On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

So you're prepared for everyone to pay more, but not for those who want privacy to pay more? While I do support taxes to pay for a minimal amount of welfare, I don't think that much intrusion into private property rights is justified. -Allen

I think that you may have misunderstood just what my position is. There are circumstances that people are faced with in our modern society 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. When I spoke about the price to pay, I was speaking somewhat metaphorically in that it is possible to keep this information to your self and not have to PAY anything. The actual PRICE that is paid is that you are not able to participate fully in our society. I don't believe that you can equate this type of price that you pay in social currency with an actual price that you pay because merchants must assume more risk. 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 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. Regards, Tim Philp