Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hplabsz!news
From: news@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (News Subsystem )
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: The Control of Information
Message-ID: <1301@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: 5 Jan 88 09:27:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 36
Approved: taylor@hplabs

[Apologies in advance for not having the references to the following... I 
read this in one of the several computer magazines I subscribe to and can't 
dig it out of the pile. Double apologies if I read this on the net and got 
confused as to its origin (what with Christmas and flying to the in-laws. :-)]

Recently I read that a supplier of corporate information (Dun & Bradstreet 
I think) which supplies information to DIALOG and related commercial 
databases, had submitted a list of people who were to be denied access 
to that database, on the grounds that those people's interests were
in conflict with the corporations listed.  This list includes all
representatives of unions, union librarians, the ACLU librarians and 
other organizations as well as individuals who D&B thought should not have 
access.  The information in question is the same information that is freely 
available to other businesses and individuals who subscribe, and includes 
such things as year end reports, credit reports, sales, directory-type 
information, financial information, corporate holdings, etc.  This is the 
same information that I could call up on-line if I was thinking of buying 
shares in a company.  The number of companies is not small (over 3 million).

My question is this:

     -  What do you think of this distribution of the equivalent of a
	blacklist for information subscribers?

      - What are the implications of such an action for future information
	networks? (Especially in regard to the discussions in this group about
	the control of/access to information and its effects on society)

I am troubled by this action, as it would seem to set a precedent for
controlling "public access" information, so that certain groups (ie. 
unions) would be unable to gain access to information that they might 
otherwise obtain.  Yet the database services are private commercial 
enterprises, so they may well share the right to serve whoever they 
please.  What do you all think?  (And if you know it, I would appreciate 
the reference.  If I can find it I will post it to this group)

Mark Ritchie