Re: Fair Credit Reporting Act and Privacy Act

[Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>]

At 07:04 PM 2/5/96 -0500, Tim Philp wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Feb 1996, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, it would also:
>> 
>> *  Require government registration of computers and databases containing
>> information about people (whether these computers are used by business or
>> individuals).  This eases regulation of computers and future confiscation.
>> 
>I don't believe that this follows at all. All that would be required 
>would be a statutory obligation to comply with the legislation. Should a 
>breach occur, civil and criminal penalties would apply. No need for prior 
>restraint.

Perhaps if you had read the British Privacy Protection Act (in force since
1984 or so) and similar Continental regs you would see that this sort of
registration was a common method of enforcement.  The PPA is on the WEB and
the Data Protection Registrar (you know as in "registration") has a web page:

http://www.open.gov.uk/dpr/dprhome.htm

"What does the Act mean to computer users?

Registration

With few exceptions, if you hold or control personal data on computer, you
must register with the Data Protection Registrar.  Registration is normally
for three years and one standard fee is payable to cover this period.
Registration forms are available from the Registrar's office, including a
special shortened registration form (DPR4) for those who process personal
data only for payroll
and bought/sales ledger purposes.

Computer bureaux which process personal data for others or allow data users
to process personal data on their computers must also register. Their
register entries will contain only their name and address.

Data users and computer bureaux who should register but do not, are
committing a criminal offence, as are those operating outside the
descriptions contained in their register entries. In these cases the
Registrar regularly prosecutes. The penalty for non-registration can be a
fine of up to �5,000 plus costs in the Magistrates Courts, or an unlimited
fine in the Higher Courts."

>It would not make it harder for buyers and sellers to get together, it 
>would simply increase the risk. It may lead to higher prices, but I am 
>prepared to pay something to protect my privacy.

Then just pay the higher price personally by not giving other people
information you want to keep private.  Get an accommodation address, use
secured credit cards (or none at all), get a voice mail phone number, lie
when people ask you for info.

>I agree that in the absolute sense, this is true. However, it is not 
>practical to do so in our modern society. If you are prepared to live 
>without credit or health insurance you can do this but the price is too 
>high for most people to consider.

You can get health insurance without giving personal data by lying.  You can
get credit from friends and relatives (borrowed credit) or save money first
and use secured credit cards (or bank debit VISA cards) to minimize reporting.

Look, the reason we hate the CDA is because it restricts speech.
Restrictions on credit agencies gossiping about you are also speech
restrictions.  If you are out in the world, people are going to talk about
you.  The credit agencies are much easier to handle and less intrusive than
the women were who talked about you while beating cloth on the rocks in the
stream back in the old village.

DCF

"Nice black pages on the Infoseek results screen.  We are everywhere."