Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!vsi1!teda!attain!jxh
From: jxh@attain.teradyne.com (Jim Hickstein)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Lotus Marketplace
Message-ID: <2856@certes.attain.teradyne.com>
Date: 2 Dec 90 09:26:30 GMT
References: <5020@rsiatl.UUCP> <61182@bbn.BBN.COM> <5157@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>
Organization: Teradyne, Inc. San Jose CA
Lines: 74

In article <5157@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
>Improper personal data use DOES involve a victim.   Real people are 
>harmed by mostly large companies.  (not to be interpreted as a bias
>against large companies.)  And since corporations are an enitity 
>created by the government, the government has an obligation to take
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>special measures to protect us from its creation.

A correction (at the risk of insulting you, since you seem to know
commercial law better than the average citizen): there are two kinds of
corporations, public and private.  Most of them are private.  Public
corporations are created by an act of Congress, e.g. the FDIC and the
Federal Reserve Bank, just to name two.  That the government should
protect us from *these* guys is evident.

But private corporations, being separate legal entities, capable of
suing and being sued, owning assets and incurring liabilities, just
like a person, can be created by anyone.  It's one of the things I
really like about this country. :-)

Do you mean that the government, having propounded laws that recognize
private corporations as legal entities, is responsible for their
behavior?  That contradicts the laws themselves, which make it clear
that a private corporation is responsible for its own behavior.

Even if I accept that the government is somehow at the bottom of some
bad behavior or, more likely, a trend or bias in favor of corporations
over individuals, I don't know if I can buy the idea that it has a
special responsibility to protect "us" from "them."  If there is a
tort, the government has already done its bit in setting up civil
courts.  Lacking that, I don't think it's that clear.

It seems to me the underlying issue in this thread is that no one can
define what use of a database constitutes a tort, or rather that some
so-called "abuses" do not fall within the existing definition of a
tort.  Someone calling me on the phone to annoy me on the basis of
their knowledge of my income falls in this grey area.  Is it any better
if they annoy me with no prior knowledge of their likelihood to sell me
something?  (Hmm...  This gets weirder all the time.)

I agree with the recent article that puts it in the context more of
"politeness", and I despair of the civil courts ever being able to
resolve this, since there's no law against being an asshole.  Are we to
hold corporations to different standards in this regard (i.e.
impoliteness by a corporation is a tort)?  It's not enforcable, since
no definition exists.  What about individuals who obtain and abuse such
data?  It seems to me more likely that the really egregious abuse, like
planning crimes, is done by individuals.  I don't know if there is a
proper role for government in preventing this.  That it ought to be
prevented I don't argue; but should the government be involved?

Why is it that, if increasing age is supposed to turn me into a
Republican, I voted for Libertarians almost straight down the line at
the last election?  It must be the result of reading the net. :-)

BTW, my position on annoying phone calls is that I regret the waste of
paper in junk mail (it's got to be collosal), but prefer mail to phone
calls since the latter is inherently interrupt-driven: my mailbox doesn't
ring.  I hope email will overtake the destruction of the forests; then
we can invite anyone to mail to a sub-mailbox (jxh.bulk@attain... ?)
and ignore it or give it special priority as we wish.  It seems that the
USPS could provide this service if everyone had a different mailbox for
each class of mail (1st, third, other).  It's just its expense
with physical mailboxes that has prevented its being done already; computers
make it trivial.  Or how about ISDN providing a "no ring" phone call that
gets directed to my answering machine (or voice mailbox) unconditionally,
to be "opened" and "read" at my convenience.  Looks like there's not going
to be a renaissance of correspondence in my lifetime; this would mean that
you wouldn't even have to be able to write *or* type, just talk.
-- 
"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."
--
Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA, (408) 434-0822 FAX -0252
jxh%attain.teradyne.com@apple.com ...!{amdcad!teda,sun!teda,apple}!attain!jxh