Re: Children's Privacy Act

From:	IN%"llurch@networking.stanford.edu"  "Rich Graves" 24-MAY-1996 04:18:17.16

>I recognize that criminalizing the free flow of information is like trying
>to stick your finger in a dike, but every little bit has an effect. In
>this case, I'd call it a positive effect. 

	That's funny, most people would call the German action to censor
pro-nazi information a criminalization of the free flow of information with
a positive effect.

>I was certainly disappointed to hear a couple of cypherpunks the other day
>discussing for-profit offshore data havens full of personal information
>that is illegal to collect in the US as a business opportunity *they* were
>interested in pursuing. I just can't see myself doing that, for anybody.
>Gubmint or private, doesn't matter.

	Why, pray tell, _should_ someone be able to conceal that they declared
bankrupcy - e.g., ran out on their debtors that they had freely contracted to
repay - more than 7 years ago? Should prison terms to theft be limited to 7
years?
	Moreover, there are significant negative economic impacts for
criminalizing the possession of such information. The above is one instance;
another, which is even more of interest to me due to my profession, is that of
genetic information and insurance. Genetic screening for insurance purposes
decreases the risk to an insurance company. It is therefore possible to issue
insurance with less of a pool backing it up (for claims in insurance, for
bad debt in the case of credit). This increases the number of businesses who
can get into a given market, which will decrease prices for insurance since
the current insurance business is quite ogliopolistic. Thus, for the average
individual the availablility of such information is beneficial.
	I would personally be interested in setting up some such business in
the future, specifically one with a genetic screening lab. While I would not
wish to devote my entire time to it, I would be quite willing to help with
setup and updating it - if paid a fee, of course.
	-Allen

On Fri, 24 May 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

> 	Why, pray tell, _should_ someone be able to conceal that they declared
> bankrupcy - e.g., ran out on their debtors that they had freely contracted to
> repay - more than 7 years ago? Should prison terms to theft be limited to 7
> years?

I think forgiveness, within reason, tends to have a positive economic
effect. I'm not the same person I was seven years ago, or even seven
months. (Is it 7 years, btw? Or was it 12? It's arbitrary, in any case.) 

I have no objection to allowing someone to become, and remain, a
productive member of society years after fucking up badly. Note there are
no statutes of limitations and no forgive-and-forget mandates for the more
heinous violent crimes.

> 	Moreover, there are significant negative economic impacts for
> criminalizing the possession of such information. The above is one instance;
> another, which is even more of interest to me due to my profession, is that of
> genetic information and insurance. Genetic screening for insurance purposes
> decreases the risk to an insurance company.

Someone once said something about giving up a little freedom in return for
security.

How far does this go? Do you want your insurance company controlling your
life? "Managed care" is bad enough. I'm willing to pay a little more into
the risk pool if it means I don't have to submit to a DNA test, and don't
have to submit all of my grocery purchases for nutritional review, and
don't have to be fingerprinted, and don't have to tell them the details of
my sex life, and don't have to tell them every time I walk outside without
wearing sunscreen.

OK, that's a straw man. The last couple examples show why some laws aren't
necessary. The market simply wouldn't accept a too-totalitarian insurance
company; people would rather pay as they go, and accept the risk
themselves. But why is it fair to discriminate against detectable risks,
when undetectable risks may be more expensive? 

-rich