Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!bu.edu!wang!elf!lee From: lee@wang.com (lee) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Information Control Message-ID: Date: 25 Mar 91 22:17:27 GMT References: <3622.27d4c133@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu> <3778.27dd2150@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> <1225@airs.UUCP> <17230@venera.isi.edu> <17246@venera.isi.edu> Sender: news@wang.com Distribution: na Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc. Lines: 18 In-Reply-To: guest@geech.ai.mit.edu's message of 21 Mar 91 23:18:13 GMT It seems to me that although Suzanne Woolf's first suggestions went too far in the direction of interference with the normal flow of information (we don't need one more way of prosecuting someone for idly revealing what didn't even appear to be a confidence), she is on the right track with the notion that SELLING personal information should require the informed consent of the person informed about. This is already a part of the law for certain kinds of information. Try MAKING A BUCK on insider knowledge of corporate profitability (yeah, I know thousands do it and don't get caught). The crime isn't in passing on the information, but in capitalizing on it (as far as I know, ignorance of the law being my only excuse). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc. (Boston and New Hampshire AMC, and Merrimack Valley Paddlers) ------------------------------------------------------------------------