Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cs.columbia.edu!abrams From: abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Post Office plans to sell address databases. Message-ID: Date: 17 Dec 90 16:49:01 GMT References: <13017@milton.u.washington.edu> <13103@milton.u.washington.edu> Sender: news@cs.columbia.edu (The Daily News) Distribution: comp Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science Lines: 69 In-Reply-To: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu's message of 17 Dec 90 06:17:39 GMT In article <13103@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >This isn't a flame, Steven. It's simply to refute your >statement, made without support, that those who are putting >out automated databases like Marketplace are somehow >"accountable." They aren't, unless a law or contract >specifically makes them so. In the absence of such law and >contracts -- and there are none bearing on this product to >my knowledge, so long as it excludes certain protected >credit and medical information -- Lotus is in no way >accountable to those whose names it distributes in Market- >place. I think we're agreeing -- I did say that I believe that legislative steps should be taken to make Lotus accoutnable, so that ALL people involved can benefit from the existance of the database. Without such db's, as I pointed out in the original posting, it would be impossible to enforce accountability for any information obtained about a person. Once everything is computerized, it is easier to have accoutability, IFF APPROPRIATE LEGISLATIVE STEPS ARE TAKEN. >It goes without saying that junk mail is highly unecological, >in that it consumes billions of tons of paper and distributes >millions of tons of toxic inks to waste dumps throughout the >nation, but you are certainly entitled to receive it. >You >might also want the right to refuse it, however, or at least >not to have your trash recepticles swollen by yet more waste. >It should be a personal decision. Lotus chooses not to make >it so. Wrong there. Lotus has the 800 number that you can call to get yourself off of the list. Once again, allow me to clarify myself. 1) I do not support Lotus' idea of the marketing database. I think it's a sleazeball way of racking up income and generating all kinds of additional junk mail that lots of people don't want. However, there is nothing illegal about junk mail (another issue totally). 2) Databases of people and their personal buying habits or lifestyles or whatever other information you can think of are available and will continue to be available. I see nothing wrong with this from a legal point of view, since people were always able to obtain nearly any informatio n they wanted about someone anyway. The way that all people can benefit from the new technology is to ensure that information providers are held accountable for the information they provide. Now those who request information are protected and those about whom information is requested are protected. I am unsure how I stand on the question of whether one has the right to be removed from a database. Lotus' lawyers probably convinced Lotus to take the safe way out and let people be deleted if they request. I haven't made up my own mind yet, as it is a very complex issue and goes beyond "privacy." ~~~Steve -- /************************************************* * *Steven Abrams abrams@cs.columbia.edu * **************************************************/ #include #include