Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   No Subject Given

   

   gp, Mar 15th, 2005 @ 5:14pm

   
   

   They need a law because 1) they cannot afford to be disclosing mistakes to the marketplace when competitors may not be doing so voluntarily and 2) and most importantly, the cost of compliance is something THEY can afford as large existing players but it raises entry barriers for small potential competitors.
   Large players want government regulation because they alone can afford to comply with it. (credit to Prof. Theodore Lowi for the concept many years ago)

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Competition

   

   Matt Brubeck, Mar 15th, 2005 @ 5:14pm

   
   

   There's a good reason these companies might support regulation.
   
   Without regulation (or other incentives, like liability), a company that spent more than necessary on disclosure would place itself at a disadvantage; it couldn't compete on a level playing field with companies that don't bother with unnecessary disclosure. The unscrupulous companies would end up taking business from the scrupulous ones, and the public would lose out.
   
   With regulation, a company like ChoicePoint can make the sacrifices involved in full disclosure, knowing that their competitors are facing the same burdens.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Beck, Mar 15th, 2005 @ 8:07pm

   
   

   I agree with the above two, and I think there is another reason they might want regulation, and that's liability.
   
   If there are regulations, then a lawsuit defense would be to document how they comply with all federal regulations. Without the regulations, no matter what they do, a lawsuit can claim that they should have done something more.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   It's a pre-emptive strike

   

   LBB, Mar 16th, 2005 @ 5:31am

   
   

   The data companies are dangling the "required notification in cases of compromise" carrot in front of Congress in order to head off any talk of actually letting the consumers control their own personal data.
   Notice all the talk in the article is about "monetizing" the information and making it available "for important purposes, including fraud detection and prevention, law enforcement." Nothing is said about empowering us to protect our own data (by removing it from the warehousing companies, placing strictures on its use, etc.)

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: It's a pre-emptive strike

   

   knight37, Mar 16th, 2005 @ 9:15am

   
   

   Precisely. This is the problem with these large warehouses. The people who have data in them a) may not even be aware of it, 2) have no control over what is put in there, 3) don't even have access to be able to look at it, and 4) are unable to correct incorrect data even when it is provable that the information is false. Furthermore, the type of data that is being put in there isn't even factual in some cases, it's based on false information to begin with. This is a rediculous situation.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment