Extremely well put.
Heh. In the USSR, all data was held by the govt. and I'm sure they had elections.
I think maybe the issues are:
My building society holds key personal data about me, but I am allowed access to it, I can correct errors, I can refuse access (okay, I know there are back doors, but at least the doors are officially bolted tight.)
Ditto my patient info held by the NHS.
I think I should add that my building society doesn't have shareholders.
http://www.nationwide.co.uk/bettersociety/intro/mutuality_matters.htm Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
And before you get too carried away with your USSR example, ultimately the totalitarian regime vanished from the page of time and the KGB archives came under public accountability and democratic control. Same thing with the Stasi files in East Germany. We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
Your "ultimately" doesn't do it for me. It is attention to how the data is held/used now that is the issue--or, but careful as this becomes hypothetical quickly--how that data might be used in the future (and then a division between near/far.)
I think we are at greater risk of badly collected data, stored ineffectively, and used as a club by over-zealous controllers. How about that guy who had the same name as the leader of Hezbollah, so the israeli soldiers turned up...at a hospital to arrest him? Or the guy in South Africa that the FBI wanted to extradite, and he could prove that they had him all mixed up with someone else, but...once they had their data--that was it.
In case I didn't mention it before, I think there is always a higher risk to the individual when the holders of my data also operate the monopoly of force in my neighbourhood. Or, of course, are in cahoots with those who have the monopoly of force (building societies are regulated by laws that even the police and govt. have to abide by. But not MI6, apparently.) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
