Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!hplabs!hplabsz!taylor
From: Guthery@asc.sdr.slb.com (Guthery)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: Private Agreements to Restrict Information
Message-ID: <1585@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: 19 Feb 88 00:38:27 GMT
Sender: taylor@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM
Lines: 28
Approved: taylor@hplabs

Ken Hanly recently asks if he and I can enter into a contract whereby he 
will tell me his sox size if I promise not to tell any white person.  
The answer is not only can we but, more importantly, I believe this contract 
would (and should) be upheld by any democratic judicial system.  A third
person may object to our entering into this agreement on moral or religious 
grounds but to the extent that Mr. Hanly and I are not of the same moral 
or religious persuasion as the objector, this is of no consequence.

There must be a clear and compelling showing of interference with public 
good before the state's interests can supercede private interests. All 
information about Mr. Hanly's person is his property and he can do with 
it as he pleases.  He must reveal his annual income to the IRS for the 
proper administration of the tax system but he does not have to reveal 
his annual income to the Department of the Interior to gain admission to 
a national park.  To my knowledge, he is not obliged to reveal his 
sox size to anyone.

In the computer age as in all others, information is property.  The
speed and facility with which one can process it doesn't alter this fact.
Unlike land, it it can be easily duplicated and therefore easily jointly 
owned.  This does not, however, alter its property status.

The concerns individuals have about revealing their bank PIN number or 
their HIV virus count to those who would do them harm, are the same concerns
that corporations have toward revealing their private information to those 
who would do them harm.  For both, we have to be very careful about forcing
them to reveal such information and we have to err on the side of doing
no harm.