Re: Fair Credit Reporting Act and Privacy Act
At 11:28 AM 2/9/96, Duncan Frissell wrote:
Look, the reason we hate the CDA is because it restricts speech. Restrictions on credit agencies gossiping about you are also speech restrictions. If you are out in the world, people are going to talk about you. The credit agencies are much easier to handle and less intrusive than the women were who talked about you while beating cloth on the rocks in the stream back in the old village.
Recall that in 1914 America adopted the "Gossiping and Busybodies Fair Reporting Act," requiring all gossipers and busybodies to register their planned speech acts with the typically-named Privacy Ombudsman (now Ombudsperson). The modest registration fee of $75, a lot of money in 1914 of course, appears to have had a chilling effect on this market, as there are few if any gossiping women beating clothes on rocks at the stream. More seriously, what I find useful when thinking "There ought to be a law!" thoughts is to imagine how it might be enforced against _me_. Creative visualization. For example, while I get angry at times with TRW and TransUnion like everyone else, I imagine a welter of laws about the keeping of records and I imagine someone coming to *my* door and announcing that he was there to inspect the contents of my hard drives to determine if I had unlicensed data. (Tim Philp's idea that this would only apply to "corporations" or "businesses" (not clear which he means) misses the point. Am I, for example, a business? Having such laws kick in at some well-defined threshold would simply shift the nature of the information-gatherers...for example, they's subcontract out the record-keeping to a raft of smaller, linked entities. Then you'd have to prosecute people and companies for accessing illegal data banks, etc.) I am willing to support a few laws, about murder, theft, rape, etc., but not busybody laws trying to control what information people collect. If someone asks what the relevance to this list is of this issue, then they really are as dumb as dirt, and as dumb as endangered dirt, too. --Tim May Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
(Tim Philp's idea that this would only apply to "corporations" or "businesses" (not clear which he means) misses the point. Am I, for example, a business? Having such laws kick in at some well-defined threshold would simply shift the nature of the information-gatherers...for example, they's subcontract out the record-keeping to a raft of smaller, linked entities. Then you'd have to prosecute people and companies for accessing illegal data banks, etc.)
I think that the reason that this was not clear was because it was not central to my argument. I was not "really" suggesting that only corporations be included by this law. I do realise what a corporation is and that some very small entities can be a corporation. What my central thesis was that people who take information from me for one purpose, ie health care, hydro, internet provision, etc, should be required to keep this information confidential. If I detect a violation of this confidentiality, I should have an expectation of some legal recourse. If I apply for a credit card and use it to buy a hockey glove (how Canadian eh) I should not expect to be on the mailing list of every sporting goods operation in North America! I should be able to expect that my doctor's files on me will be kept confidential. This is certainly an area where you cannot provide false information as medical records must be accurate to provide for future care. Again, I am not suggesting prior restraint. I simply want to sue the bastards who violated my expectation of privacy. Warm Regards, Tim Philp
participants (2)
-
tcmay@got.net -
Tim Philp