news@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (News Subsystem ) (01/05/88)
[Apologies in advance for not having the references to the following... I
read this in one of the several computer magazines I subscribe to and can't
dig it out of the pile. Double apologies if I read this on the net and got
confused as to its origin (what with Christmas and flying to the in-laws. :-)]
Recently I read that a supplier of corporate information (Dun & Bradstreet
I think) which supplies information to DIALOG and related commercial
databases, had submitted a list of people who were to be denied access
to that database, on the grounds that those people's interests were
in conflict with the corporations listed. This list includes all
representatives of unions, union librarians, the ACLU librarians and
other organizations as well as individuals who D&B thought should not have
access. The information in question is the same information that is freely
available to other businesses and individuals who subscribe, and includes
such things as year end reports, credit reports, sales, directory-type
information, financial information, corporate holdings, etc. This is the
same information that I could call up on-line if I was thinking of buying
shares in a company. The number of companies is not small (over 3 million).
My question is this:
- What do you think of this distribution of the equivalent of a
blacklist for information subscribers?
- What are the implications of such an action for future information
networks? (Especially in regard to the discussions in this group about
the control of/access to information and its effects on society)
I am troubled by this action, as it would seem to set a precedent for
controlling "public access" information, so that certain groups (ie.
unions) would be unable to gain access to information that they might
otherwise obtain. Yet the database services are private commercial
enterprises, so they may well share the right to serve whoever they
please. What do you all think? (And if you know it, I would appreciate
the reference. If I can find it I will post it to this group)
Mark Ritchieandy@rocky.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman) (01/07/88)
(This has come up on comp.risks, risks digests to arpa fans, and this is the reply I sent to that group) The recent controversy over access to financial records of companies (the companies want to control it and some find this offensive) is somewhat similar to the continuing furor over records about people, except that popular opinion in the latter case is that the people should be able to control information about themselves. Is there an essential difference here and what is it? Is the corner gas station entitled to more privacy than IBM? Why? Are all the corner gas stations entitled to more privacy than IBM? (The former group is comparable in size to IBM.) Note that in the current case, companies collected the information about themselves while in most privacy invasion cases, the person doesn't collect the information. If one is going to argue on property rights alone, these companies are entitled to control access (to the information they collected) while people in the other case aren't. Andy Freeman
BACON@MTUS5.BITNET (Jeffery K. Bacon III) (01/20/88)
In reference to the comment by Mr. Freeman about the corner gas stations and IBM: My knowledge of law and such things is limited at best, to say the least. But it seems to me that the fundamental difference you fail to see is that IBM is a corporation, while the gas station is a proprietorship. Two very different things. According to the law, I do believe, a corporation can be considered as a separate person in the eyes of the law. Thus, those that manage it may be more inclined to take certain risks with the corporation, since they are far less liable for their actions. The owner of the corner gas station, on the other hand, has no such luxuries. His fate is tied in with the station's. This is why one might want the records of the corporation open: so that others might keep an eye on it. If you want to keep an eye on the health of the gas station, you can probably see it pretty well in the eyes of the station owner. And as for all the gas stations in conglomerate: All that you have is a conglomerate of gas stations. Assuming there is no association of gas station owners, there are no ties to speak of anywhere other than maybe a common interest. And even if there is, all you have is basically a special interest lobbying organization. To make any sort of economic entity to rival IBM out of them, one must put them under common ownership. And then, as long as it remains in a proprietorship, it need not be submitted to public inspection because its interests are still tied in with the interests of the owner(s). I know the argument is a bit flawed; forgive me. But I hope the point is made anyway. JB
SHATZER@UKCC.BITNET (Milt Shatzer) (01/20/88)
This in reply to Mark Ritchie's comment on Dun & Bradstreet's denial of information to certain groups (e.g., labor unions). One article on this topic is by Alice LaPlante in the December 14, 1987 issue of _Info World_. It seems the battle lines for the "wars" in the Information Age will be along the same old economic lines. Milt Shatzer
andy@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman) (01/23/88)
[We're talking about whether businesses have a right to privacy. I asked why the corner gas station had more rights than IBM.] Jeffrey Bacon writes: > But it seems to me that the fundamental difference you fail to see is > that IBM is a corporation, while the gas station is a proprietorship. > Two very different things. Yes, IBM is a corporation and corporations are legal entities which are different from other kinds of businesses, but many gas stations are owned by small corporations whose sole purpose is to own that gas station. In any case, I don't think a business's privacy rights depend on its structure. > Thus, those that manage it may be more inclined to take certain risks > with the corporation, since they are far less liable for their actions. All employees take risks with the business. That's the owner's problem; it isn't yours or mine. As far as keeping the records open to allow others to "keep an eye on it", what if the owners don't want these "others" to keep an eye on their business? Why does the right-to-know of these "others" depend on the structure of the business? (You agree that if one person owned all of the corner gas stations, that business would be entitled to privacy.) If "they" want to look at a business's records, "they" can make this a condition of their dealings with it, no matter how it is structured; lenders, suppliers, and customers do this all of the time. What, it would rather do without "their" business than disclose its records? (In that case, banks refuse to loan, but the bank still doesn't get the information.) What right-to-know do "they" have then and how does it depend on the structure of the business? Andy Freeman
smith@cos.com (Steve Smith) (01/23/88)
In article <1301@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> news@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (News Subsystem ) writes: |Recently I read that a supplier of corporate information (Dun & Bradstreet |I think) which supplies information to DIALOG and related commercial |databases, had submitted a list of people who were to be denied access |to that database, on the grounds that those people's interests were |in conflict with the corporations listed. This list includes all |representatives of unions, union librarians, the ACLU librarians and |other organizations as well as individuals who D&B thought should not have |access. The information in question is the same information that is freely |available to other businesses and individuals who subscribe, and includes |such things as year end reports, credit reports, sales, directory-type |information, financial information, corporate holdings, etc. This is the |same information that I could call up on-line if I was thinking of buying |shares in a company. The number of companies is not small (over 3 million). | |My question is this: | | - What do you think of this distribution of the equivalent of a | blacklist for information subscribers? | | - What are the implications of such an action for future information | networks? (Especially in regard to the discussions in this group about | the control of/access to information and its effects on society) | |I am troubled by this action, as it would seem to set a precedent for |controlling "public access" information, so that certain groups (ie. |unions) would be unable to gain access to information that they might |otherwise obtain. Yet the database services are private commercial |enterprises, so they may well share the right to serve whoever they |please. What do you all think? (And if you know it, I would appreciate |the reference. If I can find it I will post it to this group) | |Mark Ritchie One of the things that a single proprietorship or partnership gives up when it becomes a corporation is financial privacy. Matters like corporate holdings and financial reports are matters of public record. If this is the kind of stuff that is in the data base, then D&B is simply being petty. If it contains more sensitive information, then there is nothing keeping a union from contracting with Joe Blow, Consultant to feed them whatever data they want. Any company that lets anything really sensitive into a semi-public data base is being idiotic. I suspect that the reason that the companies involved are worried is that they *pay* to have that information listed. Its prime purpose, from their viewpoint, is to make the company look as healthy as possible, to attract investors. Those numbers are probably *not* the ones they use in negotiating with their unions, which presumably show the company at death's door. "Journalistic integrety" does not seem to carry through into the "information age". From the data base proprietors like D&B, it's "all the news you pay us to print". -- __ -- Steve / / \ / "Truth is stranger than S. G. Smith I \ O | _ O \ I fiction because fiction smith@cos.com / \__/ / has to make sense."