From: Mutant Rob <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 19:34:42 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Privacy legislation in CA
Message-ID: <199602280442.XAA21538@bb.hks.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>   SECTION 1.  The Legislature hereby finds and declares the
> following:
>    (a) All people have an inalienable right to privacy as
> declared in Section 1 of Article I of the California
> Constitution.

Does the bill define "privacy" explicitly? Or is it defined clearly 
anywhere else in California law? That can be a real problem... (the US 
Supreme Court seems to limit 'privacy' to what goes on in bed between a 
married heterosexual couple, for instance.)

>    (b) Advances in technology have made it easier to create,
> acquire, and analyze detailed personal information about an
> individual.
>    (c) Personal information, including information about a
> person's financial history, shopping habits, medical history,
> and travel patterns, is continuously being created.
>    (d) The unauthorized use of personal information concerning
> an individual is an infringement upon that individual's right to
> privacy.

What is unauthorized use?  Is it still acceptable to collect information 
on someone?  Is a person given the right to know who is tracking them, 
and what someone else or a corporation has about them?


>   SEC. 2.  Section 43.2 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
>    43.2.  No person or corporation may use or distribute for
> profit any personal information concerning a person without that
> person's written consent.  Such information includes, but is
> not limited to, an individual's credit history, finances,
> medical history, purchases, and travel patterns.

What counts as written consent? Checking a "Yes, you may send my name to 
interested advertisers so I can receive lots of junk mail to burn in my 
stove to keep warm in the winter" box?  And once a person has checked off 
on it, is it ok for a corporation to redistribute that info without 
asking permission (since it's already been signed off), of must that 
third party again ask permission?
- ---
[This message has been signed by an auto-signing service.  A valid signature
means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the
signature and forwarded.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Gratis auto-signing service

iQBFAwUBMTPdKCoZzwIn1bdtAQEnvAF/dslZaaBn0j8ZyEHH3t97LyzjBHCai04A
ng/kuJ5nkkneIVAl2OJKZAnq8JSaIzqp
=0Tmm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----