From: "Matthew J. Miszewski" <mjmiski@execpc.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:27:00 -0800 (PST)
To: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
Subject: Re: Redlining
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961211002633.00699be0@execpc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

Red,

I will not re-quote and rehash the argument thus far.  You do have a knack
to ignore strong points (although admittedly not all) of your opponent in
an argument.  Additionally, I am not trying to show anyone that you are a
"bad person".  I was trying to carry-on civil discourse.  I know you really
feel that you had no part in disrupting the discourse we started out in, I
disagree.

My original point, in fact, was taken out of context and so:

At 10:50 AM 12/3/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote:
>(snip)
>>(Just for the record, what the hypothetical insurance companies and
>>employers are doing by using data they have obtained should not, in
>>a free society, be illegal in any way. All information contributes
>>to decision-making, about loans, credit, insurance, employment, etc.
>>In a free society, it is up to people to not disclose that which
>>they do not wish remembered.)
>
>While the libertarians on the list have affected my way of looking at
>regulation I, and others, do not subscribe (suscribe ;)) to Tim's
>absolute theory.  Unless, of course, by free society Tim is refering
>to one where corporations hold themselves to a level of "personal"
>responsibility, which in many realms is part of any definition of
>"free".
>
>Take, for example, the practice of redlining.  How are people who live in
>"bad" neighborhoods supposed to not reveal that information.

My question was a real one.  The basis of it comes from my work with the
homeless in which they have a difficult time getting a job because they
have no "home address" to put on the forms, some do not have or remember
their SSNs, etc.  This causes a cyclic problem for the homeless.  My
question to Tim was, in the real world, how is the protection of this data
feasible.

As I discuss briefly at the end of this post, I also was pointing out my
differing opinion on the meaning of "free society".

You responded in your last post thus:

>While you did not state it explicitly, in the context above I
>interpreted this to mean that you supported laws which restricted the
>use banks make of information they obtain from their clients.

This is a factual summary of my opinion but has absolutely nothing to do
with my post (I *never* mentioned support or opposition of such laws.  It
also has nothing to do with my opinions on cryptography or privacy (which
you also criticized in your last post).  


I do have responses to each of your "points" in your last post, but have
found the process of responding point-by-point tedious and non-productive
(maybe less productive than the time I have to give to the exercise, I was
not intending on placing a value judgement on it).  So that you can
understand my position (in case your sarcasm was not really turned up that
high) I will outline it more succinctly below.  You are quite right.  We
disagree.

As the topic quickly wandered from the original post on privacy concerns to
racial discrimination, I will address that.  I apologize to the list (for
those that find it irrelevant), but I can not reply directly to Red.

- -----
I, personally, find racial discrimination to be a problem in the USA.

Not only do I find it a moral problem, but it has adverse effects on
markets and the efficiency of these same markets.

It is costly not only in personal measures, but in economical terms as well.

As a way to address these concerns, holistically, moral concerns as well as
economic concerns, I do support limited regulation specifically tailored to
address this problem.

One of the means of addressing only one specific aspect of this problem is
to legislatively restrict the practice of redlining.
- -----

I do expect many on the list to disagree with me.  They will disagree that
racism exists (some).  They will disagree that it is morally wrong.  They
will disagree that it affects markets in any way.  They will assert that
legislative restrictions are far worse than industry self-policing.  More
will disagree that the government has any business regulating the area.  As
I had stated simply before, I disagree.

Personally, because of the life I have led, I draw my line here.  Others
draw it elsewhere.  Some dont draw it.  (at one time in my life, i fought
for not drawing the line.  Thru painful learning experiences and reality
checks - long arguments over several months and too much coffee - I decided
that I would not want to live in a libertarian's ideal society.  This
decision was based on my perception that it just wouldnt work in reality.
I am well aware others will differ.  Maybe we can pursue that thread.)  

Matt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMq5T/7pijqL8wiT1AQEycgP/bo6zV8B+DySD62zLMz6jYHiJeiW2XYkH
UVO+Ixyl8ogRuZOTo09pF1+6X8olT5mCY2SxYb6z43UUDZDHhwT+A/8qc8WdF3la
HCiJ2scterzYdh113Jn3M4TQomakuU1wY36nZzldMN5B2iIyRmAvRynPRYA+0I51
q06tPm36eq8=
=q3zf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----