GUTHERY%ASC@sdr.slb.com (Guthery) (01/19/88)
On the control of information by database companies, Mark Ritchie asks: > - What do you think of this distribution of the equivalent of a > blacklist for information subscribers? It's just fine. It's simply the description of an agreement among consenting adults. The government has told me I can't have a copy of your tax return for years. Has it blacklisted me? Sure! Is it OK? You bet. > - 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) It really is OK if you and I decide to share a secret. There is no right to know the secret we share. A group of people can decided to share secrets in a database. The payroll database where I work is such a computerized shared secret. Does a union or a church or an individual have a right to sniff around in this database? > 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. First, the information wasn't "public access" information but very private information. It was given to D&B under a strict confidentiality agreement. Much to their credit, D&B honored that agreement. ("... unable to gain access to information that they might otherwise obtain" either makes no sense or is a tautology. If the ONLY way they can obtain this information is from the database provider, then yes they are precluded from doing so just as they have historicaly been precluded from getting similar information from the IRS.) I'm reminded of the the old "I'm full-figured, you're a little overweight, he's fat" line of thinking. We seem to think that information about ourselves (SSN number, HIV virus count, etc.) is totally private, information about our friends can be given to a select few (like ourselves, of course), and information about total strangers such as companies everybody gets. When we develop rules, whether they're simply social agreements or legal structures, they should be consistent. We can't have one set of rules for our own private good guys (unions, gays, etc.) and another set for our own private boogie persons (companies, Baptists, etc.), unless, of course, we start to build in a world where the pigs are more equal. I suggest Mr. Ritchie work up a set of rules for access to his most private information and then simply apply these rules uniformly to everybody else's private information ... everbody means individuals and work cooperatives of individuals called companies. Guthery