Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!rsiatl!jgd
From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Lotus Marketplace
Message-ID: <5020@rsiatl.UUCP>
Date: 21 Nov 90 10:24:52 GMT
References: <5010@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Nov20.181212.28545@looking.on.ca>
Organization: Rapid Deployment Systems, Inc. (making go fast things and things go fast)
Lines: 29

brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:

>I dunno but the phrases "have to prove you *didn't* violate privacy" (guilty
>until proven innocent) and "not a police state" don't mix together well in
>my book.

Why would you say that.  This is no different than if you get stopped
for DUI, blow the box and it comes up tilt.  You set the stage
by drinking and driving, an act that is condemned by law. Once set,
It's then up to you to prove you were not drunk.

It would be the same situation with data collectors.  The law would have
condemned a certain set of behavior.  if the data collector takes the
risk and collects the data and and uses it to invade someone's privacy,
it will be up to him to prove that he did not violate the law in doing
so.   There is no right as I see it, to collect personal data on others.
It is a priviledge that should be heavily regulated and all but prohibited
except under certain defined conditions, as noted in my original 
proposal.  You can still get to me if you want to, you just have to
do it in a non-invasive manner.

John


-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Purveyors of Performance Products 
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  to the Trade " (tm)
Marietta, Ga                  | 
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd      | "Vote early, Vote often"