[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Responding to msg by [email protected] (Timothy C. May) on Wed,
7 Sep 4:14 PM
>And such normative laws ("they shouldn't keep such
>records and hence we'll outlaw them") won't work in an
>era of strong crypto and privacy. In fact, some of us
>support data havens precisely to have records of, say,
>terminal diseases so we'll not lend money to
>Joe-who-has-AIDS. It may not be "fair" to Joe, but
>it's my money.
It is worth noting that private "data havens" of all sorts
abound, especially for financial matters, and most are not
subject to governmental regulation.
Some banks have research departments that are older and more
comprehensive than credit reporting agencies. Favored
customers can use them for evaluation of private deals.
Large law firms maintain data banks that approach those of
banks, and they grow with each case, through additions of
private investigators paid for by successive clients.
Security professionals, like Wackenhut and Kroll, also market
the fruits of substantial data collections.
To these add those of insurance, bonding, investment, financial
firms and the like which help make or break business deals.
It's probable that massive government-regulated consumer data
banks contain far less useful information than that of the
private market where serious money is made with the best,
Some may be porous but most are guarded better than Ft. Knox,
with special protection against Uncle Sam's snoopers, indeed
more secure than consumer records because more valuable.
Any c'punkers in the security side of the financial industry
want to comment? Anonymously of course.