Re: Fair Credit Reporting Act and Privacy Act

On Mon, 5 Feb 1996, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>> Unfortunately, [a privacy act] would also:
>> 
>> *  Require government registration of computers and databases containing
>> information about people (whether these computers are used by business or
>> individuals).  This eases regulation of computers and future confiscation.

At 07:04 PM 2/5/96 -0500, Tim Philp wrote:
>I don't believe that this follows at all. All that would be required 
>would be a statutory obligation to comply with the legislation.

And how can you enforce this statutory obligation?  Privacy laws 
against private citizens run into the same problem as drug laws:  
You need intrusive means to enforce them.

A law "protecting" privacy would require government supervision 
of what is on my computer and your computer.  

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              				|  
We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind	|  
of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the	|  
arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com

On Thu, 8 Feb 1996 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 5 Feb 1996, Duncan Frissell wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, [a privacy act] would also:
> >> 
> >> *  Require government registration of computers and databases containing
> >> information about people (whether these computers are used by business or
> >> individuals).  This eases regulation of computers and future confiscation.
> 
> At 07:04 PM 2/5/96 -0500, Tim Philp wrote:
> >I don't believe that this follows at all. All that would be required 
> >would be a statutory obligation to comply with the legislation.
> 
> And how can you enforce this statutory obligation?  Privacy laws 
> against private citizens run into the same problem as drug laws:  
> You need intrusive means to enforce them.
> 
> A law "protecting" privacy would require government supervision 
> of what is on my computer and your computer.  
> 

	Private individuals are not what I was refering to. I am more
concerned about corporations who hold information about me and release it
to the highest bidder. When it comes to individual versus corporate
rights, I am clearly on the side of the individual. 
	It is not unreasonable to expect corporations to comply with 
environmental laws to prevent the poisoning of our air and water. I 
think that it is also not unreasonable to expect that personal 
information that we have to release to participate in society be held in 
secure trust and be used only for the purposes that we released it in the 
first place.
	I have also not suggested some form of prior restraint that would 
require government access to computers. I simply suggest that should a 
violation occur, that I have the right of civil and criminal law as a 
recourse to both compensate me for my loss of privacy as well as deter 
future damage. A company knowing that civil and criminal penalties could 
result from a violation would take extra care to ensure the security of 
my data.
Regards,
Tim Philp

===================================
For PGP Public Key, Send E-mail to:
pgp-public-keys@swissnet.ai.mit.edu
In Subject line type:
GET PHILP
===================================

Tim Philp writes:

> On Thu, 8 Feb 1996 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

> > A law "protecting" privacy would require government supervision 
> > of what is on my computer and your computer.  

> 	Private individuals are not what I was refering to. I am more
> concerned about corporations who hold information about me and release it
> to the highest bidder. When it comes to individual versus corporate
> rights, I am clearly on the side of the individual. 

So, I take it you have no problems with me as a private individual
selling information about you to the highest bidder so long as I don't
file letters of incorporation?  This is a silly distinction.

But more to the point: The word corporate does not necessarily denote a
huge company with millions of dollars in revenue, thousands of employees
and stock publicly traded on the NYSE.  Most "corporations" are small
companies, one or two or a few employees.  Every time the government-as-
nanny types come up with a new law "to protect us from the evil
corporations", every company big and small is saddled with additional
costs and hassles.  This means dollars to you and me, either directly --
because you're an owner or employee of the company -- or indirectly --
because the price of goods sold increases.  Why is this so hard to grasp?


>                                                                   I 
> think that it is also not unreasonable to expect that personal 
> information that we have to release to participate in society be held in 
> secure trust and be used only for the purposes that we released it in the 
> first place.

Yes, it *IS* unreasonable as applied to information.  If you don't want
an individual or company to have information about you, don't give it
to them.  Pay cash for your purchases.  Or make them (contractually)
agree not to release the information.  Sure, it may cost you extra
dollars, and sometimes they may not be willing, so you'll have to take
your business elsewhere or live with the realization that you're trading
convenience (and other benefits) for privacy.


-- Jeff