Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!uwm.edu!wuarchive!usc!ucsd!ogicse!orstcs!usenet!neptune!johng From: johng@neptune.uucp (John A. Gregor) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Lotus Marketplace Keywords: CD-Rom consumer database,privacy Message-ID: <1990Nov28.064111.28427@scion.CS.ORST.EDU> Date: 28 Nov 90 06:41:11 GMT References: <1990Nov18.224340.3041@agate.berkeley.edu> <48514@cornell.UUCP> <4960@rsiatl.UUCP> <17478@shlump.nac.dec.com> Sender: @scion.CS.ORST.EDU Reply-To: johng@oce.orst.edu (John A. Gregor) Organization: College of Oceanography, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Or. Lines: 52 Nntp-Posting-Host: oce.orst.edu In article <17478@shlump.nac.dec.com> edp@jareth.enet.dec.com (Eric Postpischil (Always mount a scratch monkey.)) writes: >For example, what happens when... >Note that this sort of thing has happened; in California, information >from the motor vehicle administration was used to plan rapes and >thefts. So punish the thieves, rapists, etc. for the crimes they commit. Last time I checked, rape and theft were punishable by law regardless of the technology used to plan the crime. Creating a law against data abuse will not eliminate it. It only creates a false sense of security that makes the victims all that more plentiful and vulnerable. Do you realize that if some people had their way you would have committed a crime merely by pointing out how the system could be abused? > In addition, there are control and power issues. A government that > uses this information can become extremely powerful -- able to regulate > people's lives in excrutiating detail and able to track, control, and > suppress dissenters. How can we have a free society when critics of > the government must fear retribution for their speech? Critics of just about every organization have feared (or, at least, been in danger of) retribution ever since the concepts of organization and criticism have been around (which significantly predates computers). We are finally entering an era where THEY (whoever they are) are subject to scrutiny and accountability and WE (whoever we are) can organize and disseminate information freely. > I see an ethical problem here. On the surface, there would seem to be > nothing wrong with supplying freely-collected information. But the way > human beings use that information will ultimately lead to abuses. How > do we deal with that? By subjecting the abusers to the same scrutiny and penalties as everyone else. Agreed, it's hard to subject the government to the rules of mere mortals (since national security != the good of the people). But the Net and BBSs are beginning to change things. The net is very hard to kill. Taking out all long distance phone lines would come close. But that would be hard to do covertly. It would also be economic suicide. But these are the folks who feel that 40% civilian casualties are acceptable. I believe that the availability of communications and computing technology will significantly change the nature of government. Pity that governments seldom change without bloodshed... I'm worried, but not about TRW's databases. John -- johng@oce.orst.edu Where's a good .signature when you need one?