At 10:34 AM 2/11/00 -0500, 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?
Actually, it's because this is the identity I do everything under. The
lists I subscribe to are fight-censorship, GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, Fanfic
Writers, and Spooner. Oh yeah, and Sluggy Freelance. Oh, and RPG Design.
And, come to think of it, Aria and Alternate Realities, but they're pretty
moribund. And Tri-Stat (Big Eyes, Small mouth) as well. I think that's it.
No, wait, just subbed to Web Law.
>If you're an employee of PepsiCo, you might very well want to
>conceal your personal preference for Coke.
>
Assuming anyone is going to bother looking.
>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?"
Actually, the issue is not the databases -- it's how casually people flaunt
their activities. It's a supply-side problem with a supply-side
solution:Encryption and anonymity, not laws restricting the use of
information publically available.
But the government HATES that thought. The government wants you to be naked
and exposed to their spies -- so they go after the people collecting the
information, rather than letting people stop *broadcasting* the information
in the first place.
Which do you prefer:A society in which no one is permitted to wear masks,
and photographs are banned, or a society in which anyone can take
photographs, but everyone is also free to wear masks?
>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?
Which is why I pay cash when I do such things. :) Again, the solution is to
control giving away data.
>You can imagine all sorts of bad scenarios if your every action
>was recorded and subject to public scrutiny.
>
Certainly. Again, see above.
But anything you do IN PUBLIC is by definition 'available to public
scrutiny'. What you are proposing, basically, is a system whereby people
are forbidden to use knowledge they legitimately aquire.
>"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).
And if, instead of a supermarket, she called his bartender or a mutual
friend ot the stand? Should they be forced by law to say "I know
noooooothing!" lest they violate his 'right to privacy'?
When I've needed to buy condoms or pregnancy tests, I have deliberately
done so at stores I do not frequent and paid cash -- for precisely the
reasons you mention.
