guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (kevin young) (03/21/91)
In article <17230@venera.isi.edu> woolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) writes:
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?
I would not want to see a law such as this. I don't want to see
George Orwell's world become reality. A law such as this will require
the information police to enforce it. When I have a conversation with
someone, I don't want to have to worry about what I can and can not do
with the information they give me. The simplest solution is to take
responsibility for your own privacy. Become informed. Don't rely on
government to cover your ass. Use the free flow of information to
your advantage by finding out which companies will help you to protect
your privacy.
Daniel Guilderson
ryan@cs.umb.eduwoolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) (03/21/91)
In article <GUEST.91Mar20184223@geech.ai.mit.edu> guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (kevin young) writes: >In article <17230@venera.isi.edu> woolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) writes: > > 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? > >I would not want to see a law such as this. I don't want to see >George Orwell's world become reality. A law such as this will require >the information police to enforce it. This is somewhat true, which is why I'm uneasy with "more laws". (I don't feel that privacy protective laws *necessarily* lead to "information police", but I'm willing to stipulate it's not a good idea to trust the government with this sort of thing.) It seems more like what's needed is attitude adjustment-- new customs to arise in society, new ways of looking at the problem. Perhaps we need more of a sense among people that privacy is both important and threatened. >When I have a conversation with >someone, I don't want to have to worry about what I can and can not do >with the information they give me. Please note I'm talking about people/organizations I do business with. Personal relationships and casual conversation are a different realm entirely. My concern is primarily with situations where there are no personal incentives to respect my preferences (which I hope isn't the case with most of my friends) and where there are incentives to sell information about me without my consent ($3 per name per mailing list, in many cases). >The simplest solution is to take >responsibility for your own privacy. Become informed. Don't rely on >government to cover your ass. Use the free flow of information to >your advantage by finding out which companies will help you to protect >your privacy. Part of the inspiration for my original post is that I *am* "informed", and mostly what I'm informed of is that *everyone* is selling information about me, and that most of them don't care what I think of it. I'm not relying on the government to cover my ass, but my own efforts are demonstrably not adequate; I'm finding that if I want any privacy at all, the list of things I must not do keeps getting longer. And it is unfortunate but currently true that the only "free flow of information" is from me to them-- in general, in my experience, simply asking a representative of a business you're dealing with "Is your company selling customer information, if so to whom?" doesn't get you anywhere. (Ask the Customer Service people at your bank who they've sold your name to lately. They won't know, or they won't tell you.) Again, I don't like the "more laws" solution much, except I could see a law that requires people to get my consent before they sold personal information about me, and tell me if I ask what they've done with such information. I'd settle for that "free flow of information" going both ways. I suspect that if most people knew how much information about them is benig passed around behind their backs, they'd be fairly concerned; many people appreciate getting targetted advertising mail, but many don't. Informed customers can make up their own minds-- which is why the marketers and database builders seem to be trying so hard to make sure people aren't informed. I'd like to see the default assumption change from "You can do whatever you want with information about me" to "Information about me belongs to me, and you can't propagate it outside our business transaction without my consent". I'm more than happy to start with "You have to tell me." --Suzanne woolf@isi.edu
tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) (03/21/91)
>>>>> Regarding Re: Information Control; woolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) adds: woolf> My concern is primarily with situations where there are no personal woolf> incentives to respect my preferences (which I hope isn't the case woolf> with most of my friends) and where there are incentives to sell woolf> information about me without my consent ($3 per name per mailing woolf> list, in many cases). woolf> Again, I don't like the "more laws" solution much, except I could see woolf> a law that requires people to get my consent before they sold personal woolf> information about me, and tell me if I ask what they've done with such woolf> information. I'd settle for that "free flow of information" going woolf> both ways. Actually, if there is to be a law, perhaps the best form would be something like: "You can't sell information about your customers without cutting them in on the profits" This would put most organizations in the position of either having to give away the information they gather, or organize some way to distribute the profits to their customers. They wouldn't do either of these, because both of them would be a lot of trouble which would actually cost them money. Remember, the only way to stop something is to come up with a way to make it unprofitable... Actually, I have been thinking about starting this company that gathers names and addresses from .signature files that come over the net and selling them to companies who want to market things to computer hacker types... :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-). -- ====================================================================== domain: tahorsley@csd.harris.com USMail: Tom Horsley uucp: ...!uunet!hcx1!tahorsley 511 Kingbird Circle Delray Beach, FL 33444 +==== Censorship is the only form of Obscenity ======================+ | (Wait, I forgot government tobacco subsidies...) | +====================================================================+
guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) (03/22/91)
In article <17246@venera.isi.edu> woolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) writes:
I'd like to see the default assumption change from "You can do
whatever you want with information about me" to "Information about me
belongs to me, and you can't propagate it outside our business
transaction without my consent". I'm more than happy to start with
"You have to tell me."
I don't agree with the idea that "Information about me belongs to me".
I have information about you right now. I know that you like to read
comp.org.eff.talk. That could be valuable information to the
publisher of a magazine for activists. I don't have your permission
to have this information and since you are claiming to "own" all
information about you, I must be breaking the law. Clearly, that is
not the current state of the law. You want to limit the scope of the
law to business transactions but that makes the law complicated and
hard to enforce fairly. It will also make goods and services more
expensive for everyone whether they care about privacy or not.
Personally, I feel all the necessary tools are already available. You
want to make a business transaction which involves divulging some
information to another party. You don't want the information to
propagate beyond this transaction. You have the party (by some sort
of contract) agree not to propagate the information. Later, you find
out they did propagate the information. You sue the pants off 'em.
I hear your argument that there are no companies willing to operate
this way but I believe in a free market system. If enough people
demand privacy, it won't be long before some enterprising company
figures out a way to make a profit by giving them what they want.
Maybe you could collect names of people who want more privacy and tell
some credit card company that they are all interested in having
"private" accounts. I know the IEEE allows people to limit the
propagation of personal information.
Daniel Guilderson
ryan@cs.umb.edujohne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) (03/22/91)
<<< < getting longer. And it is unfortunate but currently true that the < only "free flow of information" is from me to them-- in general, in my < experience, simply asking a representative of a business you're < dealing with "Is your company selling customer information, if so to < whom?" doesn't get you anywhere. (Ask the Customer Service people at < your bank who they've sold your name to lately. They won't know, or < they won't tell you.) ---------------- Discussing privacy issues with you local bank clerk is about as useful as discussing calculus with your cat. You seem to get the same vacant stare that indicates they haven't the slightest clue of what the problem even means. Institutions of all levels have no concept at all of privacy. To them information is a comodity to do with as they please. Your only protection is to never give out any info that you don't want to leak out. The problem is that most us were once young and poor and would tell anybody anything in order to get Credit. That info is now impossible to control. What we need is a good book on Stealth living. Tips on what an average citizen can do to keep in control of his personal information. Perhaps we can make using personal data in commission of a crime liable for an extra hash sentance in the same manner as using a gun. An example would be a thief who collects plate numbers from airport long term parking and then uses DMV records to find the home addresses. John Eaton !hp-vcd!johne
johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) (03/23/91)
<<<< < Personally, I feel all the necessary tools are already available. You < want to make a business transaction which involves divulging some < information to another party. You don't want the information to < propagate beyond this transaction. You have the party (by some sort < of contract) agree not to propagate the information. Later, you find < out they did propagate the information. You sue the pants off 'em. < Daniel Guilderson ---------- Fine. Your assignment for this week is to pick any local government agency that you wish to do business with and get them to agree not to propagate your personal information. Let us know how it turns out. John Eaton !hp-vcd!johne
scratch@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Steven J Owens) (03/23/91)
In article <GUEST.91Mar21181813@geech.ai.mit.edu> guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) writes: >In article <17246@venera.isi.edu> woolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) writes: > > I'd like to see the default assumption change from "You can do > whatever you want with information about me" to "Information about me > belongs to me, and you can't propagate it outside our business > transaction without my consent". I'm more than happy to start with > "You have to tell me." > >I don't agree with the idea that "Information about me belongs to me". >I have information about you right now. I know that you like to read >comp.org.eff.talk. That could be valuable information to the >publisher of a magazine for activists. I don't have your permission >to have this information and since you are claiming to "own" all >information about you, I must be breaking the law. You're twisting his words a bit here. What he said was "you can't propagate it outside our business transaction without my consent." It might be better expressed as "I have a copyright on my personal information, and you can't distribute that information without my consent." Actually, this leads to some interesting thoughts. What if I trademark/copyright my name and personal information? Could I then sue any company which violated such restrictions by distributing information about me?? Hm... Steven J. Owens | Scratch@Pittvms | Scratch@unix.cis.pitt.edu
guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) (03/23/91)
In article <6750014@hp-vcd.HP.COM> johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) writes:
Fine. Your assignment for this week is to pick any local government
agency that you wish to do business with and get them to agree not
to propagate your personal information. Let us know how it turns out.
So what, we make more laws? Our congress would be happy to make
more laws, more bureaucracy and more taxes. Especially when the
public willingly submits to it. Your assignment is to find any
enterprise that the government hasn't tainted.
Daniel Guilderson
ryan@cs.umb.eduwoolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) (03/24/91)
In article <106376@unix.cis.pitt.edu> scratch@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Steven J Owens) writes: >In article <GUEST.91Mar21181813@geech.ai.mit.edu> guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) writes: >>I don't agree with the idea that "Information about me belongs to me". >>I have information about you right now. I know that you like to read >>comp.org.eff.talk. That could be valuable information to the >>publisher of a magazine for activists. I don't have your permission >>to have this information and since you are claiming to "own" all >>information about you, I must be breaking the law. > > You're twisting his words a bit here. What he said was "you >can't propagate it outside our business transaction without my consent." >It might be better expressed as "I have a copyright on my personal >information, and you can't distribute that information without my >consent." Exactly. Thanks for this followup. I'll try to clarify further. The poster writing as "guest@geech.ai.mit.edu" (sorry, I lost your .sig) does have my permission to have the information he cites; clearly it would be a bizarre waste of my time to be writing this stuff without expecting it to be read, and I've done it knowing that dozens of strangers now have my email address and some information about my opinions and beliefs. What he doesn't have is my permission to give/sell the information he has to that hypothetical activists' magazine for their mailing list (or whatever). I don't care if it would be of interest to them, it ought to be up to me to decide whether they get it, not them and not some third party who once saw my name on a usenet post. >Actually, this leads to some interesting thoughts. What >if I trademark/copyright my name and personal information? Could I >then sue any company which violated such restrictions by distributing >information about me?? Hm... What a thought. Actually, copyright law would say you could sue. Maybe that means that instead of staying out of the databases, we should just demand royalties :-) --Suzanne woolf@isi.edu
randolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (03/25/91)
In the music business, paying someone every time a song is recorded, or performed, or played on the radio is standard procedure. So it's technically possible to do the same with publishing personal information. I'd sure dislike it, though. __R
spot@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Draves) (03/26/91)
Why are new laws necessary for any protection of personal information you want? If you are involved in a business transaction where you divulge information that you want to remain private, than just put it in the contract that the information must remain private. If they tell anyone, sue! what could be simpler? -- christianity is stupid Scott Draves communism is good spot@cs.cmu.edu give up
lee@wang.com (lee) (03/26/91)
It seems to me that although Suzanne Woolf's first suggestions went
too far in the direction of interference with the normal flow of
information (we don't need one more way of prosecuting someone for
idly revealing what didn't even appear to be a confidence), she is
on the right track with the notion that SELLING personal information
should require the informed consent of the person informed about.
This is already a part of the law for certain kinds of information.
Try MAKING A BUCK on insider knowledge of corporate profitability
(yeah, I know thousands do it and don't get caught). The crime isn't
in passing on the information, but in capitalizing on it (as far
as I know, ignorance of the law being my only excuse).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
(Boston and New Hampshire AMC, and Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------galt@baby.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) (03/26/91)
I wonder, what would happen if I produced a product called "Greg Alt". It seems
like I should be able to get the product name made into a trademark. Then
anyone who prints my name must mention that it is a trademark of Greg Alt Co.
I have a feeling this wouldn't work, but why not? Also, I think it would be interesting to have special laws that require royalties to be paid to the names on
a mailing list when it is sold.
Gregguest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) (03/26/91)
Do all the other Greg Alts in the world have to pay royalties to you as well? Daniel Guilderson ryan@cs.umb.edu
galt@baby.dsd.es.com (Greg Alt - Perp) (03/27/91)
In article <GUEST.91Mar25195137@geech.ai.mit.edu>, guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) writes: > Do all the other Greg Alts in the world have to pay royalties to you > as well? > > Daniel Guilderson > ryan@cs.umb.edu How about if I make a product called Greg Alt/555-1234/My street/My town/My zip. Or separate products like Greg Alt/555-1234 and Greg Alt/address. Then anyone selling my name and info would be selling a trademark and would have to pay royalties. I think the comparison of me giving out my credit card number is a good one. If I give out my number, it is private information is illegal to distribute. My phone number and address also should be considered private unless I feel otherwise. Greg
ian@airs.UUCP (Ian Lance Taylor) (03/27/91)
In article <SPOT.91Mar25152130@WOOZLE.GRAPHICS.CS.CMU.EDU> spot@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Draves) writes: > >If you are involved in a business transaction where you divulge >information that you want to remain private, than just put it in the >contract that the information must remain private. If they tell >anyone, sue! what could be simpler? This might possibly be workable, but it is not simple. For example, I occasionally find it necessary to mail order various items. I doubt the mail order companies would be willing to enter into such a contract, not necessarily because they want to sell my address and information about my purchases but because it would likely be more time and effort for them than the sale would be worth. -- Ian Taylor airs!ian@uunet.uu.net uunet!airs!ian First person to identify this quote wins a free e-mail message: ``Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but inconsistency does tend to bring one to the attention of the police computers.''
guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) (03/27/91)
In article <1233@airs.UUCP> ian@airs.UUCP (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:
For example, I occasionally find it necessary to mail order various
items. I doubt the mail order companies would be willing to enter
into such a contract, not necessarily because they want to sell my
address and information about my purchases but because it would likely
be more time and effort for them than the sale would be worth.
What does this say about the consequences of implementing new laws?
People who really care about privacy should pay for it. Those that
don't really care should not have to subsidize those that do.
Daniel Guilderson
ryan@cs.umb.edulearn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) (03/27/91)
In article <GUEST.91Mar27044531@geech.ai.mit.edu> Guest Account writes: >People who really care about privacy should pay for it. Those that >don't really care should not have to subsidize those that do. >Daniel Guilderson >ryan@cs.umb.edu I suppose it had to come to this sooner or later. When do you stop paying to be left alone, to not have others intrude into your life ? On this same basis, Daniel, I suggust that it would be OK for me to punch you in the nose every day, till you decide to pay me to stop. And carrying matters one step further, others shouldn't interfere or subsidize protections on your behalf, cause they don't care that you're being punched in the nose. Bill Vajk
minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (03/28/91)
by guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account): | In article <1233@airs.UUCP> ian@airs.UUCP (Ian Lance Taylor) writes: | | For example, I occasionally find it necessary to mail order various | items. I doubt the mail order companies would be willing to enter | into such a contract, not necessarily because they want to sell my | address and information about my purchases but because it would likely | be more time and effort for them than the sale would be worth. | | What does this say about the consequences of implementing new laws? | People who really care about privacy should pay for it. Those that | don't really care should not have to subsidize those that do. | | Daniel Guilderson | ryan@cs.umb.edu Uhmmm. Uhmmm. I don't want to panic or anything, but the Supreme Court *has* acknowledged a fundamental right to privacy. Should those who desire life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have to pay extra??? Should I also be forced to pay extra for police services if I "really care about" my life and property so those who don't give a damn don't have to subsidize me and the criminal justice system? Should it cost me more to prohibit Joe Schmo from entering my home and looking through my desk? (After all, this is just another blow to my privacy.) Is it really too much to ask that EVERY database be required to use a flag indicating whether it is OK to distribute information about me for purposes other than which I granted access to the information? (By default, the data should be considered private.) That is much less restrictive than requiring, say, that everyone in the database be notified of its existance or, even more interesting, notification of each access made to information about themselves. (_I_ would really like to know when and why information about me is being accessed. It is difficult to defend yourself when you are not allowed to face your [possibly silicon] accuser.) I don't think a bit per person is too much to ask. If the data collectors complain that an absolute yes or no is too great of an imposition, they are welcome to add more access control bits to their database. I think it is safer and easier for all involved to *grant* access to information rather than trying to *deny* such access or prevent propagation of information that is incorrect and/or desired to be kept private. If a database where found to have inappropriately obtained data, its owners should be required to delete such data upon request. Finally, how many people don't care at least somewhat about their privacy? Would you be offended if I browsed through your bills, tax returns, bank accounts, shopping list, or sock drawer? -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| "I'm not discouraging others from using |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | their power of the pen, but mine will | U | - "Ackphtth" | continue to do the crossword." M. Ho
guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) (03/28/91)
In article <1991Mar27.183256.8047@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu> minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes:
Uhmmm. Uhmmm. I don't want to panic or anything, but the Supreme Court
*has* acknowledged a fundamental right to privacy. Should those who
desire life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have to pay extra???
You have the fundamental right to privacy in your home too, but you
still have to buy curtains for your windows in order to exercise that
right. Privacy isn't something that everyone else owes to you, you
have to take action to preserve it. If you carelessly throw your
financial records in the street, you can't expect the state to
prosecute someone for reading them. Giving financial information to a
bank isn't a careless action but there are ways to get the bank to
protect your privacy other than passing new privacy laws.
Daniel Guilderson
ryan@cs.umb.edurandolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (03/28/91)
Freedom and privacy are intimately related; surveillance is one of the big techniques of power in our time -- think of prisons, workplace supervisors (and yes, supervision as we understand it is only a few centuries old), and all those intelligence agencies. Surveillance is cheap power, you see -- it multiplies direct control by at least a hundred-fold. In a prison, instead of constantly supervising everyone, you supervise infrequently -- and only sometimes let the prisoners know when they're being watched. So the prisoners have to supervise themselves. This is how a small group of guards controls a large group of prisoners. The positive converse of this power, of course, is the strength comes from free sharing; community. That's the hopeful side of the electronic frontier. To suggest that people should buy privacy is to suggest that people should buy freedom. If that's the new order, then viva la revolution! (Spell checkers? We don't need no stinkin' . . .) 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
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (03/29/91)
In article <6750014@hp-vcd.HP.COM>, johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) writes: > <<<< > < Personally, I feel all the necessary tools are already available. You > < want to make a business transaction which involves divulging some > < information to another party. You don't want the information to > < propagate beyond this transaction. You have the party (by some sort > < of contract) agree not to propagate the information. Later, you find > < out they did propagate the information. You sue the pants off 'em. > < Daniel Guilderson > ---------- > Fine. Your assignment for this week is to pick any local government > agency that you wish to do business with and get them to agree not > to propagate your personal information. Let us know how it turns out. > But the law is already there with respect to government handling of information. And what it says is that they will use it to minimize your privacy. Social Security records are used to enforce the draft registration law. And the Internal Revenue Code is used to encourage parents to get Social Security Numbers for two year olds before they can make an informed decision to register or not to register. The most spectacular example of doublespeak is the Bank Privacy Act that declares that your bank will keep a record of all your checking account activity over some threshold amount in case some government representative wants to see it. Of course you said "local" and my examples are federal. Most of the government abuses at every level are mandated by law and fixing them requires changing that law. A useful and desirable objective, but it is possible to improve one's own situation by being circumspect faster than it is possible to change such laws. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (03/29/91)
Note as well that if the Supreme Court has ruled a right to privacy, by and large that this is a right to privacy wrt the government, and extension to private citizens is far less certain. (Not to say that it won't be there, but it will not be as rigid) We should encourage statute law to define default terms of confidentiality for personal information given in business transactions, just as law and ethics already define such terms for certain special transactions today, such as those with doctors, lawyers and other professionals. This is what we need. We need no less, but we also need no more. If we go overboard with crazy concepts like "copyright" or "trademark" on your name and personal information, you create more bureaucracy and more flaunting of the laws. We fleshed all this out in detail a couple of months ago. Is this group going to be one of those groups with recycling discussions? -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
kudla@rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (03/29/91)
In article <17289@venera.isi.edu> woolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) writes:
about my opinions and beliefs. What he doesn't have is my permission
to give/sell the information he has to that hypothetical activists'
magazine for their mailing list (or whatever). I don't care if it
would be of interest to them, it ought to be up to me to decide
whether they get it, not them and not some third party who once saw my
name on a usenet post.
So if the circulation editor of such a magazine read this newsgroup
and added your name to his mailing list, do you feel he would be
breaking the law? (I've gotten on two real world mailing lists, both
of which I quite enjoy, through just such a thing happening....)
I must admit that I find all of this restriction-of-personal-info
stuff silly at best and frightening at worst. One of my former
roommates bagged my landlord for multiple hundred bucks and we've been
reduced to "covert operations" or whatever you want to call snooping
around people who know him hoping to catch a scrap of info, all
because it's too easy in this world to hide oneself.
I greatly favor a society where people can "slip through the cracks"
and carry on with their lives without fear of someone watching
everything they do, and I would really love to see a society without a
standard means of identifying anyone at will (i.e., eliminate social
security numbers which were never meant for that purpose anyway). But
I've also seen people abuse their "right to self-concealment" or
whatever to the point where I'm extremely suspicious of *anyone* who
wants to hold back that kind of info.
Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@rpi.edu>
No more bars! No more cages! Just rollerskating, disco music, and
the occasional light show....guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) (03/29/91)
In article <1404@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes:
On this same basis, Daniel, I suggust that it would be OK for me to punch
you in the nose every day, till you decide to pay me to stop. And carrying
matters one step further, others shouldn't interfere or subsidize
protections on your behalf, cause they don't care that you're being
punched in the nose.
OK, William, your point is well taken but we are walking a fine line
between liberty and justice here. I do think that it is too much to
ask for people to walk around defending themselves against punches. I
don't think it is too much to ask for people to only deal with
companies that will agree to protect their privacy. I know the IEEE
will do this for you. By the way, does anyone know what the law is
concerning privacy between doctors and patients? Anyone know what the
law is which prevents banks from giving out your balance to just
anyone? Wouldn't it be simpler if there was a law which just said
that companies only had to provide the *option* of privacy rather than
a law which mandated privacy? And a company could only charge more if
it could show that it was costing more to service privacy rather than
charging more because they were losing profits from not selling the
info. Also, the law would have to be limited to business agreements
between service providers and their customers. For instance, I see no
problem with companies reading USENET postings and using the info or
selling it. If you don't want companies to do that, it is very simple
to post anonymously. Much easier than defending yourself against a
punch in the nose.
Daniel Guilderson
ryan@cs.umb.edukudla@rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (03/29/91)
In article <1991Mar27.183256.8047@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu> minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes:
Uhmmm. Uhmmm. I don't want to panic or anything, but the Supreme Court
*has* acknowledged a fundamental right to privacy. Should those who
desire life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have to pay extra???
No, but maybe those who don't should be able to pay less..... not that
I know anyone who doesn't enjoy life, liberty and t.p.o.h., while I
know at least a few people who don't give a damn about privacy, myself
included.
Should I also be forced to pay extra for police services if I "really
care about" my life and property so those who don't give a damn don't
have to subsidize me and the criminal justice system? Should it cost
me more to prohibit Joe Schmo from entering my home and looking
through my desk? (After all, this is just another blow to my privacy.)
I think you're over-reacting a little bit here. But I also feel that
those with no property shouldn't really have to protect their property
(and the tax system seems to agree with me somewhat).
Is it really too much to ask that EVERY database be required to use
a flag indicating whether it is OK to distribute information about me
for purposes other than which I granted access to the information? (By
default, the data should be considered private.) That is much less
restrictive than requiring, say, that everyone in the database be
notified of its existance or, even more interesting, notification of
each access made to information about themselves. (_I_ would really
like to know when and why information about me is being accessed. It
is difficult to defend yourself when you are not allowed to face your
[possibly silicon] accuser.) I don't think a bit per person is too
much to ask.
Isn't there some bureau all these people who really want to be
invisible to marketroids can write to to eliminate 90 or 95% of their
name's incidences on mailing lists? I've heard something to that
effect lots of times.
desired to be kept private. If a database where found to have
inappropriately obtained data, its owners should be required to delete
such data upon request.
"should be required" is a mighty easy phrase to use when the subject
is someone other than yourself.
Finally, how many people don't care at least somewhat about their
privacy? Would you be offended if I browsed through your bills, tax
returns, bank accounts, shopping list, or sock drawer?
Of course I wouldn't. What do I have to hide? Of course, I don't
feel I should be *required* to provide any such information (or socks)
to anyone, but I also don't feel real property is the same as
intellectual property, and don't feel like opening that can or worms
right now.
Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@rpi.edu>
No more bars! No more cages! Just rollerskating, disco music, and
the occasional light show....kudla@rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (03/29/91)
In article <1404@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes:
When do you stop paying to be left alone, to not have others
intrude into your life ?
When do we stop threatening essentially harmless actions with endless
litigation?
On this same basis, Daniel, I suggust that it would be OK for me to
punch you in the nose every day, till you decide to pay me to stop.
And carrying matters one step further, others shouldn't interfere
or subsidize protections on your behalf, cause they don't care that
you're being punched in the nose.
I fail to see how receiving a few extra pieces of junk mail per day is
even remotely similar to receiving a daily bodily injury. Care to
elaborate how junk mail = broken nose, or even how creditors catching
up with you = broken nose?
Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@rpi.edu>
No more bars! No more cages! Just rollerskating, disco music, and
the occasional light show....herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar27.183256.8047@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu>, minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: > > Uhmmm. Uhmmm. I don't want to panic or anything, but the Supreme Court > *has* acknowledged a fundamental right to privacy. Should those who Excuse me, but what the Supreme Court did was create a "right to privacy" to use as a cover for killing unborn babies. They did not acknowledge a right to privacy that conforms to ordinary understandings of the words. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com