here's my $.02;
C6, is a start, its not perfect, but its a start. We have seen clearly
demonstrated in the past, that corporations frequently do not care about
the privacy of customers, and that opportunity for abuse has traditionally
been plentiful and pervasive. companies that do 'marketing' and 'credit
reporting' for example, have no interest in the common citizen as anything
other than a 'demographic for marketing purposes' or as a subject that can
be 'reported on' [with a total disregard for accuracy or
privacy]. Imagine, how many lives were ruined because [for discussion
purposes, we shall call the company "equifuck"] disseminates reports that
are wildly inaccurate involving outrageous and frequently libelous
claims. They then make it nearly impossible for the common citizen to
enforce accuracy, or even, verify accuracy. This, is called abuse of
private information. Health care concerns become nightmarish as more
companies, desperate for clients, for example, decide to try to sell
funeral services to AIDS patients because they bought a marketing list
compiled from illegally obtained medical records.... [speculation at that
point].
When you include the possibilities of taking information fragments from
multiple sources, and combining them, then very clear and very complete
dossiers can be compiled for later reference. [something the nazi's found
useful in tracking down Jewish people in an earlier darker era in
history... we all know how THAT ended...]
The corporate world has shown us that 'Big Brother is alive and well, and
is in fact a marketing firm'. George Orwell would be horrified by what we
have today, market research extends significantly beyond the worst
nightmare visions of 1984. [its real, its all around us, and its not going
to get any better without things like C6].
just something to think about.
cheers
-sr
>Dear Dr. Jones:
>
>I agree that privacy is an important issue in today's information based
>society, and I too consider it to be a fundamental individual right.
>However, just I have a Common Law right to engage in voluntary transactions
>of money and property, so should I have a right to exchange information with
>other parties, and on whatever terms that are mutually agreeable.
>
>If I provide information to a party voluntarily - without coercion - I don't
>have any moral right to demand anything of that party outside of whatever
>agreement was made. If the party were to disregard the terms of the
>agreement, then I would clearly have legitimate grounds for civil
>litigation.
>
>In the case of Air Miles, or Safeway Club, or web sites that collect
>personal information, I believe the exchange of information for goods and/or
>services is perfectly legitimate. If I don't care for the terms, then I can
>simply choose not to engage in such a transaction, and my privacy would
>therefore be adequately protected.
>
>In Canadian law, when there is a dispute over whether the terms of a
>contract are being met, the burden of proof is rightly placed on the party
>that contends otherwise. The "access to information" provision of Bill C-6
>puts this well founded principle on its head, placing the burden of proof on
>the holder of the personal information to prove that it is in compliance.
>
>One case I have heard cited in favour of such privacy protection laws is of
>some (American) company that filed for bankruptcy, and the Receiver
>proceeded to liquidate its assets, including its amassed personal
>information without the consent of those that provided it. In this case, I
>believe that this would be legitimate grounds for civil litigation if the
>terms under which the information was supplied were not upheld. But who to
>sue? The company would be defunct.
>
>If instead of individuals' personal information being sold, we suppose it
>was the "Colonel's Secret Recipe" or the source code to Microsoft Windows
>that was previously licenced to the (now defunct) company, it would be clear
>to the Receiver that such information could not be legally resold. Such an
>action would violate the terms of the contract with the information
>supplier, and would undoubtedly expose the Receiver to significant legal
>liability. So should be the case if the terms of the contract between
>individuals and the defunct company are not upheld.
>
>This liability should be enough to protect our privacy when we deal with
>voluntary transactions of information. If we need legal privacy protection,
>it should be to protect individuals against those who acquire this
>information through involuntary means, namely our governments. Governments
>have the power to coerce private information from us, then use and
>distribute this information as it sees fit, without the necessary checks and
>balances in place to protect our privacy.
>
>So far, I believe Canadian governments have been relatively benign in this
>regard, but that's certainly no guarantee that it will continue to be the
>case. For instance, various state governments in the United States have
>recently sold personal information from their driver's license databases to
>private corporations, without the consent of their citizens. These citizens
>had no choice but to supply this information if they wanted to legally
>operate automobiles in those states.
>
>In cases where the provision of personal information is involuntary, then I
>strongly believe we need laws that place significant restrictions on what
>can be done with that information - laws such as those in Bill C-6. The
>holders of such personal information should be required to be accountable
>for their actions, and there should be legal remedies for those who have had
>their private information unjustifiably released.
>
>How we as individuals or companies choose to process information stored on
>our own computer systems should remain our own business, unless we have
>agreed to do otherwise.
>
>If we want to protect our freedom of speech, we must equally protect our
>freedom to receive, store, manipulate and transmit information. The best way
>to achieve this is not through restrictive laws such as those in Bill C-6,
>but to uphold existing contract law and keep the activities of our
>governments in check.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Paul C. Bryan
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>**********************************************
>To (un)subscribe visit the list's WWW page at:
><http://crypto-canada.greatvideo.com>
=====================================================================
Sean Rooney;
President and Chief Technical Officer
ColdStream Associates Ltd.
"Just when you learned that IT wasn't safe;"
www.coldstream.ca
416-516-8998
416-374-8823
======================================================================
**********************************************
To (un)subscribe visit the list's WWW page at:
<http://crypto-canada.greatvideo.com>
