Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!abvax!iccgcc!herrickd
From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Citizens of the City of Mind
Message-ID: <4013.27f1e5a9@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 28 Mar 91 17:46:33 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>
Lines: 68

In article <17230@venera.isi.edu>, woolf@isi.edu (Suzanne Woolf) writes:
> In article <1225@airs.UUCP> airs!ian@uunet.uu.net (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:
>>In article <3778.27dd2150@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (daniel lance herrick) writes:
>>>In article <1991Mar11.070712.4223@cs.ucla.edu>, gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes:
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway, when did I ever make Equifax my agent and ask them to sell info
>>>> about me?
>>>> 
>>>You freely gave information that is valuable and Equifax is selling
>>>it as the agent of the person you gave it to or as their own agent.
>>
>>While the information is freely given, it is easy to not be aware that
>>you are giving out information, and it is hard to become aware, after
>>the fact, that you have given it out.  This could be considered a
>>hazard of living in this society, but I would just as soon eliminate
>>the hazard.
>>
> 
> At the risk of wandering off on a tangent, this strikes me as a
> critical aspect, not much discussed, of the debates on the nature of
> privacy, private information, etc.
> 
> The argument that "You freely gave valuable information" to Equifax
> makes an assumption: that information I give, or my credit card
> company gives about me, to Equifax is theirs to do as they wish
> (subject only to the law) *regardless of the intent* of the
> information provider.
> 
> Another way to put the question is this: If I give someone information
> about me for a specific purpose, should there be any limitation on
> what they can do with it outside of that purpose?  Or must I give up
> all say over the further propagation of that information?  Do I, by
> consenting to one use of the information, consent to all?
> 
[discussion omitted]
 
> quasi-public (e.g. the phone company).  I'm generally uncomfortable
> with suggesting "more laws" as an answer to anything, but what would

[more discussion omitted]

Suzanne:  I believe I have preserved your point while omitting your 
defense of it.  Thank you, this is a direction I have been trying to
point this discussion.  Now, my comments.

Each of the written requests for information has some sort of contractual
structure.  The telephone application for insurance filled out a form that
had the same structure.

Action you can take:  Every time you put answers to questions on a piece
of paper, add to the contract before you sign it a statement of what
purposes you are willing to have the information used for.

Some organizations at the other end of such contracts will live by the
contract you signed.  Some will refuse your business, as is their right.
Some will accept your business and violate your contract.

The way we can change the way people do business is to cause companies
in the second category to forego a lot of business for this reason and
to cause companies in the third category to lose some big judgments over
breach of contract.

A very large fraction of the information abuses people complain of have
a signed piece of paper behind them.  Teach people to change those
boilerplate contracts before they sign them.

dan herrick
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com