Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!maytag!watmath!looking!brad From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Information Control Message-ID: <1991Mar28.192330.4999@looking.on.ca> Date: 28 Mar 91 19:23:30 GMT References: <1991Mar27.183256.8047@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu> Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Lines: 19 Note as well that if the Supreme Court has ruled a right to privacy, by and large that this is a right to privacy wrt the government, and extension to private citizens is far less certain. (Not to say that it won't be there, but it will not be as rigid) We should encourage statute law to define default terms of confidentiality for personal information given in business transactions, just as law and ethics already define such terms for certain special transactions today, such as those with doctors, lawyers and other professionals. This is what we need. We need no less, but we also need no more. If we go overboard with crazy concepts like "copyright" or "trademark" on your name and personal information, you create more bureaucracy and more flaunting of the laws. We fleshed all this out in detail a couple of months ago. Is this group going to be one of those groups with recycling discussions? -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473