Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!uunet!looking!brad From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Lotus Market Place Message-ID: <1990Nov22.010342.28966@looking.on.ca> Date: 22 Nov 90 01:03:42 GMT References: Distribution: comp Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Lines: 24 In article hhe@ifi.uio.no (Hans Henrik Eriksen) writes: > >The law explicitly mentions some data which should NOT be recorded if >there is not a special reason for it: unique personal number (social >security eqiv.), info about race, political or religious beliefs, >health, drug abuse, sexual relationships and the like. Interesting. Here's another dilemma. When it comes to governments, I believe that one should always make such lists in the reverse direction. For example, in regulating the government, I would want the law to list what they *can* record about me, rather than what they *can't*. This is along the lines of that excellent amendment the US constitution has saying, "just because a right isn't here doesn't mean the people don't have it." Of course, with private institutions it is the reverse, as you say here. The government should only define what is forbidden, not what is permitted. Perhaps our conundrum comes from the fact that we're talking of private institutions doing things that only governments used to do, namely keep track of all of us. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473