Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucselx!crash!lairdb
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Those (henious) Information Brokers; who are they?
Message-ID: <8782@crash.cts.com>
Date: 24 Apr 91 19:08:15 GMT
References: <8683@crash.cts.com> <1991Apr21.151853.11183@com50.c2s.mn.org> <8741@crash.cts.com> <1991Apr23.133156.5822@com50.c2s.mn.org>
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Lines: 55

In <1991Apr23.133156.5822@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes:

>>In article <8741@crash.cts.com> (Laird Broadfield) writes:
>>*sole and/or primary business* is the collection and sale of "personal"
>>information, especially those whose datasets extend beyond mailing-list
>>data, into lifestyle, health, financial, etc.

>You want to get a list of the big 'drug' dealers, and don't care about the
>users.  Just because Lotus decided to pull out of the business doesn't mean
>that there aren't others that will take their place.  After all, there are
>customers waiting.

*Exactly.*   I realize that any sensible organization will purchase lists
that are tailored to their needs, and that many, once they have a list, will
add information in order to more accurately target their mail-ees.  As
many people remarked, Lotus's only blunder was in publicizing their product
so widely; many 'dealers' exist already, including those from whom Lotus
was purchasing their data.  The 'dealers' (good simile, Craig) are who I'm
curious about; let's collect some information on *them* for a change.

Who are information dealers?     
What info do they gather?
Do they have a trade association?
Do they have a publication?
Do they have a PAC?


>Excuse me, if I misinterpreted your original request.  I was not trying to
>be condescending or cute.  I just feel that companies that are legally
>filling the need for 'lifestyle' information are not criminals.  The
>criminal aspect comes in when false data is disseminated.  Or, when the
>information is used as a weapon, ala Robert Bork's video selections.

(S'okay, I probably over-flamed a little.)
I agree with your statements above *entirely* (although I'm inclined to 
let market forces take care of the 'false data' problem.)  If you don't
want something known, don't tell anyone.  Period.  I don't feel any
malice toward a mail order shop that resells my N&A, I gave it to them.
If I'm dumb enough to use my credit card to pay for groceries, then
I've given them the data; do with it what they will.  

[Digressing somewhat, but...]   IMO, if *any* regulation is required 
(something I'm _always_ skeptical of) it should be in the direction
of _more_information_freedom_for_the_individual_, not less for anyone.
Why should I have to show ID to get a private mailbox?  Or a bank
account?  Or buy groceries?  I vaguely remember (but can't find the 
reference, dammit) a case (CA?) some years ago where the decision
said that it was *not* unlawful to use another name as long as it
was not for an unlawful purpose.  Yay!  That's the kind of law
we *do* need; not more regulations restricting private business
transactions.

--  Laird P. Broadfield                        | Year after year, site after
    UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb            | site, and I still can't think
    INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com                 | of a funny enough .sig.