I think that you may have misunderstood just what my position is. There are circumstances that people are faced with in our modern society

In an earlier message to this thread, it was suggested that I should not call down the forces of the state ("lets pass a law") to deal with this issue. I wish that it could be dealt with in another way. If

From: IN%"bplib@wat.hookup.net" "Tim Philp" 6-FEB-1996 23:08:03.68 that compel them to release data about themselves. Here I am speaking about the information required if you want to use credit cards, have a telephone, use health insurance, pay income tax ( could do without this one! <G>), or register to vote. I do not believe that it is unreasonable that the organizations that collect this data should be compelled to keep this information confidential. ----------------- With the exceptions of "use credit cards" and "use health insurance," all of these are ultimately governmentally dictated (by the governmental monopoly status if nothing else). I agree that the government (and its sponsored monopolies) should not be able to keep information that it does not need, and that it should be required to keep such information confidential. One can do without credit cards; I use mine about once a month, and that only because I can be lazy at times (not wanting to go to the bank to get more cash). A group health insurance plan can also enable doing without providing medical information; I am currently covered by such a plan. ------------------ personal information is not controlled, it will work towards the detriment of the individual. My personal opinion is that the state exists to serve the individual, not to control him. In our current society an individual has little control over the release of personal data, therefore the state should legitimatly protect the individual. If you wish to control your own information, you must be prepared to be a real hard case. ----------------- I certainly agree that the purpose of the state is to protect the rights of the individual. It's just that you're wanting more interference in the rights of other individuals (like the stockholders of the CC companies) than is justifiable. For maximal control over one's life, sometimes one does have to be a "real hard case." That's life. -Allen P.S. As TCMay pointed out earlier in this thread, all this is a moot point. In the expiry of credit information, for instance, all one has to do is make use of a credit evaluation agency (that stores information) in another country. If its methods are proprietary, it's a bit difficult for the state to prove that you're using an organization that violates its rules.