At 07:04 PM 2/5/96 -0500, Tim Philp wrote:

On Mon, 5 Feb 1996, Duncan Frissell wrote:

...

Unfortunately, it would also:

* Require government registration of computers and databases containing information about people (whether these computers are used by business or individuals). This eases regulation of computers and future confiscation.

I don't believe that this follows at all. All that would be required would be a statutory obligation to comply with the legislation. Should a breach occur, civil and criminal penalties would apply. No need for prior restraint.

Perhaps if you had read the British Privacy Protection Act (in force since 1984 or so) and similar Continental regs you would see that this sort of registration was a common method of enforcement. The PPA is on the WEB and the Data Protection Registrar (you know as in "registration") has a web page: http://www.open.gov.uk/dpr/dprhome.htm "What does the Act mean to computer users? Registration With few exceptions, if you hold or control personal data on computer, you must register with the Data Protection Registrar. Registration is normally for three years and one standard fee is payable to cover this period. Registration forms are available from the Registrar's office, including a special shortened registration form (DPR4) for those who process personal data only for payroll and bought/sales ledger purposes. Computer bureaux which process personal data for others or allow data users to process personal data on their computers must also register. Their register entries will contain only their name and address. Data users and computer bureaux who should register but do not, are committing a criminal offence, as are those operating outside the descriptions contained in their register entries. In these cases the Registrar regularly prosecutes. The penalty for non-registration can be a fine of up to £5,000 plus costs in the Magistrates Courts, or an unlimited fine in the Higher Courts."

It would not make it harder for buyers and sellers to get together, it would simply increase the risk. It may lead to higher prices, but I am prepared to pay something to protect my privacy.

Then just pay the higher price personally by not giving other people information you want to keep private. Get an accommodation address, use secured credit cards (or none at all), get a voice mail phone number, lie when people ask you for info.

I agree that in the absolute sense, this is true. However, it is not practical to do so in our modern society. If you are prepared to live without credit or health insurance you can do this but the price is too high for most people to consider.

You can get health insurance without giving personal data by lying. You can get credit from friends and relatives (borrowed credit) or save money first and use secured credit cards (or bank debit VISA cards) to minimize reporting. 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. DCF "Nice black pages on the Infoseek results screen. We are everywhere."