taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (01/12/87)
This article is from Jean Egbert <egbert@paxrv-nes> and was received on Sun Jan 11 14:55:55 1987 Regarding the question of why the general public seems so complacent about the massive amounts of private information which are stored on computers: perhaps it's a case of trust in the indifference of strangers. If I were in charge of one of those databases, I don't think I would be interested in poking around the private data of people I didn't know. The errors that occurr from time to time are not made from malice, or a wish to exercise power over someone else's life, but from simple human mistakes, accidents. I don't worry about the data on me in computer databases because I don't believe that the kind of people who like to rule others are the same kind who work with databases. Jeanie Egbert
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (01/18/87)
This article is from felix!dhw68k!david@seismo.CSS.GOV (David H. Wolfskill) and was received on Thu Jan 15 10:32:18 1987 I think that I probably missed at least one earlier contribution to this discussion. However, this is a matter of sufficient importance that I believe it should be brought up. Jean Egbert writes: >Regarding the question of why the general public seems so complacent about the >massive amounts of private information which are stored on computers: perhaps >it's a case of trust in the indifference of strangers...the errors that occur > from time to time are not made from malice...but from simple human mistakes. I cannot speak for why folks might be complacent (although I suspect that a combination of materialism, ignorance, greed, and apathy -- in no particular order -- have a lot to do with it). My concern is that anomalies regarding this information (such as credit data) can occur because the information in question is protected inadequately (to put it charitably). (I am thinking of cases where a "ring" of individuals, some of whom were employed by the firm that had custody of the information, would offer to "fix" an individual's credit rating for a fee. Although this may not qualify as something done with malevolence toward the "customer", the dictionary at my disposal (Webster's New International (unabridged), 2nd ed.) has the following: "malice ...4. Law. The state of mind manifested by an intent to commit an unlawful act...." I think that modifying the data in question -- in that manner -- would qualify as "malice" by this definition. (As I recall, in this case, so did the court.)) The above could be made more difficult by placing stricter controls on modification of the data. However, it is not clear to me that those controls would necessarily make improper dissemination of the data more difficult. One of my concerns here is that although tangible property must be protected against tampering or theft (to be protected adequately), information must be protected against improper acquisition: There are circumstances such that publication of confidential information could be damaging to an individual. The potential for damage is greatly increased if the information in question may have been subject to tampering before being published. The point, I suppose, is that I do *not* trust those who maintain the databases in which information about me is stored -- nor do I trust those who routinely make use of said information. david