At 11:23 PM 8/8/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:

At 2:49 AM 8/9/96, John F. Fricker wrote:

...

Isn't that the role of legislation? To implement solutions that society would not do on it's own?

The enabling technology is obviously off the self.

I think you may have misinterpretted my last sentence which was supposed to have had a ? at the end. Where's the proof reader when you need one!

"To implement solutions that society would not do on it's own?"

Would not do, or could not do? It is within anyone's power to ask their psychiatrist what form of encryption he uses to protect his files. Likewise with doctors and hospitals.

Well where there's a will there's a way. I agree that the general public and the market place often lacks the power to affect particular events. Central planning can facility certain processes. Free-marketers may argue that I can query and select based upon my encryption criteria but chances are my psychiatrist will do nothing more than "make note" of paranoia and ponder it's significance: "Do you resent your mother?"

(Though I freely admit that one would not be likely to get very far. For at least the next decade or two, the reaction will likely be "Huh?" But "legislation" mandating a form of encryption is not the answer. For many reasons.)

On this list at least, calls for passing laws to implement societal solutions are not usually smiled upon. This is not to say such discussions are out of bounds, only that you'd better make some persuasive arguments and not just appeal to our common sense sympathies for social engineering and more laws.

I am not a great fan of social engineering and regulations. Yet the legisture in Oregon may get called for a special session to address this issue and I see this an opportunity for a grander arguement than merely acccess to the DMV data. And as much as we dislike the presence of the governments they do indeed exist. Living within their domain limits our choices to either: complacency through inaction (cynicism et al), attempts at isolation (back to the land), or taking an active role through voting, education, civil disobedience or participation in the process (a pox on party politics! the latter choice is easily the least enticing while civil disobedience can be truly fun! >g<). Ok so call me a statist and shove me out the door, but I am not argueing for the existance of a state. It does currently exist and I am not self-sufficient. But I digress. So. #1) My state legislature may very well get called to address this issue. Do they have any concept of the big picture here? That the DMV data is one small part of a debate regarding privacy which needs to be addressed. This is an opportunity for some education and by the end of the day I should know if my representatives are willing to listen. #2) The records industry (for lack of a better term to encompass all companies that accumulate data on individuals) needs some standards and guidelines. Or walls and fences. Maybe even bars and a moat! And the sooner the better. Federally imposed software requirements are not uncommon in certain industries. It is time for standards for the personal data maintained by co-operating entities (ie agencies the public co-operates with such as doctors, the DMV, and so on). #3) The goal is the anonymous citizen. The first step it to secure the data currently exposed. Can this be done _without_ legislation? --j