Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Using Copyright to Protect Privacy

By Arkady in News
Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 08:37:34 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

With the advances in computer technology of the last two decades, particularly in database and indexing efficiency, personal privacy has become a major public concern. I'm not particularly familiar with privacy laws in other countries, but American law makes essentially no provisions for personal privacy. There are laws, however, which are much the same in all Berne Convention countries and could potentially be used to clear up this whole mess.


I'm talking about copyright law. The Berne Convention guarantees ownership and control of a work to its creator, regardless of notice on or registration of the work. It guarantees that the right to use the work is restricted to the creator for a specified period of time and contains provisions for unauthorized public use under certain circumstances (the Fair Use exemption). These provisions could be used to assure that personal privacy remain a right.

Consider, for example, how these laws would work if personal information (i.e., all the data that describes a person) were legally classed as a copyrightable work created by that person. This is a reasonable proposition, in my opinion, since the existence of the person did actually create the data, though I suppose you could argue that copyright should vest in the parents and pass to the child when they reach legal majority. Several other personal rights are arranged that way as well.

Existing copyright law, in this situation, would prohibit anyone from collecting and redistributing this information, since they would not hold a license for it. The person could, of course, grant limited licenses for use of the data to their doctor (for retention and/research purposes), to the phone company (for a one-time publication in the telephone directory) or to any other entity they chose. But no one else could legally collect and distribute the data.

The Fair Use provisions would maintain the uses to which personal data needs to be kept public. A copyrighted work may be excerpted for review or discussion in public forums such as newspapers. Legal organizations may already cite entire copyrighted works in court for either side in a case, so law enforcement would not be affected.

The amusing thing about this idea is that you don't even need to pass a law to effect it. All that would be necessary is a decision by a court (and the inevitable sequence of appeal up to the Supreme Court in the U.S.) stating that personal information was a work covered by existing copyright law and *boom* all those obnoxious intrusive databases, and the bottom feeders who make their livings renting them back and forth, become illegal. Even the DMCA would become pro-privacy if this were to happen, since it would then be illegal for a corporation to attempt to bypass any security mechanism you put in place to protect you personal information.

Fascinating idea, isn't it? It's just a slight change in how you interpret one word ...

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Berne Convention
o Also by Arkady


Display: Sort:
Using Copyright to Protect Privacy | 35 comments (35 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Good write-up (+1), and a top notch... (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by madams on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 05:09:24 PM EST

madams voted 1 on this story.

Good write-up (+1), and a top notch idea (+1), but a little US centric (-0.5). Anyone up for suing whomever in order to get this as a precedent in court?

--
Mark Adams
"But pay no attention to anonymous charges, for they are a bad precedent and are not worthy of our age." - Trajan's reply to Pliny the Younger, 112 A.D.

Re: Good write-up (+1), and a top notch... (3.00 / 1) (#11)
by Arkady on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 08:42:41 PM EST

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm not really familiar with other coutries' laws, but any country that's in the Berne Convention has agreed to meet the criteria I mentioned in their copyright laws, so it's _kinda_ international. ;-)

I would definitely like to hear some folks chime in from other countries on how the suggestion would work or not in their systems.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Fascinating. Don't know if you'd e... (1.00 / 1) (#4)
by Dangermouse on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 05:13:11 PM EST

Dangermouse voted 1 on this story.

Fascinating. Don't know if you'd ever get it past the courts, but fascinating nonetheless.


-----
No one has "Rights", neither machines nor flesh-and-blood. Persons...have opportunities, not rights, which they do or do not use. - Lazarus Long

I guess I look for technical articl... (2.00 / 1) (#9)
by extrasolar on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 05:27:26 PM EST

extrasolar voted -1 on this story.

I guess I look for technical articles instead of this legalese/political stuff. Something interesting, please. I know that freedom is important and that we need to fight for it, but there is so much of it.

hrm...... (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by davidu on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 05:52:45 PM EST

davidu voted 1 on this story.

hrm...

Re: hrm...... (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Hero on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 09:19:49 PM EST

Don't do that! If you're going to make a voting comment, make a comment! Read the instructions above the vote form!

[ Parent ]
Well, I disagree... ... (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by costas on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 06:06:38 PM EST

costas voted 1 on this story.

Well, I disagree... But I am curious to see the discussion. AFAIK, there exists a separate class of copyright for data *stores*, a.k.a. a database copyright: i.e. regardless of whether every single item in a database is freely redistributable, the *collection* of that data is copyrightable. Take for example, Microsoft Streets: maps and location of businesses are certainly not copyrightable data; however, their collection into a comprehensive and searchable database is copyrightable. I personally think it *should* be. Data gathering is an expensive and difficult process. Companies that go into the trouble of data warehousing, should be able to reap the benefits. (Disclosure: I work for one of the biggest vertical data-miners out there: http://retek.com/) Now, there exists a misconception: companies that gather personal data are not interested in what a specific Joe Q Public does. They are interested in the statistic; i.e. what the average Joe Q Public does. And that's a GOOD thing. Let me explain: if a retailer gathers information about its sales, i.e. what kinda of customer buys what kind of product in what region (and that's the kind of information they gather) then they can stock their stores better, move more inventory, make more profits and have *lower prices*. There is a direct causality chain there that should not be ignored. It's not a coincidence that the retailers that are known for lower prices are also pioneers in data-mining, customer profiling and supply chain management (e.g. Wal-Mart). This is not very different to what mom-and-pop shops did in the olden days: Mr. Tom Grocer knew what Ms. Jane Customer bought and when; he then could (if he was sharp enough) pre-order goods to satisfy demand. In a larger scale today, retail chains *need* to do the same thing and, IMHO, should be able to be allowed to do so. The real danger comes into play when companies start contracting away that job (which is already happening) and then a select few 'CRM' (Customer Relations Management) companies end up hosting all the data --much like credit bureaus do today for credit history. It will then be trivial for these few companies to do the reverse, i.e. instead of looking at the big picture, to start to look at the specific consuming patterns of a certain Joe Q Public. That *should* be illegal, as it is illegal for someone to sell your phone records. There is a solution and it's not the nihilistic "personal data should be private, thus ALL data gathering should be illegal/copyrightable" approach that this article is suggesting: it will be simple (yet hard to enforce) for each government to make CRM companies remove identifying information from their databases: i.e. instead of selling Tom Brown's data, a CRM would have to sell data belonging to a '25-year old male, college degree, income between $30-40k/yr, lives in zip 99999' which is what every legitimate business is after anyways. This is not as hard as it seems: credit card companies do not *have* to identify their customers to a retailer; they're doing it because noone told them not to. If Visa/MasterCard/AmEx/Discover only identified card-holders to their customers by statistical data, everybody would be happy: the consumer's habits would be untraceable and the retailer would get the info they need. Damn. Long rant. Sorry :-)...

memigo is a news weblog run by a robot. It ranks and recommends stories.

Re: Well, I disagree... ... (none / 0) (#15)
by Arkady on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 10:00:46 PM EST

yeah, there are definitely data accumulation/mining companies which are interested only in the aggregates. But there are a lot of companies out there setting up "targeted" advertising that want to know everything about you. And there are even more companies out there who are collecting everything they can about you and selling (or renting, more often) that information to anyone who coughs up some $ (or pounds or lira or whatever ;-). Collecting and distributing this information is a _really_ big business these days.

Remember DoubleClick wanting to know who you are and what you buy so they know what kinds of ads to show you?

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Re: Well, I disagree... ... (4.00 / 1) (#25)
by Anonymous Hero on Mon Jun 12, 2000 at 12:53:31 AM EST

AFAIK, there exists a separate class of copyright for data *stores*, a.k.a. a database copyright: i.e. regardless of whether every single item in a database is freely redistributable, the *collection* of that data is copyrightable.

Waitasec, when did this happen? Last I heard of was Feist vs. Rural said that such things cannot be copyrighted.

If you put your database into a specific original sequence of bits and bytes, that file might be copyrightable, but I wouldn't count on any protection if someone reverse-engineers it.

IANAL, BTW. If the reader is, some clue would be appreciated.

[ Parent ]

Re: Well, I disagree... ... (3.00 / 1) (#30)
by Arkady on Mon Jun 12, 2000 at 12:53:11 PM EST

I expect that, in the US (which has rather drifted from the Berne Convention recently) the DMCA's anti-reverse engineering bits would prohibit this, so the copyright on the db file itself would probably be protected by the courts.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Paragraphs (none / 0) (#33)
by kmself on Tue Jun 13, 2000 at 12:24:15 AM EST

...considered useful.

--
Karsten M. Self
SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
Support the EFF!!
There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

information is not copyrightable, o... (3.00 / 1) (#8)
by eMBee on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 06:30:40 PM EST

eMBee voted 1 on this story.

information is not copyrightable, only pieces of text are.
if you put all your data on a sheet of paper, then the text as presented on that paper is copyrighted.
if someone else collects that same information without ever having seen your collection, then he is not violating your copyright.
that person could e.g. get your address and phone, from the phonebook, ask your friends, coworkers, ..., about other personal bits, get your email adress from a website where you registered...
no need to ever touch your copyrighted datacollection.

greetings, eMBee.
--
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX

Re: information is not copyrightable, o... (3.00 / 1) (#16)
by Arkady on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 10:05:43 PM EST

You're right that information has not been considered copyrightable. Data has generally been considered to pre-exist so it does not have a creator, so it's not copyrightable. How could you copyright the tempreature or a bit of naturally occurring gene sequence (sorry, had to get a snide comment on that topic in ... ;-)?

The difference with personal informaion is that it does have a creator. Information about you and your activities are created by your existence and your doings. So, unlike information describing rat DNA, information describing my buying habits is demonstrably created by me. Things which are created are subject to copyright.

Or, at least, that's the interpretation I'm proposing.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Re: information is not copyrightable, o... (2.00 / 1) (#17)
by Arkady on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 10:08:56 PM EST

My network link went down while I was typing my last comment, so I forgot to mention this one: if the act of creating gives you copyright, there is no other source for you information. If I own copyright on my email address, then you can't get it legally from someone else unless I've granted them a license to redistribute. You can't just copy my phone number from the phone book, in this scenario, because I've only granted them a non-transferable license to distribute it once. You copying the phone book is a violation of that.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Re: information is not copyrightable, o... (3.00 / 1) (#20)
by eMBee on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 10:43:34 PM EST

no, you don't own the copyright ot your email address, i do, because i created your account.
and yes you can take the phone number out of the phonebook.
it is a small enough bit of onformation that you can easely claim fair use.

greetings, eMBee.
--
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
[ Parent ]

Re: information is not copyrightable, o... (2.00 / 1) (#31)
by Arkady on Mon Jun 12, 2000 at 12:59:07 PM EST

That's a good point about the size of the work. Isn't that usually interpreted in the US courts as a percentage, though? And the Fair Use size does change depending on what kind of work you're dealing with. New kinds of work set new standards for how they may excerpted.

The big thing here, of course, is that Fair Use can't be applied to commercial resale of excerpts. They can be used in a commercial context (like a quote in a newspaper article, for which the author of the article is paid), of course, but my understanding is that Fair Use is largely limited by the use to which the exceprt is put and is much stricter on commercial application.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Nothing against this particular sto... (2.00 / 1) (#5)
by _cbj on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 07:03:21 PM EST

_cbj voted -1 on this story.

Nothing against this particular story, but it kinda broke my poor camel's back. Copyright, privacy, blah blah sodding blah. I wonder, though only rhetorically, how many people reading these things have ever or will ever invent anything ever ever.

I think that's probably too "innova... (3.00 / 1) (#3)
by magney on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 07:15:17 PM EST

magney voted 1 on this story.

I think that's probably too "innovative" a legal theory to be promulgated by the courts - you'd need legislatures for that sort of thing. And, of course, those groups that lust after our personal information would fight such a thing tooth and nail. Lastly, I have to think it can't be that simple - there's bound to be some negative consequence of such a thing that I just can't see - the Law of Unintended Consequences rules the universe. But it *is* an interesting idea.

Do I look like I speak for my employer?

Interesting.... (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by Dr. Zowie on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 07:43:43 PM EST

Dr. Zowie voted 1 on this story.

Interesting.

Re: Interesting.... (2.00 / 1) (#14)
by Anonymous Hero on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 09:21:00 PM EST

Don't do that! If you're going to make a voting comment, make an actual COMMENT! Read the damned instructions above the voting form! Jeeze!

[ Parent ]
Neat idea, but I think copyright is... (2.00 / 1) (#2)
by Perpetual Newbie on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 08:04:37 PM EST

Perpetual Newbie voted 1 on this story.

Neat idea, but I think copyright is too strong; I don't want to be liable for posting someone's email address on a web forum. Not just "nobody's going to sue you just for that";I don't want anyone to have the power to be able to sue me for that. Furthermore, you can bet that every contract would require you turn over your copyright, so that needs to be taken into account.

I think what it needed is something that will weaken or get rid of the private "data warehouses" while allowing free public use and services like 411.com.

Re: Neat idea, but I think copyright is... (3.00 / 1) (#12)
by rongen on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 09:11:19 PM EST

I'm inclined to agree with you here... Even if this was possible (maybe it is) most contracts would involve you waiving some copyright or another w.r.t. your copyrighted info... Getting phone service, for example, might require you to waive your rights to your phone number so that it can be published... This would be similar to requesting an unlisted number (only the phone company would be doing the request).

After a period of time this sort of thing would be de riguer in every contract and you are back where you started... Stuff like online forms would have a little click-through that did same... Pretty soon people would get used to waiving copyright (actually most would probably just hand it over rather than consider the implications, just like most of us do now).
read/write http://www.prosebush.com
[ Parent ]

Re: Neat idea, but I think copyright is... (4.00 / 1) (#18)
by Arkady on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 10:14:56 PM EST

Hmm. You're probably right about how most people would act in such an environment. That's kinda sad, really. But at least it would _have_ to be explicit right?

A friend of mine in Texas just bought a house and within two days was getting deluged with junk mail for local churches, cleaning services, roofers, etc. She didn't have a clue what was going on till I pointed out that the bank and the real estate agency were the only probable causes. Naturally, both organizations sell lists of every one of their customers including name and address and whatever other personal data someone wants to pay for.

Oh, please make it stop ... ;-)

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Change of Address data (none / 0) (#34)
by kmself on Tue Jun 13, 2000 at 12:29:49 AM EST

The US Postal Service also sells its change of address data. Though I'd be surprised to learn their turnaround is 48 hours.

--
Karsten M. Self
SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
Support the EFF!!
There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

Nice goal but... (3.00 / 1) (#19)
by Anonymous Hero on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 10:41:51 PM EST

Part of freedom of the press is to post true stories based on fragments of reality. Since we all exist in reality, and this right is already covered, any freely observed occurance in that reality is liable to be printed. And I wouldn't want it any other way... This about it. Would corporations have such a right to privacy? (they are fictional people, you know) Would political candidates?

Re: Nice goal but... (2.00 / 1) (#22)
by Arkady on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 10:52:29 PM EST

Right, but the press can only excerpt small chunks. If, for example, you were to put up a sculpture in a publicly viewable space containing a short story on it, the newspapers could quote small sections for review but could not reproduce the whole thing, despite the fact that it was publicly viewable.

And yes, political candidates have the same right to privacy as you or I. Relevant information concerning their activities could be printed under Fair Use, just as it could about us.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Stars are able to copywrite their image etc (2.00 / 1) (#21)
by mr on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 10:51:55 PM EST

You should also be able to.

The problem would be the constant lawsuits you would have to be in to have your information removed. And lawsuits to stop the security cameras from taking your picture.

Because if you don't defend EVERY violation, you loose the right in the future.


I doubt any of us have the time or money to do this.

Re: Stars are able to copywrite their image etc (4.00 / 1) (#23)
by jetpack on Sun Jun 11, 2000 at 11:35:40 PM EST

Because if you don't defend EVERY violation, you loose the right in the future.

I suspect you are thinking of trademarks, which must be defended for the trademark to hold. This is not true of copyright.


--
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves */
[ Parent ]

Thats just not what copyright is (4.00 / 3) (#24)
by gwachob on Mon Jun 12, 2000 at 12:33:33 AM EST

Copyright protects expression fixated in a tangible medium of expression. Facts are simply not what copyright is about. To include facts in copyright would be, well, making something new. It simply wouldn't be copyright.

Privacy is a wholly distinct legal concept and differs fundamentally from most intellectual property in that primarily, it is not about incentivizing authors or creators to produce things (even trademark is about assuring folks that trademarks are things which can be invested in because they are protected by law), it is about protecting inviduals from the exploitation of facts about their existence. Its more of a consumer protection issue than a business protection issue (awkwardly said). Applying traditional intellectual property regimes straightforwardly doesn't make sense because traditional IP law is very intertwined with the economic realities in which these IP regimes exist. The term of patents, for example, is about 20 years because it is assumed that the value of an invention can be largely be extracted within 20 years of its creation.

So, its quite a good thing to think innovatively about IP law, but first be sure to read up on it -- there's quite a lot of stuff thats accessible to lay person on the Net (see Findlaw - http://www.findlaw.com to get started).

Re: Thats just not what copyright is (3.00 / 1) (#29)
by Arkady on Mon Jun 12, 2000 at 12:50:50 PM EST

I'm aware of all that; just work with me here, OK? ;-)

What I'm talking about is reinterpreting one word from the standard copyright practice. That word is "work". Historically, all information was not considered to be a work. It exists "a priori" and does not have a legal creator. Your personal information (like how many times you fill your gas tank) is fundamentally different from natural information (like what the ambient temperature is outside right now) because you do in fact create your personal information. It is data that would not exist without your actions, whereas it would still be the same temperature outside even if no one measured it (OK, that's a "tree falling in the woods" sort of thing, but let's stay focussed ...).

So it is reasonable, if non-traditional, to consider all of a person's descriptive information as a coprightable work. It might not be a good idea, as several commenters have pointed out some drawbacks, but it is within reason as an interpretation. Or at least, that's my premise here ... ;-)

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Agreement and amplification (none / 0) (#35)
by kmself on Tue Jun 13, 2000 at 03:16:21 AM EST

Copyright (and its cousins patent and trademark) are commercial law. They relate to commercial use of information. The public component of these laws is actually in their complement -- public domain, lapsed patents, and dilluted trademarks.

Privacy, as Gabe indicates, is a distinct set of law, and concerns personal liberties and protections. I'm not a Constitutional legal scholar (I'm a bad programmer), but US privacy laws are founded on the Fourth Amendment to the constitution, not Article III.8.

The scope and intent of copyright are so far afield of the suggestion made here I really don't know what to say. What's key is that copyright is for original works of authorship, fixed in a tangible medium. My life may or may not be original, but it isn't a work of authorship. At best I have some control over what happens, but there are large portions which are imposed by outside forces far beyond my control. Ever hear the song "In a New York Minute":

In a New York minute
Everything can change
In a New York minute
Things can get pretty strange
In a New York minute
Everything can change
In a New York minute

Don't know about you, but I've experienced several of those. Some very good, some very bad. Some just very.

There have also been cases in which copyrights were used in attempts to protect personal details of a life -- don't recall the particulars, but IIRC it was a biographer writing about a famous figure, since dead. Imagine what the effects would be if future biographers could be prevented from writing about the lives of Bill Gates or Bill Clinton under copyright law, because their lives constituted "original works of authorship", protected by law. The attempt to muzzle the biographer was struck down.

--
Karsten M. Self
SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
Support the EFF!!
There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

couldn't think of a worse way to do things... (3.20 / 4) (#26)
by abe1x on Mon Jun 12, 2000 at 12:59:08 AM EST

OK I have a major bias here, as I'm against the very existence of copyrights. The problem I see here (other then that it strengthens copyright laws) is that it fails to make any sort of distinction between public and private. Copyrights as they stand now mainly relate to works that creator release to the world, while most personal data is collected by harassing and tricking people.

If you publish a book, you agree allow people to read it, copyrights are there to "protect" your interests. When you fill out a survey or form you often are unaware of how the data can be used. In addition much of this personal data is essential for living your live smoothly. You need an address if you want to order something on the net, therefore you have no choice but to give away this info. If you don't want people to read your book, you don't have to publish it.

I see the value in using existing laws to protect privacy, but to we really want to tie or personal info to copyright laws? I only see copyright laws as getting weeker over time, if only because they are getting harder to enforce. In contrast there is a desperate need to increase the protection of our privacy.

Re: couldn't think of a worse way to do things... (3.00 / 1) (#28)
by Arkady on Mon Jun 12, 2000 at 12:42:57 PM EST

That's where the big win here is. As you say, copyright controls the bits of it that are let out into the public and to do anything in the world you do have to let out some personal information. That data is currently considered to be the property of the collecting organization. By considering it the person's property, any organization requesting it is only getting a license to use it for whatever purpose the person allows.

Your point about copyright laws weakening because they are becoming unenforcable is a good one. You're right that it's not enough to have the legal protections; you must also be able to enforce them. It really does come down to who'se got the bigger stick in the end, doesn't it?

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Re: couldn't think of a worse way to do things... (4.00 / 1) (#32)
by abe1x on Mon Jun 12, 2000 at 04:27:27 PM EST

I see your point, we have the same goals when it comes to privacy, but I think using copyrights to obtain them is the wrong aproach. Personal information should have far stronger protections on it then what is currently copyrightable information.

By tying privacy to copyright, your personal data only has the same rights as copyrightable info. This is not the end goal, although it does offer some advancement over the present situation. Personally I want to see the situation reversed from the present, so that personal data is infinitely more protected then "copyrightable" data.

[ Parent ]

UK Privacy Law (4.00 / 1) (#27)
by Fish on Mon Jun 12, 2000 at 02:09:55 AM EST

In the UK, our data privacy is protected by the UK Data Protection Act (1998). It's quite strict, and has been brought upto date to comply with the European Privacy Laws.

However, becoming registered with the Data Protection Act is fairly simple. You phone up for a form, fill it in, and pay 75 for one year's membership (and comply).

I have a big fat book next to me called 'Managing Data Protection', and it is very boring.

Using Copyright to Protect Privacy | 35 comments (35 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!