[LINK] Professors Call Both Sides Wrong on Privacy

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch dassa at dhs.org
Fri Oct 27 07:15:40 AEST 2006

link-bounces at anumail0.anu.edu.au wrote:
>> 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).

Actually, I challenge a business needs information to run.  If I'm selling
lemonade on the street, I don't need information.  If I start gathering
information about clients I can then start to market to them in more direct
ways, perhaps letting them know about specials etc.  This is all additional
profit making activities.  The business of selling lemondade doesn't require
information, information allows the business to expand markets in an easier
way.  It makes it better for the business and ideally better for the
customer, in some ways.  There are trade offs from the customers point of
view, they have to provide the information and may have their privacy
invaded.  That is why I believe there should always be choice to provide
information or not.

I object to the idea of "will require", forcing everyone to give up rights
where some may consider it invasive and not worth the gains is not a way

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch 

More information about the Link mailing list