> The people whose views count here are "middle-class Americans".
I suppose no other views should be taken into account then.
> Not once have I heard
> anyone say they want America to be "free", let alone
> "anarchic" (in the sense of being deregulated). Of course,
> they *think* America *is* free, and to some extent that's
> true. The *country* [as personified by the President] is free
> to do whatever it wants, but the *inhabitants* are certainly
> not as free as they think they are.
Not having lived in the USA in that respect I can only believe what is
stated from experience, my own limited experience and what appears in the
media or is otherwise published. Although I would observe, freedom is
something said to be eroded by sheer neglect as much as anything else.
Much material does point to a perspective of minority groups in the USA not
having as much freedom as others unless money can act as a counterbalance.
Examples of that approach are a predisposition for contract law e.g. Where
significant penalty clauses in trans-border data flow contracts could assure
some compliance with differing cultural norms. But such mechanisms will
only be effective within a commercial sector where stable national laws
serving to reduce manipulation do not act counter productively upon them.
> Well, notwithstanding that, the
> State of California has now put the names of all the people
> it did marry up for sale to marketers, on the basis that it's
> already public information (and no opt-out like the UK's
> electoral register, I bet!)
Which indicates a great degree of freedom on behalf of the data controller
and very little respect for the individuals involved.
> Which all that
> matters to the people concerned. Indeed, everyone is being
> severely criticised at the moment for not introducing more
> controls sooner - despite all the officials saying such
> controls would not have stopped 9-11 !!!!
So patriotism is being used to erode the protections afforded to
individuals, what is new in that. A well documented old and historical
mechanism used to group, strengthen and justify more or less any type of
action by manipulating majority group(s) and eroding respect for minority
groups. The privacy principles of all the international instruments, along
with democratic accountability seem to be intended to assist in constraining
that sort of dysfunction are they not? Perhaps the word 'respect' is the
fatal flaw. Respect for privacy appears to be only required where an
intrusion is intended or unavoidable, so if nations were serious about
privacy protection that word would only appear within the exceptions, where
it was truly relevant. The UN Declaration privacy statement is not worded
in that manner, respect only creeps in at the nation states level where such
manipulations could be seen as advantageous. (refer back to the Californian
gay marriage issues and the paradoxical setting of much regulatory
provision).
> In terms of Government information-gathering, it's still
> pretty much on the ball. The recent Total Information
> Awareness project was scrapped as a result.
The regulatory process sequence allows a very great scope for action without
democratic accountability in the US then. Perhaps the next information
collection/use tactic will be more financially orientated and therefore more
in line with many of the cultural drives. Sadly privacy will probably
suffer once more.
> However, having to show your driving licence to buy beer is
> not regarded by the American people as "information
> gathering". It's a necessary and laudable precaution to stop
> teenagers drink-driving.
That argument is sterile red tape if other forms of ID are available. The
only thing a standard ID does is relax the retailer, providing a defence if
they get it wrong and necessitating greater and more accurate forms of ID
which the young have more difficulty in bypassing as they become familiar.
The need for any sort of personal judgement by the seller can also be
totally removed.
> Indeed, as we must be vigilant. The first generation chips
> are unlikely to have the storage capacity to keep anything
> like a useful medical record, though. In any event, there
> needs to be a central copy of the record in case the card is
> lost, so why not have *just* the central record (which is
> exactly what the NHS seems to be doing).
Where does the greater need for a central medical record reside? With the
medical practitioners for treatment or with others who would use the data
for wider purposes? Principle one issues are very simple to address,
sometimes difficult to adequately justify, and certainly hard to maintain
respect for.
Ian W
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|