Control and Benefit Are Morally Owed to the Source
Richard A. Wright
1. Introduction
2. Reframing the Issues
3. The “High Cost to Industry” Defense
3.1 Raw Materials as a Cost of Doing Business
3.2 The Cost of Correcting Past Inequities as a Cost of Doing Business
3.3 Originator Control of Materials as a Feature of Doing Business
4. The “Private” is “Public” Defense
4.1 Private Information and “Voluntary” Release
4.2 Private Information in the “Public” Domain
4.3 Autonomy as the Basis for Understanding Privacy
5. Toward a Resolution
6. Concluding Thoughts
Unlike Ware, I do not believe that these problems can be resolved
by the computer professionals in the information industry, no matter how well
intentioned. Certainly, there can be no resolution without their participation,
because of the insight, knowledge and responsibility that Ware notes. But it
is a well known fact that it is difficult at best for employees to effect changes
in company policy, especially when those changes are dictated by moral considerations.
At the same time, we must keep in mind Margaret Mead’s observation that
we should “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens
can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.”
At a practical level, it would seem straightforward to begin closing down some
of the questionable uses of information. The easiest would be to start with
unauthorized multiple distributions of information. Initially, legislation could
prohibit the distribution of any information for which the original source has
not specifically consented. Based on the medical model of consent, this would
need to be positive (e.g., a signature, or formal declaration of consent is
required) not negative (e.g., if I don’t send back the card I have been assumed
to have consented).
Those selling mailing lists, or information to data bases, would then have to
give the original source both the option to consent and the option to levy a
fee on the user. In a true free enterprise system, I would set the fee myself,
leaving the industry user the option of accepting my information, and the fee,
or not using my information. The fee system could be set up much like the existing
copyright clearing house fees. Those choosing to participate could then be paid
their “royalties” in a timely fashion.
Such procedures should be initiated in steps, but must have provisions which
do not permit the grandfathering in of information gathered before the legislation,
unless retroactive permission is obtained. This could be done, for example,
by each data base mailing out business reply cards to everyone on their list,
with only those returning cards remaining on the list beyond the expiration
date. If the fines were large enough, compliance would be assured, especially
with vigorous initial policing.
Granted, this would impose significant problems on the industry, but as noted
above, that is not sufficient to deter taking action. What it will do is force
the industry to engage in good old competitive marketplace considerations of
whether all that information is really worth as much as they thought. 12,000
names for $175 is of no concern; would each of those names be worth $1.00 though?
$5.00? $15.00? Only the competitive market will tell.
Such legislation is admittedly a form of retributive justice for the industry’s
past offenses against the public, both by violating their right to privacy and
by causing to be foisted upon them tons of mail and hundreds of phone calls
which they did not want. As noted above, however, there is no prima facie reason
why this is not appropriate.
There should also be formal re-definition of “public” documents to
assure that the information they contain may be accessed by the public, but
not used by the public. In that way an eager insurance salesman could read the
public record to know that I bought my house, how much I paid for it, etc.,
but could not use that information for his own business purposes without the
permission of the original source, the home owner.
Nothing that I have proposed here would eliminate blanket mailing or solicitation,
but it would cut down significantly on targeted approaches. More importantly,
it would greatly reduce the haphazard development of informational databases,
because the costs would be too great. Those that were developed would thus be
more carefully thought out, and ultimately more valuable, both to the industry
and to the original sources.
Home > Research Resources > Computing and Privacy > Information as a Commodity
HOME | IN
THE NEWS | RESEARCH
RESOURCES
TEACHING RESOURCES | STUDENT
RESOURCES | LINKS
The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street | New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 | e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org
© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society