-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 12:25:55PM -0700, David Honig wrote:
> At 05:48 PM 10/18/00 -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
> >So are you saying that there is nothing wrong with the government
> >doing the corporations' dirty work?
>
> A govt has an obligation to secure the data it has collected
> and not to share it. So perhaps we agree on this point: the
> govt must not give out (do 'dirty work') data on citizens that it holds.
> If an insurance (or bank or grocery or whatever) co. wants data, they can't
> expect it from the govt.
>
I guess we do agree on this.
> [Hmm... I hadn't thought about the morality of terraserver.. where you
> can get pictures of your neighbors lots, taken by the govt]
>
> >The problem is, corporations also control the media, so most people do
> >not know about the bad shit some corporations are involved in.
>
> There is no obligation for media to tell the truth or all of what
> *you* deem the truth even when they *claim* to be telling the truth (e.g.,
> news). The only thing they gamble is reputation.
>
I never said they do have an obligation to tell the truth. I think
they SHOULD, but they often don't. All I said was that, because the
media often doesn't tell the whole truth, people don't know about bad
stuff that corporations are doing.
> There is no obligation for Joe Sixpack to fund news sources
> he's not interested in, or viewpoints he doesn't subscribe to.
>
> The only relevent obligation is for *state* actors to do nothing.
>
> If you can't sell or distribute your bits to your satisfaction, blame the
> population. Similarly if you can't find what you want to buy: blame
> the population for not exerting sufficient demand. Round 'em up
> and send 'em to re-education camps. That oughta work.
>
> You may not like the results of living amongst this population who
> prefers football to deep reporting, but lack of coercion means none of your
> business.
>
> Finally, I asked,
> >> Are you against car insurers asking
> >> about your other genetic characteristics (e.g., sex)?
>
> And you replied:
> > No, because they do not deny coverage based upon gender.
>
> But they *do* vary your rate with your sex. I shouldn't have to
> spell it out, but: Given finite individual resources, varying the costs
> with sex amounts to refusing coverage for some, based on sex.
>
> Where's your (misplaced, because a Y chromo *does* mess up your driving
> skills when under 25 :-) sense of injustice about this genetic
> discrimination?
Your original question was "Are you against car insurers ASKING [my
emphasis]" about gender. I'm not against them asking. I'm against
them discriminating based on that information, however.
- --
Nathan Saper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/
GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91
Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE58LkB2FWyBZrQ84IRAkTTAJ9UbwxOhWTciZ6DDpsDTKNJExSN4QCfW8LM
gWCb2I+FL1Do1jjNS/RkieY=
=BImJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
