-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 12:25:55PM -0700, David Honig wrote:
At 05:48 PM 10/18/00 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
So are you saying that there is nothing wrong with the government doing the corporations' dirty work?
A govt has an obligation to secure the data it has collected and not to share it. So perhaps we agree on this point: the govt must not give out (do 'dirty work') data on citizens that it holds. If an insurance (or bank or grocery or whatever) co. wants data, they can't expect it from the govt.
I guess we do agree on this.
[Hmm... I hadn't thought about the morality of terraserver.. where you can get pictures of your neighbors lots, taken by the govt]
The problem is, corporations also control the media, so most people do not know about the bad shit some corporations are involved in.
There is no obligation for media to tell the truth or all of what *you* deem the truth even when they *claim* to be telling the truth (e.g., news). The only thing they gamble is reputation.
I never said they do have an obligation to tell the truth. I think they SHOULD, but they often don't. All I said was that, because the media often doesn't tell the whole truth, people don't know about bad stuff that corporations are doing.
There is no obligation for Joe Sixpack to fund news sources he's not interested in, or viewpoints he doesn't subscribe to.
The only relevent obligation is for *state* actors to do nothing.
If you can't sell or distribute your bits to your satisfaction, blame the population. Similarly if you can't find what you want to buy: blame the population for not exerting sufficient demand. Round 'em up and send 'em to re-education camps. That oughta work.
You may not like the results of living amongst this population who prefers football to deep reporting, but lack of coercion means none of your business.
Finally, I asked,
Are you against car insurers asking about your other genetic characteristics (e.g., sex)?
And you replied:
No, because they do not deny coverage based upon gender.
But they *do* vary your rate with your sex. I shouldn't have to spell it out, but: Given finite individual resources, varying the costs with sex amounts to refusing coverage for some, based on sex.
Where's your (misplaced, because a Y chromo *does* mess up your driving skills when under 25 :-) sense of injustice about this genetic discrimination?
Your original question was "Are you against car insurers ASKING [my emphasis]" about gender. I'm not against them asking. I'm against them discriminating based on that information, however. - -- Nathan Saper (natedog@well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE58LkB2FWyBZrQ84IRAkTTAJ9UbwxOhWTciZ6DDpsDTKNJExSN4QCfW8LM gWCb2I+FL1Do1jjNS/RkieY= =BImJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----