habeas data you're saying that in some respect it's without your consent. Won't you give an example? Too theoretical. I guess in these Latin American countries I think it's hopefully predominantly aimed at the surveillance state. So a political activist is giving speeches and the equivalent of the Secret Service or the FBI or the NWKD, the Soviet secret police, what have you in Latin America? The generals men are recording and monitoring the whereabouts of an activist. Is it sort of like in the US when you ask to see your FBI file, the data they've collected? We have statutory regimes. The European directives are aimed internationally at states that are a bit more geared toward international law, but of course, freedom of information in many countries, including the US, have that. I think when we talk about habeas data, although there might be overlap, it's exercisable by the person who says it's his or her information and not by any person. So to separate the most simply freedom of information, anyone can ask for what a government agency holds, you know, a certain information, whereas habeas data is very focused on the individual going after his or her information. When you say his or her, you mean information about them? I mean, that's in the narrowest sense. So yes, it narrowest sense, public official, public registry or manual ledger, if you will. And the individual only wants to access, narrow sense, access the information that is being held about him or her. You know, and then you have this varying degrees of, can I do this, the individual have the authority to request that it be corrected, amended or deleted, right? So the highest level is... Sorry, you cut out there. Yeah, hold on a second. We're still online. Let me just get back to my Zoom. Why would the individual have the information already? Like, why doesn't... Like, let's say they're collecting data on my salary. I mean, I already know the data on my salary, so I don't need to get data about my salary from the government, because I already know my salary. In the first instance, let's say that it's not the IRS, it's a statistical bureau. Yeah. And you want to know, in the simplest way, one, are they collecting it? Do they have it? Right. So you want to know what they know about you. You don't want to know. Right, yeah, you might want to know, by the way, are you sharing this with the IRS because I just had a $300,000 personal loss this year and I want to know my audit likelihood or something like that. Okay. You know, I don't know. You might want to know, one, is it accurate? And two, what are they doing with it? So, in the narrowest sense, you would just be able to confirm, do they have it, right? You have the data, show it to me, give me back my own information. Or you don't know. What do you mean give it back? Do you mean they have to expunge it or they just give you a copy of it? I'm just saying access is the narrowest way. So, yeah, they have to give you a copy, right? Some record or some affirmation of what they have and what it contains. And to be clear, so you're researching this for a dissertation or something or what? Human rights, just a paper for human rights law, but I'm litigating in Australia. So, I, you know, of course I made the connection. Victoria has a charter of human rights and responsibilities and in their state law, they incorporate predominantly the ICCPR, which has a right to privacy, reputation, honor and privacy in the home. So, in my example, someone breaks into your study, clones your laptop, how you exercise a remedy against a public official who's in receipt of this information is interesting where the state domestic law incorporates the international charter and the OAS thinks that the ICCPR principle of privacy protects and incorporates habeas data. So, at least the organization of American states and their principles and opinions about habeas data, they think that it's embedded and contained within the right of privacy, which is, they think, a right of international law. So, I'm trying to invoke it in a foreign states domestic law, well, at the same time, I have to write a paper about it. So, or I propose to write a paper about it. So, what's your really question here for a libertarian or for one of your friends or me? Yeah, so I think the conception, the burgeoning conception, if you will, my conception or the new school, if you wanna call it that, I think that there's room to say that information about me or my private information, some set of that is part of my body, part of my soul, part of my person. I see. And I think there's room to assert a different kind of claim, an autonomy style claim over that information. And I think that that's, it's not tangible, but it is scarce. You can't have it without having the individual. The information can't exist without me existing. And there's some room to say it's part of my person and I want it back, I want it corrected or I want it deleted. And whether you can assert that against a private actor is much more interesting, but for now, you know, the government. That's a polite way to put it. But for now, we're just assuming that the government is the only person subject to habeas data. That's why I distinguish between fake rights and real rights and pro-galactic and civil rights. I have no problem myself as a libertarian using this construct as basically as a simplified way to limit government power. I don't think, I mean, but you can probably predict my view is I think I totally disagreed with the autonomy idea and saying that you, you can ever own information at all. The only argument I think you could make that occurs to me is some kind of causation argument. Like you could say that just like free speech is not absolutely unlimited because some acts of speech can cause harm. Like with some libertarians disagree with, but that's my view. Like you can- A nice free speech critique in one of his human rights essays, I think it's from For a New Liberty. I happened to cross it recently. He said the whole common law US Supreme Court recognition of the right not to shout fire and a crowded theater is confused because that's actually, you've interfered with everyone's right to enjoy their show. And with the conditions on which the theater owner gave you access and it's actually a property dispute. It's not a free speech issue. I think that's in the chapter, Knowledge, True and False in the Ethics of Liberty. And I think the analysis is a little bit lacking because either in that chapter or another place, he argues that incitement is never a tort. And I disagree because incitement, I just wouldn't put a bright line on it. I mean, it depends on the causal analysis. If you incite a mob, and look, Rothbard one time argued that the way you could decide the issue of like, let's suppose someone has to shoot you to save their life and they're compelled or something. He says, maybe they argued they'd be justified. Rothbard says, well, the question is if the victim had a bodyguard, could the bodyguard shoot you first to stop you from shooting his client? And the answer is yes. So that kind of proves he has a right not to be shot. You don't have the right to shoot him. And by the same token. A tort of incitement. By the same token, if let's say my brother's being about to be chased by a mob or the mob is getting whipped up and there's a guy on the stage whipping the mob up, and if he succeeds, he's gonna get the mob to lynch my brother. Could I shoot the guy on the stage before he whips the mob up into a frenzy to save my brother's life? And I say, hell yes. So three of that shows an incitement can be a crime, but anyway. Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, you were saying you disagree with an autonomy data right? Well, so what I was gonna say is if someone has enough information about you, again, like I said earlier, identity theft itself is not a crime. It's the key, it's not the trespass. It's the use of it. So if someone uses data, but on the other hand, like let's take doxing. If you publish on the internet, a lot of private information about someone you dislike, hoping that someone else will pick up that data and go harm them at their house or something like that. I think you could in some cases make an argument that you're somewhat causally responsible for what happens. Sort of like- Yeah, you think that's a tort though. You think that's a sort of- Well, I don't distinguish torts. I think there's only one thing in law, and that's trespass. That's a violation of the use of someone's resources without their permission. Whether you call it a crime, or a tort, or a property trespass, whatever. It's basically the simple using someone's resource without their permission. Let's go back to your key example. How did this person get a copy of the key, right? Was it, did I give that person a key and then say you can no longer come into my house? Is that what we're assuming? No, actually not. I think even if you, even if I gave you a copy of the key, but I put limits on what you said- Yeah, you said don't come in until you ask me first. I'm gonna be on my- Like I said, if you don't, what if you don't lock your door at all? There is no key. Or what if I leave the door wide open? Yeah, yeah. But you were saying that the information is not the crime, it's the key to the door. Well, and it could be a crime to acquire the information too. But that'd be a separate crime. That'd be a separate crime. That'd be a separate crime. If you break it into, well, if you, I leave my keys at the courthouse and they actually just take an image of it, right? I didn't know that. I lost my keys, I dropped them, right? And so I go home and it turns out that I find out in some way that an impression's been made of my key. So all they have is an image of it. Now I'd say an interesting weird application of this, kind of sci-fi, kind of Bitcoin-y would be, let's imagine I have a passive scanner and I can scan your brain from across the room without violating the rights. So now we're getting into the, I shot through a common law case before we, go ahead, go ahead. Well, so if I scan your brain and I get your memories from that. And so now I know your passwords and all this kind of stuff. So if I use that, if I use the password, like to open the door on your house and break in, that is itself trespassed because I'm using your house without your permission. But if I use- But your scan is not trespassed. No, the scan itself is not trespassed. However, if I get your Bitcoin private key from that, and then I use that to go take your Bitcoin from the network, I would argue that's actually not a violation because number one, you don't own the Bitcoin unlike your house, which you do own. So you don't own the Bitcoin and the taking of the information was not a trespass. So you would have the right to scan people's minds and take their Bitcoin. Sorry. Of course, if that was possible, they would just change the protocol. So, but anyway. So are you using this as an example that you don't agree with or that you do that? You can- No, that's my view. That's my view. Okay, all right. So that's a good way to put it, especially as we, I sent through more versus regions of University of California, because I just going back to Habeas data and a personal autonomy right over pattern information. I think that's very much the question in the, for the gene, for the gene therapy people and, you know, even as we get into AI, is this instantial version of yourself? Is it yours, right? This pattern of information that described to you. So, you know, this is one of the cases that you come across in IP and constitutional law over whether an individual can exercise a claim over a treatment derived from his cells. And I think- Well, that's more complicated. I mean, I would say you don't own yourself in the first place, you only own your body. Right, and apparently they're saying discarded white blood cells, but they were unique and they fought leukemia somehow. You know, they went after profits on a, you know, a kind of breach of confidence, fiduciary breach. And to me, that's kind of, and that's to me is uninteresting from a libertarian theory point of view, because it's just a detail of whatever the contract was. And so whatever it was determines how you should treat the case. And it's just not interesting for me. I'm saying that habeas data makes it interesting or more interesting once again, because if you have this right to this pattern, that, you know, the court perhaps rightly found that he didn't have entitlement to a share of the profits as such, but what if you had the right to request that any information describing your genetic code or your personal information inside your body be destroyed, then you would- Again, hold on, from a private or from a state actor. Well, I mean, it's University of California. So keeping it simpler, we can assume a state actor, but, you know, we could go there to private actors, but if you have the right to say, you have to destroy this information insofar as it's about the inside of my body, then you would have a sort of de facto, you wouldn't have a property right as such to the research or the profits, but you would have a bargaining chip. You would have leverage in this process. So they would have to come back to the table and they would have to make a deal with you. Well, you see, like I said, I don't mind any prophylactic rights or fake rights that limit what government does. The problem is when you state them like a right like that, they take on a life of their own and then they're going to be applied against private companies. I think that's the interesting question for today is when we take on a life of our own as persons, as human beings, right? Do we have, does that come with some rights to the information inside our bodies about ourselves, about our genetic code? And as in your example, scanning of the brain. So... Let's go back to what rights are and how they arise. I mean, let's see where we disagree because to me, a right is simply the legally or societally recognized propriety or ability to control a scarce resource. And it's really not even the right to control, it's the right to just exclude others from controlling it, that's it. So rights are really the recognized, legally recognized ability to prevent other people from using a certain scarce resource. Your body... You said you want to frame them in terms of trespass. So it'd be trespass to use someone's resource without their permission Trespass in common law is always actionable per se, right? If you walk on my land. I'm generalizing and broadening the context. Trespass, I'm just using to mean a use of resources without someone's permission, that's all. Right, right. So if there's no harm, I mean, at least in property law, we'd learn that even if there's no harm, you can still action for trespass. Correct, I'm not focusing on harm. I'm focusing on using someone's resource without their permission. Without their permission, yeah. So if the inside of your brain has a pattern of information, we would agree that the pattern of information is infinitely reproducible and that it's difficult to assert ownership of a series of numbers as such, right? Because it's not scarce. There's no rivalry of benefits to information that's infinitely reproducible per se. So trespass, I look at trespass as, so for example, when I'm moving around right now, I have gravitational waves that are going in electromagnetic waves because they go forever. They're going through your body right now. Or if I broadcast a radio signal for that is perturbing the electrons in your body, but it's not doing it in a way that interferes with your use of your body, so it's not trespass because it's a use of your body, but it's not one that interferes with your use of it, right? And because your right is the right to prevent you from, anyway, so, but that's where the law of nuisance comes in. Like, so if I shoot a laser beam at you, that's also let your magnetic energy, but that actually does harm and damage the integrity of your body. Or your eyes. Which prevents you from using it as you see fit. So that is a trespass, but a passive, so I think a passive, no, this is sci-fi. Passive brain scan, yeah, it's fine. Passive brain scan. I think it's impossible actually, but if I can scan the inside, well, let's take something, let's say we do develop something with X-ray vision and so now I can see what women look like naked. Okay, now, you know, the 14 year old fantasy, right? When you read Superman. Are you violating someone's rights by looking at them naked? Yeah, I have to. To me, it's no different than if someone is naked in their house and they leave their window shades open. So they're making it technically, physically possible for someone to observe information. And if they want to stop it, they have to take means to stop that. They have to draw the shades. And in a society where- People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at the sort of thing. I guess. I mean, that's using the metaphor, but that's okay. I just don't see that you own data. I mean, I don't know what you mean. I mean, your ownership of, you own your body, I believe in the Hopi and kind of you, you have a property right in your body because you have a better connection to your body because you directly control it. So that's the root argument for self-ownership. And then the ownership right in other resources is because of the connection between your body or your person and those things by demonstrated by first use, original appropriation or contract from someone else. So those are like the three principles of libertarianism is like you own your body because you have the best connection and you own other things if you were the first to use it or you got it from an owner by contract. That's it. That's all of libertarianism basically. So I think the brain scan is good passive brain scan because it's not fraud per se or trespass per se. Although I think there's an argument, there's some gray area there. It could be contract breach. It could be contract breach in many situations. Or it could be trespass. I mean, just because it's passive. Yeah, I don't know. I just think that that's not the only criteria. Well, I think let's say I X-ray someone. They're walking through what they think is a metal detector at my house and it's really an X-ray scanner. I'd say that's trespass because X-rays are harmful, right? Because they could cause cancer and stuff like that. So it's actually imposing a harm on someone. So I think if you do that without telling someone you're actually committing a type of a battery. Yeah, I don't know. X-ray is a good example because of the minuteness of the probability of the cancer is one in 10,000 or something ridiculous like that. But maybe we have something with a higher probability. Yeah, I just, I think even I chose that on purpose because I think it's low probability but I think that most people... Yeah, so it's a minute trespass, right? It's a de minimis. Well, I think it's the measure of the damages may be small, but I think that... It's a trespass, yeah. Most people would agree that before you X-ray someone, you need their consent. Yeah, okay, yeah, yeah. Anyway. So you think the brain scan, a passive brain scan, or imaginary passive brain scan has no harm and the X-ray does my new harm? Well, the reason I brought it up is I can't imagine a brain scan that actually works that doesn't do at least as much harm as the X-ray does. So I think actually it's hard to imagine a really passive brain scan. Okay, mosques, satellites for cell phone, for wifi across the globe, SpaceX satellites, they can... Whether or not there's a public-private partnership, they can scan our brains without harm, they can create a top-down 3D map. Well, a better example would be the AI you mentioned. If we have AI, we're again imagining something that I think is almost impossible, but theoretically an AI could just observe what you do and it could come up with some kind of map of how your brain works and it could generate a model of your brain and predict what you know, so... I read a blurb and this is taking this too far, that memory is the reason AI is not working right now for innovative, for human innovation to capture sort of novelty or our way of solving problems is because we have a very spatial way that we access memory and I didn't fully understand the article, but it's analogous to a GPS system or something like that, three coordinates. Well, I'm skeptical of AI ever working. It might, I think if it works, we have to grow it. We can't design it, but anyway... Well, let's assume for a moment that they crack the, they crack scanning every single neuron in your brain and being able to replicate you. I mean, I just scanned you by virtue of the Zoom call and I can clone you and have this conversation with you in my room without you. Well, I think even if you can scan someone, doesn't mean you can duplicate them. That's a whole different technology too, but... But you're saying the scan is not trespass, so... Well, what I'm imagining is, I'm saying, assume we have an AI, which is almost a God-like intelligence. Theoretically, that AI could know your memories from a passive observation of you. Like, you can just look at what you do and use mathematical... Okay, that wouldn't be trespass, yeah. Okay. No, it wouldn't be trespass at all. I think I agree with that. Okay, so you've captured something that's personal information about you that you're freely kind of giving out and that's not trespass, so I think we'd agree there. Or God, you just take God. God presumably knows everything, so God knows what the contents of your memory is. God's been kind enough not to create multiple versions of us. That we know of. There may be infinite Earths out there. Well, we might have a cause of action in a parallel universe, right? We just have to find a way to assert the claim. No, because God's our owner. God's our owner, so he has a... He's got some sort of immunity. Yeah, God is our owner, so we're basically... So we're basically defending God, okay. So if the state is maintaining a second version of us in a parallel universe, then we have a cause of action for that. Well, the Lockean idea is that God owns everything. So basically, this whole libertarian sphere we're living in is just a playground or a game set up by God. He lets us pretend like we have freedom with respect to each other inside of his rules, but really we're all slaves to God. All right, so I think we've canvassed the... Whether completely or not, we've canvassed the natural law aspects pretty... We've canvassed them at least. So I thought as well that the utilitarian approach, just it wouldn't be clear from a first approach, whether habeas data, varying degrees of habeas data would be a utilitarian optimal or not in a society, if you will, even in an anarchic society against public or private actors. But I think that the easier your way is to look at it as a stop-get measure that's arisen because of rights violations. And so as you call it, a civil or a prophylactic remedy. I mean, I think that's as it exists now. So I think that that's easy to embrace, but... Well, I mean, if you just take whatever the rights are like in the U.S. to ask for the FIJA or what... Not FIJA, the FOIA information act stuff. Even if others can do it. I assume there's some kind of right to get, to know what your FBI file is or something like that. I don't think that we have that in the U.S. because they're gonna claim a law enforcement exemption. I know people request it from time to time and I've heard stories that libertarians, they request their FBI file and then there's nothing there and they get disappointed that they're not a threat. They're not a threat to the state. Don't they know I'm dangerous, man? I'm a threat to them. That's funny. Yeah, so let's assume that U.S. law has a police exemption, law enforcement exemption. And I think that begs the question. Because in the Latin countries right now as it's evolving, you would have that right against the FBI. Because your right to access your personal information comes from a different perspective. Well, again, so I guess I would favor any laws like that. I just think the basis of it is because the state is inherently criminal and anything we can do to limit their power is good. And that's the easy way to agree, right? It's not really because you have a right to your information about you because it's part of your autonomy and body. And if you put it that way, the danger is that will become a private right used against private corporations or private individuals. That's not automatically a bad though. We have to sort of decide that that's, you know, the slippery slope, you know, we have to sort of agree that that's very, very bad. I guess we could argue about whether it's bad or good on net and all that, but to me, I'm interested in the truth and do our rights really extend the information? And I just say no. Now, let me just mention one other thing that's, one thing I've tried to do in recent years is you have to be really precise with all these terms because- Yeah, I mean, we'd have to hammer some of that. And so, well, I just mean like, so the word property, I try when I'm being precise to say, like, if I own a car, I don't say the car is my property. I'd say that I have a property right in the car. So I own the car. But to call the right, so the word property is really just the type of a relationship between you and an object with respect to other people, but we over time in casual use, we say the car is property. And the reason I think we do that is because, well, the original word started used because it's the word proprietary. Like it- Shadow or chosen action, thing in action, a bundle of rights. I think that the word chose exists, but it's a bit abstract or okay. No, but what I'm trying to get at is, I think that the reason that we use the word property as a noun to refer to the thing that you have a property right in is because when we act as humans in the world, we employ scarce resources or means to extend our reach into the world, right? So over time, over time, these means or tools that we gather about us become an extension of ourselves. They become a property of ourselves or a characteristic or a feature of ourselves. So if I have a knife or my clothes, those are all resources that we own, but they become so bound up with their identity that we call them a property of ourselves. And then we start saying, well, that's my property. But- The word private property to the state- I know. Go ahead, go ahead. Well, that's another- I'm kind of drifting this on you. In a way, the word private property is a misnomer because in a sense, property rights are inherently public because the nature, the purpose of property rights is to put up publicly visible boundaries so other people can observe and respect the borders of your property. So in a sense, private- In a sense, property rights- Property is an oxymoron in a limited sense. It should be called public property in a sense, but it's just the way these terms have- Well, the way the law has evolved in the US with Fourth Amendment and even going into abortion rights without discussing abortion as such, is they've grounded some rights in privacy. And it only recently occurred to me as we talk about privacy versus private property, I thought we were talking about different things. You know, those are different strands of law. A privacy right grounded in the Fourth Amendment or some penumbres and shadows of the Constitution. It's different, right? They're not talking about a property right or private property in the sense that we mean- No, what they mean is the right to be, to have a sphere of conduct or action- Fear of non-afference by the state. And so again, that's the Fourth Amendment. That's what I mentioned earlier. It's a prophylactic right. It's not a real natural right. It's just a way to limit what the government can do to us. But we would say that, you know, your natural rights begin at your door or at your castle gate, you know, whichever you choose or would we not? Well, I think we have to be careful when we mix in legal analysis with libertarian analysis. Yeah, okay. So libertarian analysis, you build the fence, you build the wall, you mix your labor with the scarce resource. You know, it's a public signal, here's my gate. I wouldn't describe it by saying your rights end at your door. I mean, that's more of a metaphor. Begin at your door. I wouldn't say the, I mean, that implies they have a location or a starting place. I would just say my rights are the rights to exclude others from using certain identifiable resources according to first owner's original appropriation and contract and so forth. Yeah, that makes it hard, because yeah, and I see why the brain becomes something that can be sort of replicated because it's not, it's not something that you're using to exclusion in the sense that... Well, you can't have conflict over data or information. Data can be held and... Conflictability was your expression? Yeah. Conflictable resources. Yeah, yeah. Or conflictable things to be more precise, like conflictable things. A thing in the civil law term of any cognizable object that could be subject of legal rights, but a conflict of conflictable one only. So let's go back to, or let's start with Ray Vindicazio, the Roman civil law claim, give me back my stuff. You took it. Yeah, in English civil law it's called revendication, actually, like in Louisiana. Yeah, okay, there you go. So... From that Ray Vindicazio's land. Yeah. Revendication. There's another, you know, there's another common law term, I think, but that's the civil law term. Correct. So let's just take it. Did you know that I wrote a civil law to a common law dictionary? That's awesome. No, I didn't know. I have that stuff in there. The importance of Louisiana is only recently felt by the law student, you know, down the line, but that's pretty cool. I came across... It is, it's fascinating. Anecdotal, but I came across some stuff on Novus Actus Interveniens from South Africa and it's really cool the way that the different treatment of the same concepts evolves in the different systems, but civil law still seems like a bit of an alien when you've grown up in the U.S. system even as you're exposed to international and other jurisdictions, you still don't really understand what it means because you're always wondering how can the courts not look at the previous decision or something like that? I don't know. It still seems like this strange monster. You know, Hoppa, Hoppa has some interesting comments where he sort of inadvertently, obviously took my side, but like, because I've written in favor of the civil law or the Roman law in some ways, like I think the common law is superior in some ways, but the civil law is better in so many ways. This idea where the court knows the law, I forget the Latin curia, I don't remember the exact Latin, but... I can't remember that. I know that there's something called judicial notice in most legal systems where the court can take judicial notice of obvious facts like... I think the civil law notion is that when parties are not arguing adversarily, then the court applies the law. The court is the repository of knowledge. They don't need the adversarial argument. And I think that's really shallow in the common law systems is that the court generally would limit itself to what the parties argue. And if the parties are unsophisticated or poor, then the argument's not very rich because they can't hire expensive lawyers or they're not legal dictionaries themselves, right? Yeah, I can't remember that one, but... I'll find you the Latin, it's very simple, curia, use nocce or something like that. My declension is not as good as it used to be. But the court applies the law. But going back to Reykjavik and Degasio... Yeah. Although I think we should do a separate quick one if you will have time or if we'll be interested on the commerce clause and limited powers, because Barnett missed the... I think he missed part of his commerce clause analysis on his paper that's already 30 years old. Well, I've been persuaded by Sheldon Richmond. I've been persuaded by Sheldon Richmond that the interstate commerce clause and other clauses in the Constitution were actually way broader than we would like them to be. Yeah. Although I don't like to admit it because I think that in court, I would argue for a narrow construction. Right, because we don't want to rely on just originalism. That's the... It's not just that. I think John has... I'm increasingly persuaded that the Constitution was evil and centralizing, and it's not the protection of rights which stupid libertarians think it is. The word constitution means to constitute, to make up. The whole purpose was to create a new central government. The purpose wasn't to protect rights. It was to create a new powerful government. Yeah, no, they only thought of the Bill of Rights. It was an afterthought, right? They had to throw rights in there just to sell it. He's passed this thing? Okay, maybe we should have some rights. Yeah, just to make it palatable. And I'm also persuaded by John Hasnes, his myth of the rule of law paper, that a lot of the stuff... Now, his argument goes mainly to legislation and statutory law. It's not as objective as we'd like to pretend it is. And I think that's correct because statutory law, in that I would include the Constitution because it's kind of a statute. It's just not natural... It's not natural developed law. It's just the decree of a committee of bureaucrats and it doesn't have an objective meaning all the time and it's usually results of compromise and it's intentionally vague. So there is no objective way to interpret it in many, many cases. Although I would still push for the judges to interpret it in a liberty direction as much as they could in just one. We want a bounded activism, right? I always thought as well, originalism is a proxy. Correct. Proxy position, right? What we want is a constrained activism that prefers activist readings at certain key areas. Well, right, right. I've argued in one of my papers that the Constitution only has instrumental value. Like we're only in favor of constitutionalism to the extent that it produces liberty. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But that's because the government defining the government limiting aspects of the Constitution, including the environmental power structure and the Bill of Rights, those things... I would say proxy, right? You would say instrumental value. Well, what I mean is if we had a Soviet Constitution or something horrible, we wouldn't want it to be interpreted literally because that would be... We wouldn't want it at all, yeah. It's sort of like the argument, like if you have a government agency, do you want it to be efficient or not? And if it's building the roads, yes. But if it's enforcing the drug war, you want that to be inefficient. So it depends upon the purpose at hand. All right, so I'm still putting that aside and saying Ray Vindicatio versus a revindication versus access for trespass and data breach. So let me... Let me, since we're talking about this, I found my dictionary. Here's the definition of revindication, at least in American civil law. Go ahead. So revindication, and by the way, I don't have a common law term here, so I never did find a common law analog. There must be one, but revindication is an inominant, which just means it's not a special type. So it's a real action, which means against real property, available to the owner for the recovery of a movable thing and for the recognition of his ownership. Okay, now... Now this is very analogous. Moveable would include, in the civil law, movable would include intellectual property because they're movable because they're not immovable, but they're incorporeal or intangible. They're incorporeal, but yeah, so in a nominate real action, so if the law would classify information as a type of real thing, which it does when it recognizes intellectual property, then you could have a revindication available. Right, so let's take that remedy. Yeah. We say that that's good in libertarian natural reasoning. Right, it's sort of like specific performance in a contract. Right, you're not claiming money damages. You're looking for equitable revindication. What was the contract? What was the contract that was breached? Well, that's the thing, you're using trespass. It's analogous to specific performance. You're saying, if you trespass, I don't want money damages, I want back my stuff. I want back... What was the trespass that was committed to get the information you're trying to get back? Well, I think that's the key. In cases where there was a crime, I think that Habeas data allows us to highlight the relief. So I would totally agree in that case, but I would agree because it's just the damage that was done was a consequence, a specific type of consequence of trespass. That's not automatic remedy. I mean, that's not an encoded remedy, if you will. As far as I can tell, I mean, there might be Enrico or the Computer Fraud and Anti-Crime Act, whatever they are, you know, you might have... No, it's not automatic in the law, but what libertarianism would permit, I think that there's a broad range of remedies that you have to give the victim of any kind of trespass or tort. Right, and here we're saying it's not money damages, it's something else, it's a different species. Absolutely, I mean, in my long paper on rights on the Estoppel thing, I argue that the victim should be able to choose among as many options as he or his attorneys can imagine. Which is awesome. Because that's the way to minimize harm done to him because he can never undo the crime. So pure restitution is impossible. So you want to minimize the harm and the minimization of the harm. The other concept in fraud is restitution, zero out of the integral, which is a restoration to the... Yeah, restoration, that's without the end. But that's impossible. So true restitution is impossible. It actually desires as much as possible to restore the victim. And the Austrian insight into subjective value means that whatever the victim prefers is the best way to make him as whole as possible. So like I gave the example in the case of a real crime, I mean, a violent crime like assault or rape or murder, the victim might prefer to punish the aggressor or he might prefer to enslave him or he might prefer to forgive him or he might prefer to get money from the guy. Like whichever of those remedies he prefers is the one... Yeah, the cause and the right lies with the victim, the right to... Exactly, exactly. He should have the right to get whatever he wants within bounds of proportionality. Yeah, okay. So jumping around, hopefully not too much. So if the state collecting information is always trespass or a crime, then we have habeas data on... We have agreement to habeas data on a different sort of principle that the state is always... Their only means is to expropriate and steal. So any time they constitute an agency and it collects information, it's actionable. Well, there's another argument you could use. You could say that... So the state is what we call a standing threat to our liberty. Sure, okay. It's always a threat. And therefore, you have the right to know it. You have the right to know what they know about you simply to minimize the threat. Yeah, I think that's the more operative way in these Latin American countries and the evolution of habeas data in that way. Because from the anarchist perspective, so you take the legal principle, a farciari racion, right? Which is like the greater includes the lesser. So if from the anarchist point of view, we have the right to abolish the state because it's a standing threat. And it's an actual aggressor. So if you have the right to abolish the state, then you have the right to demand that they at least turn over the data they have that they're going to use to persecute you. Okay. It's a lesser remedy than abolishing the state. So you have the right to kill the state. So you have the right to do something less. Right. I guess we're taking the, I hopefully the narrower example where there's been some trespass in order to get data. Well, that makes the, well, again, the government's always committing trespass by its own nature. Right. So I'm, yeah, I don't know. Something that would meet the private standard of trespass. Yeah, that would make the case even clearer. That would make the case clearer and the type of remedy clearer. I agree with that too. I think that's starting with agreement. That's the simplest. But when you make a legal analysis like you're trying to do, all these libertarian arguments are going to fall on deaf ears, you know that. I mean, they're going to want the classical. Oh, yeah. I think I'm just hoping to trace the origin of the right. And then I want to analogize to the right to know the right to truth when there's forced disappearance of loved ones. I think at least in the Philippines, habeas data means that as well. So I have this cool example where it encompasses both, you know, your right to access your personal information and your right to know where your uncle is. So I think I want to focus on, you know, crime and cover up for crime. And those examples that I gave you in the email were misprision of felony where you know someone committed to felony and you're having, you're getting some benefit and you're not spilling the beans. And I think there was another one. I mean, they use perversion of justice overseas, but that's maybe not the best example for present purposes. So I mean, to take a more prosaic example that's a little bit unrelated. I mean, imagine someone has kidnapped your daughter and they've got her hidden away somewhere. Yeah. I think in that case, even if they kidnapped her and you recovered her, and then the punishment you could inflict on the guy is limited by balance proportionality. Like let's say you could do something to him, but you couldn't murder him or kill him. But if she's still missing, I think you have the right to do anything to the guy to torture him, to force him to reveal the information he has about where she is, because it's an ongoing crime. I, we came, it's a lot of a science, but we came across torture, you know, freedom from tortures and human rights. And I said, well, what about, you know, we didn't really analyze the private right for retribution. And I just said it's categorically different as well. I don't know if that means that we should permit it in all cases, but. No, not at all, but I mean, it should, well, it's sort of like, you know, people say that slavery is illegal, but the 13th amendment didn't abolish slavery. It just, it just, it said you. Especially not for law students. No, it said that slavery is still permissible for its punishment for. For crime and the government can make whatever they want to be a crime. So basically slavery is still, I mean, what if the government said, well, they can't say it's a crime to be black because that would theoretically violate the 14th amendment. But they could make, I mean, they already have, we have slavery because we've outlawed drugs and people go to jail for violating that. Or if you don't show up for your draft duty, you know, the draft is a great one for 13th amendment because they dodged that in, I think it was Brian, United States versus O'Brien. They dodged the question of the draft being, a peacetime draft being constitutional, but you have the 13th amendment, you know, in more recent history. So you, a draft post 13th amendment hasn't been looked at. Well, and what about taxation? You can go to prison for not paying taxes too. So, I mean- Yeah, yeah. We have- That's the 13th amendment, right? And by the way, people in prison have to work for pennies on the dollar. So we have, we have- Is that in all cases? I'm just saying it happens. Yeah, of course. Yeah, you have different- And so we criticized China for having slave labor, but we have slave labor here. In fact, we have more prisoners, I think, in the U.S. than any other country in the world. It's crazy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So that was, we started there on, not on slavery. I don't know how we got there, but maybe we got there through slavery. Yeah, I guess that's, oh, maybe it was just crime. So- Well, it's an example of how you can basically have flexibility and remedies. And so I was just pointing out in a bad example, but slavery is not really illegal, unfortunately. Right, right, yeah. But what I meant was in a private context- Yeah, private slavery. So because you have flexibility in what you can do to an aggressor, you could do some kind of revendication of data. Which includes, yeah. Yeah, okay, so we agree that if there's a private trespass, there might be a private remedy as well. And if the public trespass mirrors private trespass, then it should maybe exist as a remedy. I guess I was just focusing on when the state commits what everyone else would recognize as crimes. So when the state commits an otherwise illegal crime, according to, you know, recognize state law, that would be the coolest area to show how habeas data might offer relief where existing law wouldn't. And I would also say in that case, I would even be in favor of your right not only to make them reveal what they know, but to destroy it. Right, so deletion is sort of, I would say it's the third level. I mean, unless you also want damages or some other remedy, but I would say deletion is that third level of, you know, one access to correction, three deletion. It's the higher level. But then, and that's what translates, that's what translates to the private right to be forgotten where- Yeah. I think they have that in Europe where like you can tell Google to like remove from their search records some information about you. European privacy directive or something like that. And I think- I'll be getting into all this a bit more, but- Which is kind of like we say that for children who have criminal records as children when they reach a certain age- Expunction, yeah. They can have it expunged, something like that. Yeah. Contract with a minor is evocable within a certain time with a minor reaching the age of consent, right? Something like that. Or permanently revocable. Yeah, that's neat. So I guess that brings us to the, you know, assuming we, let's just assume as well, argument that we can ask the state to delete it on let's say terms the state would recognize would be habeas data, we'd be in favor of that. But then- The fourth level, of course, is saying to a private company, you know, no, you can't have that. I think that's where we'd have the, assuming I'm taking the devil's advocate, the strong habeas data position, then yeah, we would disagree. I would say that certain information, you know, if it was within a private sphere, even if their trespass was non-invasive and they're not doing anything with it, even if their way of accessing it was non-invasive or you didn't notice it and they're not doing anything with it. That would be the coolest area of disagreement where the millennials following Snowden and Julien Assange, and other experiences would probably say that we want to be able to delete our personally identifying information from certain private companies that hold records. You know, maybe not when people were in privy, you know, normal contract with, normal privy of contract with. I mean, that's a little different. Right? You know, if you're ordering from the supplier, then. You know, you might want to take a look at, did you read Jeff's dice, fairly recent article or speech? I think it was an article on Mises about a month ago. It was about Clarence Thomas and one of his decisions, one of his arguments about, well, a free speech or something like that. And- What Clarence Thomas gets wrong about big tech. Exactly. There you go. Guy is just sort of arguing a little contrary to say, me and Rothbard and Walter Block, that we should have a very legalistic notion of these things. And like, like defamation law is totally illegitimate. He's arguing that, well, in today's age, with cancel culture, you can be harmed so much by a big tech company relying upon a false rumor about you, you know, or your employer could fire you if someone just calls you a pedophile or something like that. Maybe we should let the common law courts take that into account and develop a type of defamation type action, which I disagree by the way. Yeah, defamation is a, oh, you don't, I mean, that's a good example. So you don't think defamation should be actionable per se? No, then that's it. I think that's black letter libertarian from Rothbard and Block. No, defamation should be, it's not a crime because- Okay, all right. So that's a good one. So what about these sort of common law crimes like conspiracy against rights in the US or tortuous interference with a contract? Well, so tortuous, conspiracy is a different thing. I think collective action, like I said earlier, I think the- Well, there's economic conspiracy and criminal conspiracy, I just want to- Well, economic, that's probably problematic in most cases, but to make that illegal, but- Well, tortuous interference and economic conspiracy, let's say- Well, I mean, all antitrust laws should be abolished. So there's nothing wrong with businessmen conspiring to set prices or whatever. I think there's nothing wrong whatsoever with that. Right. But I think that's- When we talk about defamation and we talk about, I'm analogizing to these things because- But when people conspire or act collectively, so I'll tell you the difference I've come up with. You can do a breach of contract, so by a third party, right? Well, that's a different, when people conspire collectively to violate someone's rights, they're all responsible. Contractual rights. No, no, no, hold on, Contra, I'm talking about like a, you know, a mafia, like a bank robbery. Yeah, sorry, so contractual expectations versus rights. Okay, so- No, so let's just take, let's take a bank robbery, like you have the guy that plans it, you have the getaway car driver, you have the guys that go into the bank with the shotguns. I think all of them are liable, like I think Hitler was liable for the war, and I think Truman was responsible for the bombs dropped on Nagasaki, even though he just gave orders, right? So I think they're all- Yeah, complicit. However, here's the difference with defamation. So let's say, okay, so let's say I incite a crowd to lynch someone, then I think unlike Rothbard, I think I'm potentially liable, but it's because I'm playing a causal role in someone's rights being violated, like the guy being lynched, he's being murdered, okay? But if I lie about you and I say you're a pedophile and that causes your employer to fire you, then the difference here is that the employer has the right to fire you. They're not violating their rights when they fire you. So the employer has the right to fire you for any reason. No, I would say more than per se, because- If you direct that communication to the employer, then you're seeking, you know, you're doing torches breach. You're seeking- Oh, no, no, okay, so hold on for a second on that. I'm simply, no, so under my understanding of a contract, which is Rothbard's, I don't even do contract as a set of binding obligations. So really there's no such thing as breach of contract. Expectations, yeah, set of expectations, right? It'd be better in contract law. It's not that, it's just that it's impossible to breach a contract because what contract is, is just the assignment of title to a resource that you own to someone else. That's all it is, it's a transfer of title. So a contract could just be seen as a web of these conditional, future oriented, interconnected, interrelated transfers of title to resources, which people own. So it's got, so for example, under law now, if you have a contract to do something, and if you don't do it, that's called a breach, but then because specific performance is rare, the remedy is just the payment of money. So you could just look at it as a contract, like I promised to perform a service and you transfer payment to me if I do it. So that's one conditional title transfer. And I transfer some money damages to you if I don't do it. So it's just two title transfers. So it's not a breach, so if I don't perform the service, it's not a breach of contract, it's just that something happened that was contemplated in the contract that triggered a transfer of ownership of a resource. This makes employment a bad example, right? That will employment is a bad example for... Well, so all employment is at will. There's no such thing as non-at-will employment because employment just means I agree to pay you money for performance of a service. Guaranteed payment and contracts for terms of the year. So non-at-will employment would just be employment where there's a guaranteed payment, that's all. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I hear you. So it makes framing... So there's no such thing as tortuous interference with the contract because contract is not a property right really of someone. Contract is just the way people transfer their resources. All right, I guess I really brought these things up as they affect information, you know... Well, and let me give you the best case I could think of for this. And it's when I've argued on intellectual property and I've, okay, patent and copyright are easy in the obvious ones. Trademark is the next one down. I think trademark law should be abolished for various reasons. But the fourth one that everyone ignores is trade secret. Now... Yeah, or NDA is right. Right, well, an NDA really has two functions. It's a contract and you can enforce that with normal principles of contract law. But it also helps to, hold on a second. It helps to bolster a trade secret right because if you're making an effort to keep some of the secret then you can prove you have a trade secret right. And then you can get a court order to try to keep a third party from leaking it. That's the whole point of it which is why it's un-libertarian. But you could argue in a narrow case. But the NDA is un-libertarian, I just wanna be clear about that. Not the NDA, so let's suppose... Well, it depends on how you enforce the NDA. I mean, so I would say an NDA is only enforceable against the third party by payment of monetary damages. But you could bring in trespass law too. You could say that the employer is in my factory and I don't permit him access to certain secret data. And if he breaks those rules and gets the data and then leaks it, he's committed trespass not just breach of contract but trespass. And then you could treat him in accordance with being a thief basically or a trespasser. But here's the point. So let's suppose my competitor hires one of my employees and bribes him basically to reveal data. He's not supposed to reveal according to his non-disclosure agreement. So that would be a classical case of inducing or tortuous interference with contract or inducing infringement. The problem from a libertarian point of view is that the competitors doesn't have privity of contract. But if you believe that the breach of contract by the employee is a violation of the rights of his employer, then you could make a strained argument that the competitor is inducing him to violate some of his rights. I think that's the key for TI tortuous interference that the competitor has reasons to know. There's also an analogy there too when communications are intercepted and the intercepting party or the receiving party knows that it was intercepted illegally. Correct. So when they know that there had to be a break-in or a trespass or a hack or something like that. The problem with that is then you could argue like that say, if there's a copyrighted image or an image that someone leaked that they shouldn't have leaked or information of a book file or a movie, it's on the internet, then it would be a backdoor into IP because you could say, well, third parties can't download this data because they know its source would be tainted, right? They're trying to go after the person who's about to upload the video or about to publish the news. No, not true. Not when they enforce copyright law, they're trying to... Right, no, I'm talking more in my way, my sense of private data. In that case, I would be in favor of an injunction type action to prevent someone from doing that. And the reason is because... Yeah, I think that's key. Can habea's data be the injunction? So I think if it's trespassing can for sure, if it's a mere contract breach, that's difficult, maybe. Well, that's where we are. There was some crime, it's evident that there was some crime. It's very personal information. Assume it's something that meets that standard, so it has to be like genetic code or email, I don't know. And I would tend to side with that right of the victim there. Yeah. The thing is trade secret law applies to third parties, and that's the difficulty. But if you're talking about the actual malseason... Yeah, I think we need to separate also this sort of patent copyright trademark from... This is just me in my house, right? It's just... It's not so much about the information being profitable. It's more this action for recovery, correction or deletion. Well, you might wanna look into something called common law copyright, which is pretty much obsolete now, but that was, by the way, it's not what Rothbard thinks it was in his paper. He made up something called common law copyright, which doesn't exist. Common law copyright was a previous right which evolved on the common law, unlike statutes like copyright is now. And it said that if you have an unpublished manuscript, like in your home or in your desk drawer, and someone takes it and they're about to go public or publish it, you can stop them from doing that. And to me, that's just, you don't need copyright for that. All you need is like... Trespass. Yeah, you can make a trespass and one of my remedies is to prevent you from making the damage worse. Yeah. So I think that's a good way to frame it is if we have habeas data and it allows us to pursue remedies for things that we gave away voluntarily, then it's problematic. Correct. Or it's a very strong way of viewing autonomy that we've never viewed it before. Well, another classic case would be, let's suppose you have a priest or a counselor or a doctor or a lawyer and you confide... Under a fiduciary relationship, yeah. You provide information to them and you have a relationship with them where they're basically contractually not supposed to reveal it. Fiduciary breach of confidence, yeah. So the question is if they breach that, well, if they breach it, you could always sue them for money damages, that's for sure. Right, but we're putting that to one side, yeah. Could you use force to stop them from doing it? That's a hairier question. I think it's highly fact-specific and nuanced. Yeah, well, fiduciary always is, right, so. Well, but from a libertarian point of view, the question is the concept of fiduciary responsibility. Psychiatric exception is they think you're about to go harm someone else, right? So if you're about to go breach someone else's rights, then usually it doesn't hold up. That's positive law and I think most of that's roughly compatible with libertarian principles. Yeah, I think so too. You're about to go breach, you're about to go kill someone, so guess what, your rights end. Correct, totally agree. So I think that's pretty in agreement with fiduciary stand more or less, with taxes, there's some ambiguity there because if your CPA is spilling your tax secrets. I would say if there's- The libertarian guilt turns back around. I would say the CPA is now in cahoots with it. He's conspiring with the IRS. He's part of the state. Yeah, he's part of the state now. But going back to that, the interesting area or maybe the novel area is where no one did anything explicitly criminal, but they have this information about you. And to stretch it the farthest, it's a private party and you wanna pursue an action with no imprimity of contract and no crime having been committed and no breach of contract, then you're in sort of the least libertarian area as you would put it. Yeah, I have to say- Unless we change our conception in some radical way to include this certain information being part of your persona, your body, your autonomy. And therefore, your self ownership, somehow includes certain information, especially that's found inside you because then we have a physical metaphor that we can look at. So the coolest- By the way, I think your argument probably would fly with a lot of mainstream legal perspectives. I think I've seen arguments like this. Well, I think it's new school privacy, right? It's just the question is how much of that is compatible or if we reorient our thinking, how much of that can fly? Now we're in the future when we talk about someone dying or someone having an AI copy of him or herself. How much of that is libertarian or unlibertarian? Maybe we can wait for libertarian philosophers in the year 2300 to figure this out when it becomes a problem. Yeah, we could. But in this going backwards example of more versus UOM, I think that my case for today versus UOC, sorry Regents of the University of California. My case for today is that if a painting wants internal organs, wants genetic code, what have you is initiated through fraud or breach of a fiduciary relationship. If we put the doctor as a pure fiduciary in his role with a patient and he takes the patient's private cells and he develops a treatment for them. If I had a remedy against the information itself to insist on the deletion of the information and its derivatives, then I wouldn't need a claim for money damages. Correct. And the risk there would be that that argument would then be used to say no one else can use that data too because you own the data. So that'd be like an IP. You'd have this weird, yeah, it'd be analogous to an IP right, but where the information was obtained through trespasser fraud. Yeah, but if you restricted to the person who did it, I wouldn't have too much of a heartburn about it. But once you're getting to fifth parties receiving treatment who are then being cured, I think that it's just at least a different way to look at more versus UOC, University of California, if he had this habeas right to his own cells. Sebastian, I got to go in a second. Me too, yeah, I thought this was a good way to close, but that's where I think it gets to be the most untrodden, if you will. Well, good luck with it and good talking to you. And we can talk later if you like. Yeah, another time, there was some cabins we augned in commerce stuff, the meaning of commerce as polite social discourse or something like that. It favors this activist interpretation. Talk about that another time, I guess. OK, man, we'll hang in there and we'll chat later. Think it easy. Thanks for the catch up. Bye, bye, bye.