Date: 6 Nov 92 20:45:51 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <john@mojave.ati.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Clinton Endorses Right to Information Privacy
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 098, Message 3 of 8

"Wm. L. Ranck" <ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu> writes:

> While the other stuff on the list doesn't bother me this one sure does.
> Basically it says that the government knows what is good for me and will
> not let me decide.

You will also notice the general tone of the entire statement that is usually
present in governmental attempts at "protecting privacy". The assertion
is that people (or "The People" if you will) need to be protected from
each other and, in the case now of the Democrats, from Big Bad Business.
The government, however, should know EVERYTHING about you--for your own
protection, of course.

If you look at the "privacy" statutes in California for example, the
only protection that is provided is against other ordinary citizens.
The government and even certain commercial enterprizes have full,
unrestricted access to your DMV records.

This is one reason that I have always maintained that the best privacy
protection is constant vigilance. Depending on "the government" to
ensure your privacy is like asking a street urchin to hold on to your
wallet while you tie your shoe. I get very nervous when I hear about
new "privacy" legislation.

> How long till it makes "dangerous" recreational activity
> illegal?  "Sorry, skis and ski poles are dangerous, you can't buy them 
> anymore." 

In case you don't know, insurance companies already use various methods
to determine if a prospective insured participates in sky diving,
SCUBA, and other "risky" activities. And an insurance company would
like nothing better than to have a person lie on the application, find
information to the contrary, and then deny a claim based upon
falsification of an application--especially after collecting many years
of premiums.

>    If a product is possibly dangerous then requiring some reasonable labeling
> is fine, but to "protect" the public from what is considered dangerous is
> not.

This is not how the government likes to work. Just look at the list of
banned products in the USA. Then see how many of them are in common use
in the rest of the world, perhaps with warning labels. One of them is
Thalydamide, which is an excellent low-side-effect tranquilizer. Of
course the major bad side effect, severe birth defects, can easily be
avoided by abstaining from the drug while pregnant. But our government
feels that US citizens cannot be trusted with sharp objects, as it
were, and bans all use of an otherwise useful product.

Remember, privacy has been "assured" on the cellular band--not by
making the communications secure with technology--but by taking the
radios that can tune cellular frequencies away from citizens.
Government is beneficent; Government is your friend. It protects you
from other PEOPLE. And coming soon: protection from Nasty Old
Corporations.

-- 
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (hiding out in the desert)