From: jfricker@vertexgroup.com (John F. Fricker)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 03:48:11 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Oregon License Plate Site in the News Tonight!
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960809154848.0126c108@vertexgroup.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:23 PM 8/8/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
>At 2:49 AM 8/9/96, John F. Fricker wrote:
>
>>Isn't that the role of legislation? To implement solutions that society
>>would not do on it's own?
>>
>>The enabling technology is obviously off the self.
>>
>>I think you may have misinterpretted my last sentence which was supposed to
>>have had a ? at the end. Where's the proof reader when you need one!
>
>"To implement solutions that society would not do on it's own?"
>
>Would not do, or could not do? It is within anyone's power to ask their
>psychiatrist what form of encryption he uses to protect his files. Likewise
>with doctors and hospitals.
>

Well where there's a will there's a way.

I agree that the general public and the market place often lacks the power
to affect particular events. Central planning can facility certain
processes. Free-marketers may argue that I can query and select based upon
my encryption criteria but chances are my psychiatrist will do nothing more
than "make note" of paranoia and ponder it's significance: "Do you resent
your mother?"



>(Though I freely admit that one would not be likely to get very far. For at
>least the next decade or two, the reaction will likely be "Huh?" But
>"legislation" mandating a form of encryption is not the answer. For many
>reasons.)
>
>On this list at least, calls for passing laws to implement societal
>solutions are not usually smiled upon. This is not to say such discussions
>are out of bounds, only that you'd better make some persuasive arguments
>and not just appeal to our common sense sympathies for social engineering
>and more laws.

I am not a great fan of social engineering and regulations. Yet the
legisture in Oregon may get called for a special session to address this
issue and I see this an opportunity for a grander arguement than merely
acccess to the DMV data. And as much as we dislike the presence of the
governments they do indeed exist. Living within their domain limits our
choices to either: complacency through inaction (cynicism et al), attempts
at isolation (back to the land), or taking an active role through voting,
education, civil disobedience or participation in the process (a pox on
party politics! the latter choice is easily the least enticing while civil
disobedience can be truly fun! >g<). Ok so call me a statist and shove me
out the door, but I am not argueing for the existance of a state. It does
currently exist and I am not self-sufficient. But I digress.

So. 

#1) My state legislature may very well get called to address this issue. Do
they have any concept of the big picture here? That the DMV data is one
small part of a debate regarding privacy which needs to be addressed. This
is an opportunity for some education and by the end of the day I should know
if my representatives are willing to listen.

#2) The records industry (for lack of a better term to encompass all
companies that accumulate data on individuals) needs some standards and
guidelines. Or walls and fences. Maybe even bars and a moat! And the sooner
the better. Federally imposed software requirements are not uncommon in
certain industries. It is time for standards for the personal data
maintained by co-operating entities (ie agencies the public co-operates with
such as doctors, the DMV, and so on).

#3) The goal is the anonymous citizen. The first step it to secure the data
currently exposed. Can this be done _without_ legislation?

--j