Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!grover.llnl.gov!howell From: howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Lotus Marketplace Message-ID: <86370@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> Date: 19 Nov 90 20:27:05 GMT References: <1990Nov16.205011.10348@uncecs.edu> <1990Nov17.074534.8751@looking.on.ca> <48514@cornell.UUCP> <4960@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Nov19.000849.23021@math.lsa.umich.edu> <1990Nov19.062344.2222@looking.on.ca> Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV Reply-To: howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Lines: 63 Nntp-Posting-Host: grover.llnl.gov In article <1990Nov19.062344.2222@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: |> I think John is right. We can't pass laws telling people what they can |> store. |> |> We might be able to get away with regulating what people can do with data |> they have, but I am wary of how such laws will be written. |> |> The use of libel law to protect against bad database entries is an excellent |> idea. That body of law may be expanded slightly to deal with this. |> |> That does not, however, deal with "privacy" in any way -- some people |> have expressed a desire not to have demographic information collected |> about them, or worse than that -- merged. |> |> Unfortunately, laws to deal with such questions are very difficult to |> enforce. And I am against laws that are difficult to enforce. |> |> We may have to come to grips with the fact that we are going to have |> less privacy of certain types. We can, fortunately, regulate what the |> *government* does. |> |> ... Right on the mark, but perhaps it should be stated even more strongly: I think we're going to have to face a simple choice between two not-so-distant futures. Either we will live in a police state, or in a goldfish bowl. It is becoming too easy for government, corporations, and ultimately individuals to copy and process all kinds of information. We can place any limitations on government we want to, and we can limit the ways that private parties can USE certain kinds of information, but the only way we can regulate the FLOW of information is by massive surveillance and censorship. The most troubling item to me in the original announcement was Lotus's statement that they would only sell the information to "legitimate businesses". Who decides who's legitimate and who isn't? I have at times done some consulting work, and I've had to file 1040 Schedule C. Does that make me a business in Lotus's eyes, or do I have to incorporate first? Does it bother anyone else that a business should have access to information that individuals are not allowed to have? If we consider laws to restrict the creation and use of databases, we should always bear in mind that these laws will hit the little guy harder than the big guy. If a community activist makes a list of people living in one corner of town and sends them mail opposing a proposed zoning change, should he be prosecuted for Illegal Possession of a Database? What if a service station keeps records of its customers and uses a computer to determine who's due for an oil change? It would be even worse if a law specifically forbid the use of a computer to process the information. Computers can greatly increase the efficacy of citizen activists and "radical" publications, as well as the more "legitimate" businesses. Now who do you think would be most likely to be targeted for prosecution under a database law? -- Louis Howell "A few sums!" retorted Martens, with a trace of his old spirit. "A major navigational change, like the one needed to break us away from the comet and put us on an orbit to Earth, involves about a hundred thousand separate calculations. Even the computer needs several minutes for the job."