h a l f b a k e r yContrary to popular belief
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
So you'll happily give 'them' access to pay you Social Security (for instance), but not to take Income Tax. |
|
| |
Whether your hair is brown is something any (sighted) person can see by looking at you. Other information (such as your credit rating, or your medical information) is private and should only be divulged with your express permission: unfortunately, that is not always the case, as these details (and others) reside in data stores over which you have very little control. |
|
| |
ignoring all the other flaws, who verifies this info when you provide it? how would you prevent people tampering with their own information before supplying it? much as I agree that 'big brother' is kind of scary, if you are that concerned then move off the grid and carry only cash. |
|
| |
I can see little point in the credit rating system if it can be kept private. You want people to lend you money, but you're not prepared for them to know whether you're likely to repay it? |
|
| |
Who verifies the info that exists about you (in other people's hands) now? Do you trust them? That info can be falsified too. The point is only to release information to people you've given permission...not to say that I don't appreciate the facetious remarks. |
|
| |
[jutta] Some interesting points. About tamper-proofing: I have a friend who is a locksmith who could get into most houses and cars in a matter of seconds - they're far from secure. Most people don't bother, though, much as most people wouldn't bother to decrypt the data. So a level of tamperproofing would be simple enough (based on the common "something you have and something you know" model). You won't get on the news with a story that houses aren't secure :) |
|
| |
Personally, I am disquieted about the amounts of data about me that are routinely shared: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2204909.stm). As the guy says - "The problem is that once you start retaining the data it tends to hang around". I'd rather it be within my sphere of influence, at least. |
|
| |
Anyway, who says I want to be 'profiled' without my consent? I get enough junk mail already... |
|
| |
You could share it in a way you approve for one-time use by approved persons or bodies: the point being that you maintain control over who uses what and to which purpose. |
|
| |
There's a huge difference between controlling the content and controlling who sees it. It may 'belong' to someone else, but if it's about me, then surely it's my right to decide whether it should exist at all, and if so, who gets access to it? |
|
| |
These 'others' are not laws of nature: they're things we create. We should have a say in how they behave. |
|
| |
"The existence of this (credit) information is entirely for the use of others to make decisions about you."
To [Party Animal]'s point, how do you know that's how it's being used? What stops the credit agency from selling information about your new house? About how much you tend to charge at Christmas? Doesn't it seem arbitrary that credit information hangs around 3 to 10 years? |
|
| |