Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!kudla
From: kudla@rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla)
Subject: Re: Information Control
In-Reply-To: minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu's message of 27 Mar 91 18:32:56 GMT
Message-ID: <_78f#2k@rpi.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: nuge105.its.rpi.edu
Organization: just say no!
References: <GUEST.91Mar27044531@geech.ai.mit.edu>
	<1991Mar27.183256.8047@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 20:06:32 GMT
Lines: 60

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???

No, but maybe those who don't should be able to pay less..... not that
I know anyone who doesn't enjoy life, liberty and t.p.o.h., while I
know at least a few people who don't give a damn about privacy, myself
included. 

   Should I also be forced to pay extra for police services if I "really
   care about" my life and property so those who don't give a damn don't
   have to subsidize me and the criminal justice system? Should it cost
   me more to prohibit Joe Schmo from entering my home and looking
   through my desk? (After all, this is just another blow to my privacy.)

I think you're over-reacting a little bit here.  But I also feel that
those with no property shouldn't really have to protect their property
(and the tax system seems to agree with me somewhat).

     Is it really too much to ask that EVERY database be required to use
   a flag indicating whether it is OK to distribute information about me
   for purposes other than which I granted access to the information? (By
   default, the data should be considered private.) That is much less
   restrictive than requiring, say, that everyone in the database be
   notified of its existance or, even more interesting, notification of
   each access made to information about themselves. (_I_ would really
   like to know when and why information about me is being accessed. It
   is difficult to defend yourself when you are not allowed to face your
   [possibly silicon] accuser.) I don't think a bit per person is too
   much to ask.

Isn't there some bureau all these people who really want to be
invisible to marketroids can write to to eliminate 90 or 95% of their
name's incidences on mailing lists?  I've heard something to that
effect lots of times.

   desired to be kept private. If a database where found to have
   inappropriately obtained data, its owners should be required to delete
   such data upon request.

"should be required" is a mighty easy phrase to use when the subject
is someone other than yourself.

     Finally, how many people don't care at least somewhat about their
   privacy? Would you be offended if I browsed through your bills, tax
   returns, bank accounts, shopping list, or sock drawer?

Of course I wouldn't.  What do I have to hide?  Of course, I don't
feel I should be *required* to provide any such information (or socks)
to anyone, but I also don't feel real property is the same as
intellectual property, and don't feel like opening that can or worms
right now.

Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@rpi.edu>
                                   
No more bars!  No more cages!  Just rollerskating, disco music, and
the occasional light show....