Date: 30 Sep 92 14:04:20 GMT
From: Pete Hardie <nastar!phardie@emory.mathcs.emory.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Privacy vs. Anonymity
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 086, Message 7 of 8


In article <comp-privacy1.85.8@pica.army.mil> Jim.Hunt@eng.sun.com (Jim Hunt) writes:
>To drive a car requires release of some anonymity, every car must
>have a plate.  (though this does not uniquely identify the driver)
>
>Plates are so we can catch those who violate the societal rules of the
>road.  Nobody says the requirement to carry a plate is a violation of
>privacy, it is accepted.  Why then do some people respond so vehemently
>to a request to identify themselves?  The idea of a unique identifier
>is perfectly acceptable for every car on the road, and the requirement
>that it be prominently displayed is also accepted.  My freedom to drive
>wherever is legal is not compromised by my plate.

Two comments here:

1) Driving is (mainly) a necessity in modern society.  If you do not drive,
   you are severely limited in your place of employment, your choice of
   shopping places, etc.  If something in a necessity, people will
   sacrifice other considerations for it.

2) A license plate on a vehicle merely identifies the vehicle, and does not
   limit *my* movements, or allow unscrupulous monitoring of my other
   activities.

>The problem of proof of identity is at the core of many of these
>discussions, and is often confused with privacy issues.  I accept
>that a merchant must have sufficient proof of my identity before
>he/she should accept a piece of paper in lieu of cash.  This is
>an identity problem, not a privacy problem.  That merchant is not
>trying to find out what you do, but who you are.

Why should the merchant care *who* I am, as long as the money I am
giving for purchase is good?  Note that if I pay cash, the merchant
will not ask for any ID, or proof that I have the money legally.  The
only issue I feel a merchant has is "Is the credit there?  Is there
really money behind this check?"

With a better-designed credit card system, my number, etc could be completely
invisible - the clerk would run the card through a magnetic scanner, enter the
purchase amount, and never know my name, credit card number, or anything else.
And that would suit the need of merchants quite well.


>I often get the impression that those who plan to break the law
>are the ones attacking identification under the shield of privacy.

But our legal system is based on the principle of 'innocent until proven 
otherwise" - we cannot remove anonymity for all just to catch the criminal
few.

>Anonymity helps those who break the law.  The bombing of PG&E

Anonymity helps those who hold unpopular views/lifestyles/etc.  Think how
many people you know about would persecute a Wiccan solely because they
dislike the faith?

Case in point:  I am getting married on Halloween, for the two reasons of
liking the holiday, and it falling on a weekend this year.  My fiancee, when
she was telling someone about the wedding, was asked "What religion is your
fiance?" in a manner that made her feel intimidated.  The Bible Belt still
holds strong intolerance, at least.

Basically, I hold to the idea that my actions are not to be recorded unless
there is a demonstrated need, simply because if there is data on me, someone,
somewhere, will find a way to abuse it, whether legally, economically, or
otherwise.

-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |