[LINK] Professors Call Both Sides Wrong on Privacy

Geoffrey Ramadan gramadan at umd.com.au
Thu Oct 26 23:35:09 AEST 2006

Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> Geoff Ramadan wrote:
>> The trouble is, that you cannot run a business (any business 
>> including Government business) with out information.
> Geoff,
> The trouble is ... "without information" is a long way from justifying 
> "any information I wish to collect, which I can use for any purpose, 
> and retain for as long as I choose".
> RC
I am not suggesting this.

I was just pointing out that Business need information to operate,  
which *will* require people to give up some rights (even if just a name 
and address).

And given that Business will be around for some time yet, then the 
debate needs to revolve around how you balance both these needs, and not 
simply eliminate them (on either side).

Geoffrey Ramadan

>> Regards
>> Geoffrey Ramadan, B.E.(Elec)
>> Chairman, Automatic Data Capture Australia (www.adca.com.au)
>> and
>> Managing Director, Unique Micro Design (www.umd.com.au)
>> Adam Todd wrote:
>>> See I have this issue about Fraud.
>>> You can't defraud if you have no information.  Because you can't 
>>> create a fraudulent entity without first getting information. (Or 
>>> creating it from nothing.)
>>> You can't beat fraud by removing privacy, because the mere fact that 
>>> a person can retain their privacy and oppose another using their 
>>> identity fraudulently proves the fraud.
>>> Giving our private information increases the chance of fraud 
>>> multiple.  I know, I have a father who uses my name, date of birth 
>>> and address as a means of identifying himself as me.
>>> It's hard to prove I'm me, when he knows my details and identifies 
>>> himself as me first.  Who am I?  According to some, I'm not who I 
>>> claim to be.
>>> At 06:56 AM 26/10/2006, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
>>>> Professors Call Both Sides Wrong on Privacy
>>>> Sue Bushell
>>>> CIO
>>>> 24/10/2006 12:40:06
>>>> http://www.cio.com.au/index.php/id;1659801180;fp;4;fpid;21
>>>> Should households be granted the right to control their personal 
>>>> information and to refuse to give it out, as some privacy advocates 
>>>> insist? Or are those economists right who argue that privacy in any 
>>>> form is harmful since it restricts information flow and hence 
>>>> inhibits decision-making, increases transaction costs and 
>>>> encourages fraud?
>>>> Two professors at University of California, Berkeley's Haas School 
>>>> of Business have recently weighed in on this seemingly endless 
>>>> debate to argue their conclusion that neither approach is right.
>>>> In an article in the September issue of the journal Quantitative 
>>>> Marketing and Economics, Professors Benjamin Hermalin and Michael 
>>>> Katz note that privacy can be efficient in certain circumstances 
>>>> but that privacy property rights - personal control over one's 
>>>> personal information - are often worthless.
>>>> "Our analysis demonstrates that there are complicated tradeoffs 
>>>> missed by both sides of the debate," they write. "Certainly in the 
>>>> case of employment, changes in privacy policy can make some 
>>>> households winners and others losers."
>>>> The authors note that there has been a long history of contentious 
>>>> policy debates and governmental efforts to protect personal 
>>>> privacy, particularly the ability to maintain control over the 
>>>> dissemination of personally identifiable data: privacy as secrecy.
>>>> And they say recent technological developments in information 
>>>> collection and processing have heightened privacy concerns, with 
>>>> online bookstores knowing what you like to read, TiVo reporting 
>>>> personal viewing habits to the company's central database, and 
>>>> airlines keeping a record of where you travel. Meanwhile every year 
>>>> privacy bills are introduced in state legislatures and the US 
>>>> Congress in response to privacy concerns, yet there is little 
>>>> consensus on the appropriate approach.
>>>> "There are many calls for strong governmental intervention to 
>>>> restrict the use of personally identifiable data. However, there 
>>>> are also calls simply to establish appropriate property rights to 
>>>> information on the grounds that market forces will then lead to 
>>>> efficient privacy levels," they say.
>>>> The authors note that proponents of the Chicago School have 
>>>> labelled privacy harmful to efficiency because it stops information 
>>>> flows that would otherwise lead to improved levels of economic 
>>>> exchange. And they agree there are some situations in which 
>>>> allowing households to reveal personally identifiable information 
>>>> is beneficial because it allows firms to make tailored offers that 
>>>> facilitate transactions that otherwise might not have occurred.
>>>> Yet they insist that, contrary to the Chicago School argument, the 
>>>> flow of information from one trading partner to the other can 
>>>> reduce ex post trade efficiency when the increase in information 
>>>> does not lead to symmetrically or fully informed parties.
>>>> With so many people making extreme claims in discussions of privacy 
>>>> and related public policy, and with so little understanding of the 
>>>> underlying economics, it is important to identify the fundamental 
>>>> forces clearly, they conclude.
>>>> "Both sides of the e-commerce privacy debate have overstated their 
>>>> cases," they say.
>>>> While failing to come to any definitive conclusions about whether 
>>>> one can identify conditions under which public policy should or 
>>>> should not promote privacy, they authors conclude that the 
>>>> assignment of privacy rights to personally identifiable information 
>>>> may have no effect on agents' equilibrium welfare levels and need 
>>>> not lead to an efficient equilibrium privacy level.
>>>> "In some situations, the only effective policy would be explicitly 
>>>> to block the dissemination or use of such information. Public 
>>>> policy could block dissemination in several ways. One is to make it 
>>>> illegal to reveal personally identifiable data. Another is to 
>>>> destroy employment or prison records or other forms of tangible 
>>>> evidence, which would prevent households from credibly revealing 
>>>> the information even if they chose to do so. A related policy would 
>>>> be to refuse to enforce sanctions against people who lie about 
>>>> their protected characteristics," they conclude.
>>>> -- 
>>>> Regards
>>>> brd
>>>> Bernard Robertson-Dunn
>>>> Sydney Australia
>>>> brd at iimetro.com.au
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Link mailing list
>>>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>>>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Link mailing list
>>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>> _______________________________________________
>> Link mailing list
>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

More information about the Link mailing list