Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!guest From: guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Information Control Message-ID: Date: 27 Mar 91 22:07:38 GMT References: <1991Mar27.183256.8047@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Organization: Guest at MIT Lines: 17 In-reply-to: minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu's message of 27 Mar 91 18:32:56 GMT In article <1991Mar27.183256.8047@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu> minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: Uhmmm. Uhmmm. I don't want to panic or anything, but the Supreme Court *has* acknowledged a fundamental right to privacy. Should those who desire life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have to pay extra??? You have the fundamental right to privacy in your home too, but you still have to buy curtains for your windows in order to exercise that right. Privacy isn't something that everyone else owes to you, you have to take action to preserve it. If you carelessly throw your financial records in the street, you can't expect the state to prosecute someone for reading them. Giving financial information to a bank isn't a careless action but there are ways to get the bank to protect your privacy other than passing new privacy laws. Daniel Guilderson ryan@cs.umb.edu