[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Check out this little gem



John Johnson wrote:
> 
> Frustrated with other homework assignments and unable to sleep, I decided
> to check out the assignment for this class :) Anyway, I found some
> intriguing info (NII stands for National Information Structure, BTW):
>  
<Snipped for brevity>
> 
> 1) What information is to be considered personal? Some types are
> obviously subject to some restricted access: checking balance, credit
> card numbers, etc. However, a lot of information is in that gray area.
> 
I would include medical records in this.  I know the security of
hospital databases is a concern to insurance companies.   
>
> 2) Exactly what role should the individual be allowed to play in
> maintaining security of personal information? Again, there are obvious
> special situations (i.e. not bombing major information warehouses), but
> you'll probably get 250M different answers if you asked everyone in the
> U.S.
>
This is true.  I feel corporate America knows way to much about me
already.  Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get
me. 
> 
> 3) To what extent does privacy of information affect other's rights? The
> example I'm thinking of is the system in Va. where anyone can purchase a
> list of names of felons.
> 
I don't know on this one.  I think each individual case would be unique
onto itself as there is no way to know if the former felon will continue
in their criminal ways or become a model citizen.  You can argue that
the rights of the law abiding citizenry to a safe and secure society out
weigh the rights of a former law breaker.   
>
> 4) Extending the problem a little bit, what role should the U.S.
> government play in the use, growth, and (information) regulation of the
> Internet? The documents at this site seem to indicate a role of
> leadership and consensus-builder, but memories of the CDA are still fresh
> in my mind. Not to mention that the Internet is an international
> phenomenon, even though much of the infrastructure is in the U.S.
> 
None.  I believe the Internet is in a  historical stage that all media
go through in the beginning.  The powers in charge don't understand it
and therefore try to censor and then control it.  This happened with
print and broadcast.  I think we'd be abdicating our watchdog role to
let the government control us.  With this in mind, I think it's
important for personal encryption software that the government can't
read to be available.  I want my confidential sources to be able to
remain confidential.  
>
> 5) Being an education major, I have to agree fully with #4 above, though
> I can see easily how that principle can be the excuse some sick
> politician uses to spread propaganda.
> 
Very true.  I think the Richard Jewel(sp?) case is a good example of
media manipulation by the F.B.I.  
>
> 6) I'm rambling.
> 
I shouldn't have drank that pot of coffe after dinner.
>
> 7) Does the "personal information" change with the individual? Should
> famous celebrities, such as <insert your favorite recently deceased royal
> celeb here>, or politicians have more open to exposure than most
> individuals? (I totally think so ... though there is still a limit).
>
I think this is driven by a market demand for information on someone. 
Most celebs don't pay to have web sites made about them.  It's usually
fans or foes who put up web sites about someone.  The only group I can
think of that falls outside this are the ones maintained by members of
Congress.  Their web sites are done for the same reason I do
mine--blatant self interest.

Everybody have a great weekend!

--Bill Bean--


References: