Re: William Just doesn't get it.

[dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)]

My computer is generally down these days - I brought it up for a short
while to check the e-mail, but will be taking it down again soon...

Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> writes:
> Asking the state to protect my privacy by not disclosing the information I
> disclose to it is not asking the state to engage in secret activities with
> select members of society.  It is asking it not to release information
> that I am forced to give them in return for certain goods, services, or
> privilidges - driving for example.  Having a driver's license doesn't mean
> I wish to share the information that the DMV requires to provide such a
> license to the world.

Not that it means much, but: we both live in NYC.  I have a licence, but
I haven't driven the car in probably 3 or 4 years (my wife takes the darn
thing all the time).

One can live in NYC or SF and not have a car or licence. On the other hand
one can live in NYC and drive a gypsie cab and not have a licence (apparently
lots of people do!) because if you're pulled over and you don't have a
license, you're not arrested, and your car is not impounded - you're just
given a ticket which you don't have to pay.  Tickets are for suckers like
us who are in the system.

> Paying taxes doesn't mean I wish to disclose my 1040 form to the world.

It's public in some Scandinavian countries.  I recall that there anyone can
check the balance on your bank account.

> > Criminal Records
>
> As for these, IMHO, once a criminal has completed their sentence they
> should be allowed to have a life.  Having these records available to all
> is a means of discriminating against them for having commited a crime as
> judged by a jury.  Not necessarily having commited the crime, but being
> convicted of doing so - as is well known mistakes have been made and lives
> have been destroyed by such mistakes.

But of course not just the conviction record but the arrest record is
public information.

> > Voter Registrations
>
> These too can be both a benefit and an infringement on privacy.  Whatever
> information these records hold might be used for other purposes.

These are public in the U.K.  Indeed they'd find electioneering much
harder if they weren't.

> > Census Records
>
> Why?  What is the purpose of having these records available in forms other
> than a number?

Why, to round up all the japs, to confiscate their homes and businesses,
and to ship them to concentration camps. :-)

> > Building Permits
>
> I agree here.

I don't see why anyone other than a buglar should be interested in the
intrnal layour of someone home. :-)

> > Profesional Licenses
>
> Sure, but only so far as to say "Yep, person X has this license" not "and
> they live on xyz street, have three kids, and a poodle."

How about: patient X complaint about Dr. Y.

> > Court Transcripts
>
> Granted.

How about: Mrs. X is suing Mr. X for divorce and alleges that he's
been sexually molsting their kids.  In practice, this happens very
often, and is usually dismissed by the family court as pure bulshit.

How about adoption records...

> allowed to do.  For instance many places where gambling is illegal provide
> lotteries with astronomical odds against the player.  Were the things done
> by casinos, nobody would play.

But of course: if private casinos were allowed to compete against
the gubmint-run lotteries, they'd offer better odds, and no one would
play gubmint lotteries.

---

<a href="mailto:dlv@bwalk.dm.com">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps