Who’s Who is not going on CD and has no intention of doing so. Their bread and butter depends on it. The reason is privacy. Ego aside, people give their names to Who Who’s so other people can look them up. In the computer speak, the entry point into the database is the name, surname first.
If the book came out electronically, the commercially minded could extract sub-databases according to sports and other interests from the 10,000 top Australians. Thus a list of wine-lovers or golfers could be constructed and a very targeted mailing list constructed. Thus, Who’s Who, not wanting to offend its clientele, does not publish electronically.
Most electronic phonebook products do not allow reverse searching _ that is from address or number back to the person.
They are obeying what has become a standard for privacy protection _ only to use personal information for the purpose for which it was gathered. At first blush it seems very laudable, but does it really matter if people can reverse search phone numbers or Who’s Who?
Results of a survey issued by the Privacy Commissioner, Kevin O’Connor last week indicate that more than 80 per cent of Australians believe they are losing control of information. They want to be asked before information is passed on. They say they should be told what information will be used for and should be told when information is being collected.
O’Connor used the publication of the results to make a plea to extend the Privacy Act, which now generally applies only to government, to the private sector.
But it may be the 5 per cent who were not concerned have got it right. They appear to be taking a “”I’ve got nothing to hide” approach.
It may be true that, at first blush, people are concerned about data collection and, when asked now, approve of having more rules. But the other side of the picture was probably not put to them.
The two areas regarded as most sensitive are the ones that warrant breaches of the principles of using data only for the purpose for which it was collected and no passing it on without permission _ medical records and social security information. Yes; medical records.
Privacy is becoming a nightmare for health researchers. You might go to the doctor and give information solely to the doctor and only for the purpose of your own treatment. Recently, I spoke to a prostate-cancer researcher who said he might have to abandon an epidemiological study because his team simply could not afford to get thousands of patients’ permission to use the very detailed data to make the research worthwhile. On the social security front, I can see no reason against data matching against tax and other social security record to check against fraud.
Commercially, credit providers have a right to protect themselves against fraud.
Also on the commercial front, data collected from other purchases and passed on to other companies enables targeting of future junk mail. The junk mail code of conduct ensures you can be taken of lists if you ask.
There was another more notable figure in O’Connor’s survey _ that four in five say they do not understand the impact of new technology on personal privacy.
If that is the case, it seems a bit silly to base new legislative proposals to extend privacy on the opinions of people who openly admit they don’t know what they are talking about.
Before we increase privacy “”protection” we have to recognise there is a downside.
The survey revealed a lot of concern about people being disadvantaged by large databases of information on health, purchases, mortgages, social security and commercial transactions. In fact, the larger the database the more accurate the picture it is likely to portray. One or two adverse errors are likely to form a far greater percentage of the total picture presented in a hand- or typewritten file than of a much larger electronic file.
On balance it may be that placing a lot of privacy restrictions of the use of information will do more to hinder good uses (quick credit, stopping fraud, accurate junk mail and better health research) than evil uses, and that those up to no good will find other ways to effect their purpose.