RE: privacy/openness

From: Lee Corbin (
Date: Sat Jul 21 2001 - 01:04:18 MDT

Mike Lorrey writes

> Well, for example, a porn site says that it won't release your identity
> to law enforcement when you register as a member, but sells your id and
> all your browsing activity to ad and porn marketing companies. This is
> inconsistent.

It's worse than inconsistent, isn't it!? Isn't this an example
of false advertizing, and weren't we saying that we should make
such lying illegal?

If we had freedom---an archaic seventeenth century concept fallen
into disuse over the last century or so---some sites would offer
guarantees that they wouldn't sell or distribute information in
any way, and some sites wouldn't. After a while, I'd notice when
sites *didn't* say that, and I'd learn to be wary. No laws are
needed here; except, of course, that contracts be honored.

But today we must have "one-size-fits-all": an august body sitting
on benches in Washington will decide what is good for everybody,
no matter where they live or who they are, or what they care about
the matter.

> A consistent application would be that either they provide
> data to law enforcement under warrant but do not sell to just anybody,
> or they sell to anybody and wilfully give to law enforcement, or they
> don't give any information to anybody.

I'm not getting it, sorry. As I said before, consistency is
very admirable, but it pales in comparison to the desirability
of having just laws, and having just laws obeyed. I favor sites
being able to exercise freedom and sell to whomever they please
for whatever reason they please, so long as they are abiding
by their contracts, explicit or implicit.

> Uh, no. Since a minor child is the ward of their parents or other legal
> guardians, performing medical procedures without their authorization on
> their child is highly unethical.

It needs to be determined by law at what age medical
procedures can be performed on children by doctors.
You or I may find it unethical regardless, but doctors
have absolutely no legal right to attend to children
without their guardian's permission. (I realize that
it freaks some people out, but if religious extremists
don't want their children to receive medical treatment,
it's NOBODY ELSE'S business.)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:50 MDT