🚀 go-pugleaf

This article is from felix!dhw68k!david@seismo.CSS.GOV (David H. Wolfskill)
 and was received on  Thu Jan 15 10:32:18 1987
 
I think that I probably missed at least one earlier contribution to this 
discussion.  However, this is a matter of sufficient importance that I 
believe it should be brought up.

Jean Egbert writes:

>Regarding the question of why the general public seems so complacent about the 
>massive amounts of private information which are stored on computers:  perhaps 
>it's a case of trust in the indifference of strangers...the errors that occur
> from time to time are not made from malice...but from simple human mistakes.

I cannot speak for why folks might be complacent (although I suspect that a 
combination of materialism, ignorance, greed, and apathy -- in no particular 
order -- have a lot to do with it).

My concern is that anomalies regarding this information (such as credit
data) can occur because the information in question is protected
inadequately (to put it charitably).  (I am thinking of cases where a
"ring" of individuals, some of whom were employed by the firm that had
custody of the information, would offer to "fix" an individual's credit
rating for a fee.  Although this may not qualify as something done with
malevolence toward the "customer", the dictionary at my disposal
(Webster's New International (unabridged), 2nd ed.) has the following:
"malice ...4. Law.  The state of mind manifested by an intent to commit
an unlawful act...."  I think that modifying the data in question -- in
that manner -- would qualify as "malice" by this definition.  (As I
recall, in this case, so did the court.))

The above could be made more difficult by placing stricter controls on
modification of the data.  However, it is not clear to me that those
controls would necessarily make improper dissemination of the data more
difficult.  One of my concerns here is that although tangible property
must be protected against tampering or theft (to be protected
adequately), information must be protected against improper
acquisition:  There are circumstances such that publication of
confidential information could be damaging to an individual.  The
potential for damage is greatly increased if the information in
question may have been subject to tampering before being published.

The point, I suppose, is that I do *not* trust those who maintain the
databases in which information about me is stored -- nor do I trust
those who routinely make use of said information.

david