ian@airs.UUCP (Ian Lance Taylor) (02/06/91)
Randolph Fritz raises some interesting ideas in the referenced post (interesting to me, anyhow!). In article <7259@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> randolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) writes: >1. Start thinking about organizations as entities capable of criminal > as well as civil offenses. What does it mean to convict an organization of a criminal offense, and what is the point of such an action? Presumably a criminal conviction would have to carry a harsher penalty than a mere fine; otherwise, why not just use a civil suit? I can think of three main purposes to a criminal conviction: 1) to reform the organization to prevent future criminal actions (for example, the breakup of AT&T) 2) to destroy the organization to prevent future criminal actions (presumably if reform appears impossible) 3) to deter other organizations from similar criminal actions I am deliberately not including punishment for its own sake, since there seems to be even less point to applying that to an organization than there is to an individual. The most interesting purpose is the third. What sorts of actions can be taken to deter future criminal actions by other organizations? I would argue that organizations are less susceptible to ``crimes of passion'' than individuals are (I know that the Gulf War can be viewed as a counterexample, but I'll still stand by *less* susceptible), so I would assume that deterrence can be maintained by increasing the cost/benefit ratio to an unacceptable level. There is still the hardest part of deterring crime, which applies to individuals and organizations alike: detection. To completely shift gears, it is worth remembering that while organizations are entities in their own right, they are still run by people. Dramatic penalties for those individuals responsible for the crime might be a far more effective deterrent than any penalty applied to the organization. Determining who those individuals are, on the other hand, would probably often be very difficult, and in some cases there might be no responsible individuals at all. I'll let other people take it from here. >2. Begin to understand what makes an informed electronic community > "good" or "bad". Let's try to say why Usenet, certainly a service > which distributes a vast amount of personal information, is less of > a privacy concern than Equifax. Or should be be more concerned > with privacy here? One obvious concern with Equifax is that they can distribute personal information without the individual's knowledge. Usenet provides a means of distributing potentially damaging personal information to a vast number of people, but the person affected would almost certainly become aware of it (although the culprit would not necessarily be known). We should be aware that Usenet has a vast potential for harm, though, because it can be used as a cheap, easy, anonymous broadcast system (and as far as I know, it is the *only* such system in existence; newspapers edit their contents, and stapling notices on telephone poles is not easy). >4. Begin to explore the positive potential of this technology. > Granted that a large-scale database and network can give an > organization or community a kind of personality -- what are the > creative, constructive possibilities of this new capability? Can > we use it to make for more pleasant workplaces, saner cities? Saner cities? Sure. By allowing white-collar workers to work and communicate from wherever they choose, we can accelerate the flight of capital from urban centers and speed up their collapse into barbarism. A hundred years from now, they should provide convenient and fascinating guided tours of primitive society. (I don't think this is desirable, but I don't mean it as a joke). -- Ian Taylor uunet!airs!ian | If I were employed, my opinions would not be airs!ian@uunet.uu.net | my employer's. As it is, they are not anyone's.
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) (03/06/91)
In article <1204@airs.UUCP>, ian@airs.UUCP (Ian Lance Taylor) writes: > > One obvious concern with Equifax is that they can distribute personal > information without the individual's knowledge. Usenet provides a > means of distributing potentially damaging personal information to a > vast number of people, but the person affected would almost certainly > become aware of it (although the culprit would not necessarily be > known). This contains an assertion about Equifax and the opposite assertion about Usenet. I think both are naive. Usenet can distribute personal information about the individual members of the Supreme Court of the United States for a long time before those targets become aware of what is going on. If the target of a campaign is someone who hangs out on Usenet, then, yes, the target will become aware quickly. These two cases are different. When one of the purveyors of mailing lists distributes personal information, the information they distribute is a mailing address, the person buying it paid ten cents or a dollar for the information. The reason they spent the money was so they could make a targeted sales pitch. The pitch arrives soon, and the individual knows his mailing address has been distributed. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (03/11/91)
In article <3622.27d4c133@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) writes: >In article <1204@airs.UUCP>, ian@airs.UUCP (Ian Lance Taylor) writes: >> One obvious concern with Equifax is that they can distribute personal >> information without the individual's knowledge. [Comments about usenet deleted]. >This contains an assertion [which] I think both [is] naive. >When one of the purveyors of mailing lists distributes personal >information, the information they distribute is a mailing address, >the person buying it paid ten cents or a dollar for the information. >The reason they spent the money was so they could make a targeted >sales pitch. The pitch arrives soon, and the individual knows >his mailing address has been distributed. The individual gets mail, but s/he does not necessarily know what information about him/her was sold or who sold it. The individual may know his/her mailing address has been distributed, but s/he does not know what else was. Consider the case of the ``preapproved credit cards''; surely more information has been obtained than just the address. Anyway, when did I ever make Equifax my agent and ask them to sell info about me? David
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) (03/13/91)
In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > > Anyway, when did I ever make Equifax my agent and ask them to sell info > about me? > You freely gave information that is valuable and Equifax is selling it as the agent of the person you gave it to or as their own agent. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
night@itsgw.rpi.edu (Trip Martin) (03/15/91)
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) writes: >In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >> >> Anyway, when did I ever make Equifax my agent and ask them to sell info >> about me? >> >You freely gave information that is valuable and Equifax is selling >it as the agent of the person you gave it to or as their own agent. More like he was forced to give that information or be denied service. -- Trip Martin night@rpi.edu -- Trip Martin night@rpi.edu
ian@airs.UUCP (Ian Lance Taylor) (03/17/91)
In article <3778.27dd2150@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) writes: >In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >> >> Anyway, when did I ever make Equifax my agent and ask them to sell info >> about me? >> >You freely gave information that is valuable and Equifax is selling >it as the agent of the person you gave it to or as their own agent. While the information is freely given, it is easy to not be aware that you are giving out information, and it is hard to become aware, after the fact, that you have given it out. This could be considered a hazard of living in this society, but I would just as soon eliminate the hazard. This is some information extracted from a post to comp.risks (11.28) quoting a Wall Street Journal article (14 Mar 1991, p. A1;A8). (If you don't read comp.risks, you should check it out; if you don't get news, you can get on the mailing lists by sending to RISKS-Request@CSL.SRI.COM). The posting to comp.risks was made by Mary Culnan (mculnan@guvax.georgetown.edu). The rest of this post is quoted from hers (apologies to people who will see it twice). Specific lists cited in the article include: * Metromail's "Young Family Index Plus" which lists about 67,000 new births each week compiled from clipped birth announcements, referrals from Lamaze coaches and names acquired from companies that deal in baby supplies * America List Corp sells lists based on high school yearbook listings about virtually every high school class in the U.S. * Benadryl bought names and addresses (based on phone numbers sold to them) of people calling an 800 number for pollen count information * The Big 3 credit bureaus sell mailing lists based on aggregated credit data, e.g. "Credit Seekers Hotline" of people who recently applied for credit and are "prospects who want to make new purchases" Finally, an Atlanta-based company which prepares marketing questionnaires asks if there has been a recent death in the family. The company's President is quoted, "Death has always been a negative life style change nobody thought could be sold, but I differ. I think it's a very good market." -- Ian Taylor airs!ian@uunet.uu.net uunet!airs!ian Quoted from a courtroom deposition in the Boston Globe of February 18, 1991: Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people? A: All my autopsies have been on dead people.
etj90 (Khaos the Binary Warlock) (03/18/91)
In <3778.27dd2150@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) writes: >In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >You freely gave information that is valuable and Equifax is selling >it as the agent of the person you gave it to or as their own agent. >dan herrick So how does one avoid giving this info?
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (03/20/91)
In article <7T%=GY_@rpi.edu>, night@itsgw.rpi.edu (Trip Martin) writes: > herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) writes: > >>In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >>> >>> Anyway, when did I ever make Equifax my agent and ask them to sell info >>> about me? >>> >>You freely gave information that is valuable and Equifax is selling >>it as the agent of the person you gave it to or as their own agent. > > More like he was forced to give that information or be denied service. Ok, let's express it differently. He bought something that had two components to its price - some money and some information. He is keeping the thing he bought, but now he wants the information back (rendered unavailable to the person to whom he sold it). If the price was too high, he should not have paid it. When the market agrees with him, the price will come down. Don't talk about stealing the business assets of Equifax. That horse is already out of the barn. Close the barn door and keep the rest of your private information private by not giving it away. When you are signing insurance releases at a hospital admissions desk, add a time limitation clause. Or tell them you will pay and don't sign insurance releases. Move your checking account to a money market fund because *their* bank makes the obligatory pictures of all the checks of all the clients of the mmf and it is harder to segregate yours. Use cash instead of a credit card or check. Don't tell *their* computers where you are and what you are doing. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. If you have been asleep at the watch tower, then you have given away some freedom. Start watching where you make a computerized record that is easy for them to use and stop doing it. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
woolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) (03/21/91)
In article <1225@airs.UUCP> airs!ian@uunet.uu.net (Ian Lance Taylor) writes: >In article <3778.27dd2150@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) writes: >>In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >>> >>> Anyway, when did I ever make Equifax my agent and ask them to sell info >>> about me? >>> >>You freely gave information that is valuable and Equifax is selling >>it as the agent of the person you gave it to or as their own agent. > >While the information is freely given, it is easy to not be aware that >you are giving out information, and it is hard to become aware, after >the fact, that you have given it out. This could be considered a >hazard of living in this society, but I would just as soon eliminate >the hazard. > At the risk of wandering off on a tangent, this strikes me as a critical aspect, not much discussed, of the debates on the nature of privacy, private information, etc. The argument that "You freely gave valuable information" to Equifax makes an assumption: that information I give, or my credit card company gives about me, to Equifax is theirs to do as they wish (subject only to the law) *regardless of the intent* of the information provider. Another way to put the question is this: If I give someone information about me for a specific purpose, should there be any limitation on what they can do with it outside of that purpose? Or must I give up all say over the further propagation of that information? Do I, by consenting to one use of the information, consent to all? Currently, in practice, yes. However, I don't think it should be this way. I give my bank information about me so that I may conduct my financial affairs with them, not so they can sell my name to credit card companies. When I buy something by mail order I give them my address so that they can deliver to me the merchandise I have ordered, not so they can sell my name to mailing list companies. When I give information about my finances on my mortgage application, it's so they can verify my credit, not so they can put me on Equifax's Hot List of credit seekers. Etc. By entering into a business relationship with any of these people I don't feel I've given prior consent to them to use information provided as part of the transaction for any other purpose, and it bothers me quite a lot that they regularly get away with acting as if I had. Increasingly you hear the argument that "If you don't want them to do this, don't do business with them": "If your phone company puts CallerId on your phone and you don't want me to have your phone number, don't call me." "If you don't want to end up on mailing lists, don't order anything through the mail." "If you don't want bank/credit card company junk mail, don't have a credit card or apply for a loan", etc. But it seems to me there are-- there ought to be-- more choices than that, especially as the limitations we have to live under to protect our privacy keep getting more restrictive. To some extent we can encourage this to happen by not doing business with people that resell customer information without notification or consent. But I'm interested in other people's ideas about how to handle this problem when *every* service provider you can find is reselling information without permission, or when it proves impossible to find out who is selling the information, or when the offender is quasi-public (e.g. the phone company). I'm generally uncomfortable with suggesting "more laws" as an answer to anything, but what would people want to see in a "Propagation of Private Information" law? What should the principles behind it be? We have specific laws that cover specific types of information (e.g. credit); how, and to what, should they be extended? "Live with it" is not an answer: Of course we *could*, but why should we? Why can't we figure out a way to increase the choices available, instead? --Suzanne woolf@isi.edu
randolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (03/21/91)
Suzanne, a lot of the personal controls on information you'd like to see can be implemented technically with public-key cryptographic systems. These are known as zero-knowlege systems and they were written up in Communications of the ACM a few years back. If people are interested, they should write me and I'll get a citation. Anyone who's got the citation easily available is invited to post. Also, anyone out there have an article on zero-knowlege systems they'd care to post? Tim? You out there? nd t ou ui R Press T __Randolph Fritz sun!cognito.eng!randolph || randolph@eng.sun.com ou ui Mountain View, California, North America, Earth nd t
luce@aurs01.UUCP (J. Luce) (03/21/91)
In article <1225@airs.UUCP> airs!ian@uunet.uu.net (Ian Lance Taylor) writes: >In article <3778.27dd2150@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) writes: >>In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >>> >>> Anyway, when did I ever make Equifax my agent and ask them to sell info >>> about me? >>> >>You freely gave information that is valuable and Equifax is selling >>it as the agent of the person you gave it to or as their own agent. > Well, I had something more scary happen... I just bought a townhouse, I went for Homeowner's Insurance. the agent took the info over the phone. He placed the business and I came by, dropped off the check to pre-pay for 1 year, got my policy and left. 2 weeks later the insurance (which had been prepaid) was cancelled due to my Credit Report from CBI/Equifax. *NEVER EVER* did I give anyone the right to look up my report or check *ANY* kind of reference. So, I call South Carolina Insurance Commission (Insurer is located there) and complain. Sorry, they say, it is a *STATE LAW* that anyone with a 'vested interest' can grab your credit report, *WITHOUT* your permission. For example, if you are at a hotel and did not pre-pay your room, the hotel can call and get your report because you owe them money. If you pre-pay but *could* use room service to order a midnight snack, that gives them grounds to do the check... This was straight from the S.C Insurance Commissioner. They said this holds true in N.C. also (I'm checking tomorrow). How's that for protection from big brother??? Is there a Federal Law out there that overrides this manure ? If so, who do I call, the U.S. Atty. General's office here said it wasn't their problem... Thanks... Fuming In Raleigh...
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (03/22/91)
In article <7197@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, etj90 (Khaos the Binary Warlock) writes: > In <3778.27dd2150@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) writes: >>In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >>You freely gave information that is valuable and Equifax is selling >>it as the agent of the person you gave it to or as their own agent. >>dan herrick > > So how does one avoid giving this info? In another post, my response boiled down to "pay cash". There I listed two or three specific strategies. Here, develop a paranoid attitude. If someone asks for information, decide whether you want to release the data before answering. If a wrong number comes in and the calling party asks "Who is this?", I answer "Who did you call?" If I don't like the answer, I tell them "Well, you did not reach them." Back to Equifax, your address is in the phone book. The county registrar of deeds holds as public information the assessed valuation and amount of tax on the property at that address. The Equifax/Lotus database did not connect these data, it only offered a neighborhood average income/lifestyle estimate. Abolish the property tax as a way of paying for government. Otherwise local government will continue to have the lifestyle data available. Of course, there are other sources for such data - such as asking prices of houses for sale. Another approach - don't ever use your residence address for - publication in a phone or other directory - subscribing to a magazine - buying by mail order - registering an automobile the list goes on. You can move a lot of this to a poBox. When the representative of Haines comes around asking questions to get the data right in the "City Directory", they find me quite frustrating. They want information for their purposes, not mine. I try to not be helpful. Unfortunately, my wife is less obnoxious than I and they keep coming around, year after year. When the Catholic Diocese comes asking questions for their "census", I am curmudgeonly and uncooperative. The other poster that I answered spoke of "denial of service". Information is part of their asking price. Don't pay. If they won't sell without the information, don't buy. decide how private you want to be, and then teach your spouse and children to not cross the line. You can break many of the information connections without giving up the advantages of our society. Real privacy requires an unacceptable lifestyle. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) (03/23/91)
<<<< < Another approach - don't ever use your residence address for < < the list goes on. You can move a lot of this to a poBox. ---------- Official PO boxes are not the best way to do this because even the most dimwitted clerk knows that you do not sleep in yours every night. Get a box at your neighborhood MailBoxes-R-Us store. They cannot by law be called a PO box so you must use an address that looks for all intents and purposes like an Apartment address. John Eaton !hp-vcd!johne
del@fnx.UUCP (Dag Erik Lindberg) (03/24/91)
In article <3778.27dd2150@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> you write: >In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: }> }> Anyway, when did I ever make Equifax my agent and ask them to sell info }> about me? }> }You freely gave information that is valuable and Equifax is selling }it as the agent of the person you gave it to or as their own agent. I give away lot's of information that is valuable to people for SPECIFIC PURPOSES. For example, I give my medical history to my doctor and my insurance company, but if they were to sell it I would have legal recourse. I give my VISA number to certain vendors over the phone, but if they were to sell it there are serious civil and legal penalties in store for them. Your argument doesn't hold water. -- del AKA Erik Lindberg uunet!pilchuck!fnx!del Who is John Galt?
del@fnx.UUCP (Dag Erik Lindberg) (03/24/91)
In article <17230@venera.isi.edu> woolf@dca.isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) writes: >In article <1225@airs.UUCP> airs!ian@uunet.uu.net (Ian Lance Taylor) writes: >>In article <3778.27dd2150@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) writes: >>>In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >consent. But I'm interested in other people's ideas about how to >handle this problem when *every* service provider you can find is >reselling information without permission, or when it proves impossible .... >with suggesting "more laws" as an answer to anything, but what would >people want to see in a "Propagation of Private Information" law? I just had an interesting idea, sparked somewhat by the idea that in the future the most valuable commodity will be information. It only requires a new interpretation and application of existing law. The copyright laws. A person's personal information, including address, phone #, financial and medical data, would be protected by copyright. An institution would have implicit contract to what amounts to a site license to use your information for any purposes within the organization, but would be prohibited from selling or giving the information to any other person or organization without your express consent. Comments? -- del AKA Erik Lindberg uunet!pilchuck!fnx!del Who is John Galt?
cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (((((C.Irby))))) (03/27/91)
In article <911@fnx.UUCP>, del@fnx.UUCP (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes: > I just had an interesting idea, sparked somewhat by the idea that > in the future the most valuable commodity will be information. It > only requires a new interpretation and application of existing law. > > The copyright laws. A person's personal information, including > address, phone #, financial and medical data, would be protected > by copyright. An institution would have implicit contract to what > amounts to a site license to use your information for any purposes > within the organization, but would be prohibited from selling or > giving the information to any other person or organization without > your express consent. Well... Chad Irby Copyright (c) 1959 All rights reserved It sort of bothers me that my signature (to follow the major copyright conventions) is about 5 times as long as my name... (41 vs. 8). ;-) -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++ C Irby cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu cirby@untvax ++ ++ Someday, I'll know all of the answers. Of course, by ++ ++ then I won't understand the questions any more... ++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jsharaf@world.std.com (James A. Sharaf) (03/28/91)
In article <17230@venera.isi.edu> woolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) writes: > But it seems to me there are-- there ought to be-- > more choices than that, especially as the limitations we have to live > under to protect our privacy keep getting more restrictive. > > [paragraph skipped] > > "Live with it" is not an answer: Of course we *could*, but why should > we? Why can't we figure out a way to increase the choices available, > instead? Amen! -- (617) 964-5866 | James A. Sharaf jsharaf@world.std.com | 46 Newbury Street uunet!world!jsharaf | Newton, Massachusetts 02159 -- ============================================================================= (617) 964-5866 | James A. Sharaf jsharaf@world.std.com | 46 Newbury Street uunet!world!jsharaf | Newton, Massachusetts 02159
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (03/29/91)
In article <17230@venera.isi.edu>, woolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) writes: > In article <1225@airs.UUCP> airs!ian@uunet.uu.net (Ian Lance Taylor) writes: >>In article <3778.27dd2150@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) writes: >>>In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >>>> >>>> Anyway, when did I ever make Equifax my agent and ask them to sell info >>>> about me? >>>> >>>You freely gave information that is valuable and Equifax is selling >>>it as the agent of the person you gave it to or as their own agent. >> >>While the information is freely given, it is easy to not be aware that >>you are giving out information, and it is hard to become aware, after >>the fact, that you have given it out. This could be considered a >>hazard of living in this society, but I would just as soon eliminate >>the hazard. >> > > At the risk of wandering off on a tangent, this strikes me as a > critical aspect, not much discussed, of the debates on the nature of > privacy, private information, etc. > > The argument that "You freely gave valuable information" to Equifax > makes an assumption: that information I give, or my credit card > company gives about me, to Equifax is theirs to do as they wish > (subject only to the law) *regardless of the intent* of the > information provider. > > Another way to put the question is this: If I give someone information > about me for a specific purpose, should there be any limitation on > what they can do with it outside of that purpose? Or must I give up > all say over the further propagation of that information? Do I, by > consenting to one use of the information, consent to all? > [discussion omitted] > quasi-public (e.g. the phone company). I'm generally uncomfortable > with suggesting "more laws" as an answer to anything, but what would [more discussion omitted] Suzanne: I believe I have preserved your point while omitting your defense of it. Thank you, this is a direction I have been trying to point this discussion. Now, my comments. Each of the written requests for information has some sort of contractual structure. The telephone application for insurance filled out a form that had the same structure. Action you can take: Every time you put answers to questions on a piece of paper, add to the contract before you sign it a statement of what purposes you are willing to have the information used for. Some organizations at the other end of such contracts will live by the contract you signed. Some will refuse your business, as is their right. Some will accept your business and violate your contract. The way we can change the way people do business is to cause companies in the second category to forego a lot of business for this reason and to cause companies in the third category to lose some big judgments over breach of contract. A very large fraction of the information abuses people complain of have a signed piece of paper behind them. Teach people to change those boilerplate contracts before they sign them. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (03/29/91)
In article <910@fnx.UUCP>, del@fnx.UUCP (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes: > In article <3778.27dd2150@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> you write: >>In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > }> > }> Anyway, when did I ever make Equifax my agent and ask them to sell info > }> about me? > }> > }You freely gave information that is valuable and Equifax is selling > }it as the agent of the person you gave it to or as their own agent. > > I give away lot's of information that is valuable to people for > SPECIFIC PURPOSES. For example, I give my medical history to my doctor "freely gave" and "for SPECIFIC PURPOSES" are opposites of each other. > and my insurance company, but if they were to sell it I would have > legal recourse. Take a look at the language of the insurance information clause you are asked to sign at a hospital. It gives them permission to reveal your medical data to an insurance company anytime (no expiration). The permission to disclose information on a life insurance application gives the insurance company that collects the info the right to enter it into a perpetual data base operated by a fourth party and available to other insurance companies for a membership or subscription fee. There is a fee so that this limited publication could be called "selling". Have you exercised the "legal recourse" you mention? > I give my VISA number to certain vendors over the > phone, but if they were to sell it there are serious civil and legal > penalties in store for them. Your argument doesn't hold water. > Again, the information is not "freely given". There is a contractually limited purpose. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
pflueger@thewav.enet.dec.com (Free speech is a sound investment) (03/31/91)
In article <6750015@hp-vcd.HP.COM>, johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) writes... ><<<< >< Another approach - don't ever use your residence address for >< >< the list goes on. You can move a lot of this to a poBox. >---------- >Official PO boxes are not the best way to do this because even >the most dimwitted clerk knows that you do not sleep in yours >every night. Get a box at your neighborhood MailBoxes-R-Us store. >They cannot by law be called a PO box so you must use an address >that looks for all intents and purposes like an Apartment address. > There is a drawback to this idea, in that the software at the Big 3 (TRW,CBI, EquiFax) will flag your credit profile with a warning that this is not your 'real' address. Some credit institutions might regard this as attempted credit fraud, or at a minimum, not grant your request for credit. *- --*-- -* Jim Pflueger | pflueger@thewav.enet.dec.com DEC Enterprise Integration Services| !decwrl!thewav.enet!pflueger Costa Mesa, California | "I take da job!" - Frogman *- --*-- -*
del@fnx.UUCP (Dag Erik Lindberg) (04/02/91)
In article <4014.27f1e88a@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: >In article <910@fnx.UUCP>, del@fnx.UUCP (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes: >> SPECIFIC PURPOSES. For example, I give my medical history to my doctor > >"freely gave" and "for SPECIFIC PURPOSES" are opposites of each other. A semantic nit I'm not sure I agree with. >Take a look at the language of the insurance information clause you >are asked to sign at a hospital. It gives them permission to reveal >your medical data to an insurance company anytime (no expiration). Thank you for pointing this out. I will double check this next time I am in the hospital. I was under the assumption that insurance companies needed a release just the same as anyone else. I was under this assumption since last time I was in a major accident the (paying) insurance company asked me for a release for my hospital records. This implies they couldn't get them without the release, or is this a smoke screen? >The permission to disclose information on a life insurance application >gives the insurance company that collects the info the right to enter >it into a perpetual data base operated by a fourth party and available >to other insurance companies for a membership or subscription fee. There >is a fee so that this limited publication could be called "selling". Have >you exercised the "legal recourse" you mention? Since I don't have life insurance, the answer is "no". Thank you for pointing this issue out for me. When and if I do get life insurance, I will be very conscious of this. >> I give my VISA number to certain vendors over the >> phone, but if they were to sell it there are serious civil and legal >> penalties in store for them. Your argument doesn't hold water. >> >Again, the information is not "freely given". There is a contractually >limited purpose. Where is this contract? -- del AKA Erik Lindberg uunet!pilchuck!fnx!del Who is John Galt?