Re: AIDs testing and privacy
Duncan Frissell wrote: | | I suppose I shouldn't admit this as a privacy advocate but I wonder why | anyone is interested in all this health/credit data. Since they can't *do* | anything with it in the real world, seems like a waste of time. What about being denied a job because you have been treated for some disease? How about being denied a loan because your medical history has a profile that indicates that your life expectancy is shorter than the duration of the loan? It seems that the potential for abuse is so great that we should not allow such cross referencing. Mike. ===================================================== Mike Markley <mmarkley@microsoft.com> I'm not a Microsoft spokesperson. All opinions expressed here are mine. =====================================================
Mike Markley wrote:
What about being denied a job because you have been treated for some disease? How about being denied a loan because your medical history has a profile that indicates that your life expectancy is shorter than the duration of the loan? It seems that the potential for abuse is so great that we should not allow such cross referencing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There's the rub! While I may not _like_ what people or companies do with data about me, I generally don't support laws telling them what they can do, what they can't do, etc. 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. (Same idea as in using offshore or cryptospatial data havens to bypass the nonsense in the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" that outlaws the keeping of certain kinds of facts about credit applicants, such as that they declared bankruptcy 10 years ago or that they left a string of bad debts in Germany in the 1970s, etc.) I won't go into the many issues here, as this is an ideological digression. Cypherpunks understand that laws won't protect their privacy. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
What about being denied a job because you have been treated for some disease? How about being denied a loan because your medical history has a profile that indicates that your life expectancy is shorter than the duration of the loan? It seems that the potential for abuse is so great that we should not allow such cross referencing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There's the rub! While I may not _like_ what people or companies do with data about me, I generally don't support laws telling them what they can do, what they can't do, etc.
Lets say a place wont hire blacks, and you happend to be black, and wanted to work for such a company. Would you do what you can to hide your color, if possible, to get hired, then let them try to fire you over it, or would you decide that you wouldnt want to work for this company at all? What if MOST companys had this policy... ...and the ones that didnt, wouldnt pay anyone what they are worth. What then? If one or two companys would be the ones deciding what to do based on this information then I wouldnt see much problem in it, I would choose to do buisness with other companys based on there ethic, however I dont think many companys that I will do buisness with are the likes that wont use anything they can get there hands on. Assuming this to be true, it could be very difficult to live if every company knew I was such and such. Groove on Dude Michael Conlen
Michael Conlen writes:
Lets say a place wont hire blacks, and you happend to be black, and wanted to work for such a company. Would you do what you can to hide your color, if possible, to get hired, then let them try to fire you over it, or would you decide that you wouldnt want to work for this company at all? What if MOST companys had this policy... ...and the ones that didnt, wouldnt pay anyone what they are worth. What then?
Were I black, I wouldn't want to work for them. However, if they asked my race, and I lied/deceived them, and they discovered it later (naturally), I would expect to be fired. That's life in a society based on voluntary interactions. Libertarianism 101. (It's also part of Libertarianism 101 that such a company would not likely do well in this day and age. Before you cite America's racist past, read up on who it was that enforced segregation. Hint: not the corporations. Ditto for South Africa (the "other" RSA), where the Apartheid Laws came into being because companies were looking to hire blacks and coloreds to fill job position, and the whites didn't like that much.) --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
(It's also part of Libertarianism 101 that such a company would not likely do well in this day and age. Before you cite America's racist past, read up on who it was that enforced segregation. Hint: not the corporations. Ditto for South Africa (the "other" RSA), where the Apartheid Laws came into being because companies were looking to hire blacks and coloreds to fill job position, and the whites didn't like that much.)
Only ment as an example... ...not as an accuatual pratice. I agree that a company that praticed thoes polices would not make it far. The Minority is enough to pull a company down on there own. The Minority has friends that are not minority. Enough to quickly bankrupt the comany. Hiring pratices based on things other then the quality of work produced is another thing. Groove on dude Michael Conlen
I won't go into the many issues here, as this is an ideological digression. Cypherpunks understand that laws won't protect their privacy.
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
There is a central contradiction running through the dabase regulations proposed by many so-called "privacy advocates". To be enforceable they require massive government snooping into database activities on our workstatins and PCs, especially the activities of many small at-home businesses (such as mailing list entrepreneurs who often work out of the home). Thus, the upshot of these so-called "privacy" regulations is to destroy our last shreds of privacy against government, and calm us into blindly letting even more of the details of our personal lives into the mainframes of the major government agencies and credit reporting agenices, who if they aren't explicitly excepted from the privacy laws (as is common) can simply evade them by using offshore havesn, mutual agreements with foreign investigators, police and intelligence agencies. If cypherpunks contribute nothing else we can create a real privacy advocacy group, advocating means of real self-empowerment, from crypto to nom de guerre credit cards, instead of advocating further invasions of our privacy as the so-called privacy advocates are now doing! The first political lobbying task of any real privacy advocacy group should be pushing for the reissue of Lotus Marketplace. A "privacy" group that works to keep the public misinformed about the information we are giving out, at the same time increasing the detail of government snooping of our private commerical data, itself displays the kind of bovine bliss that is the most dangerous threat to our privacy, and ultimately our freedom. Jim Hart hart@chaos.bsu.edu
Jim Hart writes:
digression. Cypherpunks understand that laws won't protect their privacy.
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
There is a central contradiction running through the dabase regulations proposed by many so-called "privacy advocates". To be enforceable they require massive government snooping into database activities on our workstatins and PCs, especially the activities of many small at-home businesses (such as mailing list entrepreneurs who often work out of the home).
Exactly. The "principle of locality" is violate when people demand that _others_ not keep certain records, diaries, files, etc. If something is worth keeping secret, keep it secret! The "Data Privacy Laws" of several European nations are especially brain-damaged in their unenforceability (not that "enforceability" is something I want to see, but an unenforceable law is generally bad and leads to capricious situations).
Thus, the upshot of these so-called "privacy" regulations is to destroy our last shreds of privacy against government, and calm us into blindly letting even more of the details of our personal lives into the mainframes of the major government agencies and credit reporting agenices, who if they aren't explicitly excepted from the privacy laws (as is common) can simply evade them by using offshore havesn, mutual agreements with foreign investigators, police and intelligence agencies.
"Calm us into..." is a very good description. Most privacy laws create the comforting illusion that the government is protecting our privacy, all as it is eroded by corporate-government "deals." (The examples people have cited here: states that require personal data for driver's license's, then _sell_ the data bases to private firms!)
If cypherpunks contribute nothing else we can create a real privacy advocacy group, advocating means of real self-empowerment, from crypto to nom de guerre credit cards, instead of advocating further invasions of our privacy as the so-called privacy advocates are now doing!
The first political lobbying task of any real privacy advocacy group should be pushing for the reissue of Lotus Marketplace. A "privacy" group that works to keep the public misinformed about the information we are giving out, at the same time increasing the detail of government snooping of our private commerical data, itself displays the kind of bovine bliss that is the most dangerous threat to our privacy, and ultimately our freedom.
Yes, Mark Miller made the same points about Lotus Marketplace (a CD-ROM of government data on phone numbers, zip codes, etc.--never released because "privacy advocates" rasied an uproar) in a interview in the zine "Extropy" a couple of years back. The illusion of privacy is deemed preferable to actual privacy. (Actual privacy could be increased very easily by simply reducing the number of "permission slips" that people are obligated by law to show in various transactions. Lots of ways to do this. Suffice it to say that our credential-happy society is getting very little real benefit for demanding credentials at every turn and is instead providing precise dossier material for those who keep dossiers. Shudder.) --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Tim writes: | (Actual privacy could be increased very easily by simply reducing the | number of "permission slips" that people are obligated by law to show | in various transactions. Lots of ways to do this. Suffice it to say | that our credential-happy society is getting very little real benefit | for demanding credentials at every turn and is instead providing | precise dossier material for those who keep dossiers. Shudder.) On a happy note, when I switched to MCI recently, they asked for my socialist security number, but the person had no problem at all not getting it. Yes, it would be nice for them not to ask at all, but I didn't even have to raise my voice when declining to provide it. Adam
Adam Shostack writes:
On a happy note, when I switched to MCI recently, they asked for my socialist security number, but the person had no problem at all not getting it. Yes, it would be nice for them not to ask at all, but I didn't even have to raise my voice when declining to provide it.
Actually, they don't even need to ask for it anymore....it's attached to so many _other_ things that pop up when they enter your name that it's a moot point. In other words, the same dossiers that allow the credit card companies to send you "preapproved credit cards" every few days are the same dossiers that MCI, Sprint, AT&T, etc. are using to sign you up. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On a happy note, when I switched to MCI recently, they asked for my socialist security number, but the person had no problem at all not getting it. Yes, it would be nice for them not to ask at all, but I didn't even have to raise my voice when declining to provide it.
They have your current name and current address... ...anyone who has worked with credit reporting services can tell you that thoes two things are enough to get your Social Security number. The person getting the informaiton may have already had the number in front of her. With your name and address someone can find out what your date of birth is. In many states that is enough for a drivers licens... ...name and dob... ...anyway they also have your SSN and everyone you have owed money to in the last ten years. From your Drivers licens the story goes on. Groove on dude Michael Conlen
The reason not to give your Social Security Number when MCI asks is not to keep MCI from knowing it, but to keep them from treating your knowledge of it as proof of your identity. Insist that they use a different number so anyone willing to pay TRW for a credit report can't get access to your account. Chris (author of the SSN FAQ)
participants (6)
-
Adam Shostack -
Chris Hibbert -
Jim Hart -
Michael Conlen -
Mike Markley -
tcmay＠netcom.com