Responding to msg by tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) on Wed, 7 Sep 4:14 PM
And such normative laws ("they shouldn't keep such records and hence we'll outlaw them") won't work in an era of strong crypto and privacy. In fact, some of us support data havens precisely to have records of, say, terminal diseases so we'll not lend money to Joe-who-has-AIDS. It may not be "fair" to Joe, but it's my money.
It is worth noting that private "data havens" of all sorts abound, especially for financial matters, and most are not subject to governmental regulation. Some banks have research departments that are older and more comprehensive than credit reporting agencies. Favored customers can use them for evaluation of private deals. Large law firms maintain data banks that approach those of banks, and they grow with each case, through additions of private investigators paid for by successive clients. Security professionals, like Wackenhut and Kroll, also market the fruits of substantial data collections. To these add those of insurance, bonding, investment, financial firms and the like which help make or break business deals. It's probable that massive government-regulated consumer data banks contain far less useful information than that of the private market where serious money is made with the best, privileged information. Some may be porous but most are guarded better than Ft. Knox, with special protection against Uncle Sam's snoopers, indeed more secure than consumer records because more valuable. Any c'punkers in the security side of the financial industry want to comment? Anonymously of course. John