-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Red, I will not re-quote and rehash the argument thus far. You do have a knack to ignore strong points (although admittedly not all) of your opponent in an argument. Additionally, I am not trying to show anyone that you are a "bad person". I was trying to carry-on civil discourse. I know you really feel that you had no part in disrupting the discourse we started out in, I disagree. My original point, in fact, was taken out of context and so: At 10:50 AM 12/3/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote:
(snip)
(Just for the record, what the hypothetical insurance companies and employers are doing by using data they have obtained should not, in a free society, be illegal in any way. All information contributes to decision-making, about loans, credit, insurance, employment, etc. In a free society, it is up to people to not disclose that which they do not wish remembered.)
While the libertarians on the list have affected my way of looking at regulation I, and others, do not subscribe (suscribe ;)) to Tim's absolute theory. Unless, of course, by free society Tim is refering to one where corporations hold themselves to a level of "personal" responsibility, which in many realms is part of any definition of "free".
Take, for example, the practice of redlining. How are people who live in "bad" neighborhoods supposed to not reveal that information.
My question was a real one. The basis of it comes from my work with the homeless in which they have a difficult time getting a job because they have no "home address" to put on the forms, some do not have or remember their SSNs, etc. This causes a cyclic problem for the homeless. My question to Tim was, in the real world, how is the protection of this data feasible. As I discuss briefly at the end of this post, I also was pointing out my differing opinion on the meaning of "free society". You responded in your last post thus:
While you did not state it explicitly, in the context above I interpreted this to mean that you supported laws which restricted the use banks make of information they obtain from their clients.
This is a factual summary of my opinion but has absolutely nothing to do with my post (I *never* mentioned support or opposition of such laws. It also has nothing to do with my opinions on cryptography or privacy (which you also criticized in your last post). I do have responses to each of your "points" in your last post, but have found the process of responding point-by-point tedious and non-productive (maybe less productive than the time I have to give to the exercise, I was not intending on placing a value judgement on it). So that you can understand my position (in case your sarcasm was not really turned up that high) I will outline it more succinctly below. You are quite right. We disagree. As the topic quickly wandered from the original post on privacy concerns to racial discrimination, I will address that. I apologize to the list (for those that find it irrelevant), but I can not reply directly to Red. - ----- I, personally, find racial discrimination to be a problem in the USA. Not only do I find it a moral problem, but it has adverse effects on markets and the efficiency of these same markets. It is costly not only in personal measures, but in economical terms as well. As a way to address these concerns, holistically, moral concerns as well as economic concerns, I do support limited regulation specifically tailored to address this problem. One of the means of addressing only one specific aspect of this problem is to legislatively restrict the practice of redlining. - ----- I do expect many on the list to disagree with me. They will disagree that racism exists (some). They will disagree that it is morally wrong. They will disagree that it affects markets in any way. They will assert that legislative restrictions are far worse than industry self-policing. More will disagree that the government has any business regulating the area. As I had stated simply before, I disagree. Personally, because of the life I have led, I draw my line here. Others draw it elsewhere. Some dont draw it. (at one time in my life, i fought for not drawing the line. Thru painful learning experiences and reality checks - long arguments over several months and too much coffee - I decided that I would not want to live in a libertarian's ideal society. This decision was based on my perception that it just wouldnt work in reality. I am well aware others will differ. Maybe we can pursue that thread.) Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMq5T/7pijqL8wiT1AQEycgP/bo6zV8B+DySD62zLMz6jYHiJeiW2XYkH UVO+Ixyl8ogRuZOTo09pF1+6X8olT5mCY2SxYb6z43UUDZDHhwT+A/8qc8WdF3la HCiJ2scterzYdh113Jn3M4TQomakuU1wY36nZzldMN5B2iIyRmAvRynPRYA+0I51 q06tPm36eq8= =q3zf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----