telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (12/31/90)
In this issue of the Digest, I've included a greatly edited file I received discussing the plans of Lotus to market a national database of names, addresses, telephone numbers and other details. The opinion of the submitter was that this is going to be a terrible invasion of privacy, and a source of much incorrect information, leading to trouble for the individuals in the data base. I don't think this is the case at all. We've heard news in recent weeks about another national, computerized and publicly accessible database of telephone numbers and addresses: the one offered by Compuserve (GO PHONEFILE) to anyone who wants to pay a $15 per hour surcharge to use it in addition to normal Compuserve rates. The only thing different about the CIS program and the proposed Lotus program -- the only break with the past -- is that these are a little easier and more convenient to use. The information has always been there. Criss-cross directories, listing precisely the same information, have been around since before this century. Credit bureaus have had the information for just as long: the first credit bureau in this country started in the middle 1800's. There have been *regional* databases for many years containing all this information. You cannot place information about yourself in the public record and then object when someone gathers it all together in a convenient, easy for the public to read style. My home telephone numbers are non-pub. I have yet to see them in any criss-cross -- electronic or paper -- anywhere. Why should Lotus and/or Compuserve be castigated on this net any more or less than the Haines Publishing Company? Why should credit bureaus keep records and Lotus not keep records? How many times have you filled out credit applications and listed your salary and place of employment? Now you object that businesses rely on the information *you* provided earlier? If anything, the lesson here should be to keep your mouth shut. The less you say about yourself in public records, the less there will be to be compiled, but to repeat: you cannot do things publicly then object when someone recalls your public actions. There are numerous techniques -- perfectly legal ways -- to maintain your privacy. One is the use of non-pub telephone numbers. Another is by using post office boxes to receive mail. I use both of these. You look up my street address in the cross reference and you draw a blank. You can transact business with cash. When you start asking society for *privileges* -- i.e. extensions of credit, or the ability to pay your bills with promissory notes (checks are merely promises to pay at the time the check is presented to your bank) -- then you will be scrutinized based on your public actions to date. How can you legitmatly complain about that? Extensions of credit, writing checks, driving an automobile and signing contracts are not automatic rights in this country. No one has to do business with you. So we make trade-offs and put what information we think is important to our well-being in the public record. You turn this flow off and on at your will. Don't blame the compilers of the records for what YOU put there! Another point raised in the article dealt with the accuracy of the records maintained. The suggestion was that the records would be inaccurate and thus harmful to the individual named when the records were obtained by others. While there is no doubt that no database is one hundred percent accurate, how long do you think any credit bureau or information-gathering organization could stay in business if their records were chronically inaccurate? As as mail-order company, I ask the credit bureau for a list of AAA+ individuals I can solicit with my product for sale on open account credit. In error, the credit bureau supplies me a list of deadbeats. I ask Haines (or Lotus, or whoever) for a list of new residents in a community so I can attempt to sell them my real-estate services. In error they send me a list of people who have lived in their homes for thirty years. The information services have a vested interest in accuracy also it would seem. But they told you they would not correct your record, didn't they? What they meant was they do not accept *unsubstantiated and/or undocumented* requests for changes, additions and deletions. Part of acheiving the goal of accuracy and completeness comes from accepting changes to the database from reliable sources. Your intentions may be only the best -- not everyone operates the same way as yourself! In summary, Lotus and Compuserve are doing nothing that hasn't been done for many years in a different format. There is nothing unethical or immoral in compiling an overview of the PUBLIC actions of other people. When you buy and sell, transact business with the public and use publicly owned facilities, then you dig your own hole, so to speak. When you are called into court to answer for your actions, the Constitution of the United States says the trial will be open to the public ** for your protection ** among other things. We do not have secret courts and trials in the USA. And finally, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by not keeping accurate records. No one who buys the information wants inaccurate data. What good would that do them? If the records are maintained inaccurately out of malice or the records involve a true invasion of your privacy -- what you do in your home, on your own property, out of the public view -- then you have a complaint. Until then, you do not. Errors can be corrected by documenting the correct information. As disagreeable as I found the original article in this issue of the Digest, I printed it out of my own sense of obligation as a Moderator to fairly present both sides in issues of importance. I hope that further distribution of the article will include this reply. I hope also that our companion mailing list, telecom-priv@pica.army.mil will permit the many replies anticipated to be published. Patrick Townson