Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!emory!rsiatl!jgd From: jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Database Regulation (was Re: Post Office plans.) Message-ID: <5328@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> Date: 20 Dec 90 16:26:38 GMT References: <5308@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> Organization: Rapid Deployment Systems (making go-fast things and things that-go fast) Lines: 41 lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >How about the following? >[1] Creditors and those who would provide input for such databases > should be required to get your approval to report TO the > databases. In fact, to prevent pressure tactics, we might > need a law requiring the input sources to not discriminate > based on one's refusal to sign such a form. >and/or >[2] You may sue the database provider AND consumer (that is - the > one using the database) for some vast quantity of money if an > error on their part harms you in some way. I like this, Elliot. In fact, I like it so much that I can say that it is almost in sync with my proposal a month ago that caused so much smoke and flame. About the only difference is that I provide for the government to pay for the consumer's litigation so that economic pressure would not preclude one from exercising one's rights. Financing the cost of litigation, or better, having the justice department act on your behalf (but only at your request) would put real teeth in the law. And if we establish, a priori, certain acts that are by definition violations of a person's privacy rights, then we remove a large burden from the courts and from the citizen. A violated citizen must then prove only that the act occured and not whether he was harmed. The law would establish that he was indeed harmed. Let's keep working. WE may come up with something that will fly yet. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"