Actually, the problems you suggest here could actually be seen as good
things. A lot of these, such as the negative conotations of sexuality
are functions of seriously disfunctional societies, families, and
individuals. Forcing the dirty laundry into the open could improve the
debates on these issues tremendously. Hypocracy is the only thing
allowing the continual existence of many of these social regulations. If
we disallow it, maybe they will go away. David Brin has made very
compelling arguments on why secrecy is always a bad thing. Privacy,
trade secrets, and National Security Classifications are all the same
thing in the end.
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Trei, Peter wrote:
> I'm sure that a lot of people are going to respond,
> but since when has that ever stopped me? :-)
>
> Peter
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: Lizard[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > Can anyone tell me, precisely, why it is so very scary to imagine that
> > somewhere in a corporate database is a notation that you like to buy Coca
> > Cola? Corporations don't scare me -- they want me to be alive, free, and
> > earning money so that I can buy their products. Corpses and prisoners make
> > lousy consumers.
> >
> > I'm just curious as to the source of this fear of corporate 'spying', at
> > least as regards public habits like what you buy. If they were tracking
> > union membership or the like, I'd be more scared -- that's information
> > that
> > they could use to wreck your life. But who gives a smeg if they know what
> > soda you drink or your favorite brand of shampoo? The WORST that will
> > happen is you'll end up on some mailing lists. The best? You'll get a
> > coupon and save 50 cents.
> >
> > Can anyone who finds the concept of corporate databases keeping them awake
> > nights explain to me precisely WHY this bothers them? Obviously, it IS a
> > major concern for a lot of people -- but, as with genetic engineering or
> > nuclear power, I cannot understand the CAUSE of the fear. I need to know.
> >
> >
> Consider, Mr(?). "Lizard": Why exactly are you posting under
> what appears to be a nym? Could it be that there are people
> or organizations who you do not want to know your taste in
> mailing lists?
>
> If you're an employee of PepsiCo, you might very well want to
> conceal your personal preference for Coke.
>
> This is really an issue that relates to the value of privacy
> and anonymity in general. Your question is closely related
> to the old "If you have nothing to hide, why would you object
> to being watched?"
>
> The thing is, you, I, and many people engage in activities
> which, while we think they are OK, we'd rather not have to
> justify at every turn. For example: many people rent adult
> videos: how would you feel if your taste in movies was exposed
> on a webpage for your colleagues at work, your mom, and your
> girlfriend to see?
>
> You can imagine all sorts of bad scenarios if your every action
> was recorded and subject to public scrutiny.
>
> "Your Honor: My husband's a drunk: These supermarket loyalty
> card records show that he drinks 2 sixpacks of beer a week!
> I want a divorce, the house, the cars, and half his income.
> (this actually happened in San Francisco a while back).
>
> "I'm sorry Miss ... your purchase records from RiteAid show that
> though single, you purchase condoms every month. Our firm
> does not hire fornicators."
>
> "John, we're firing you for non-performance; your outstanding
> record up to this point must have been an error. Oh, by the
> way: we all hope you stay healthy: our self-insurance office
> has just reported that you've started purchasing anti-viral
> drugs for HIV."
>
> I myself have been surprised at job interviews when some of
> my leisure time activities have been raised by the
> interviewer (purely out of curiosity - not as a hiring issue.
> At least, so far)
>
> Peter Trei
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
