THE ELECTRONIC IDENTITY
                           Robert Parson

     This column is an outgrowth of my series of articles called The
Wired Future.  In that series we have been examining where
Telecommunications has been, where it is, and where it will be.
The Electronic Identity will explore the nature of information.  How
it is used by, for and against us.
     Just as with The Wired Future, these are MY conclusions based
on the facts as I understand them.  I encourage you to speak up when
you feel I have made a misstatement of fact or if one of my
conclusions is off base.

     When most people think of information, they think of print.
Usually a newspaper or encyclopedia.  But during the past fifty
years the method of information distribution has been undergoing a
transformation.
     As Radio and Television became more prevalent, the use of
newspapers has consistently declined.  Today, we can watch or listen
to news and information 24 hours a day.  In fact, specialized
services have been developed for our individual tastes.  CNN is a
more well rounded news and information service while CNN Headline
News is geared more toward hard news, CNBC/FNN for Business News,
ESPN for Sports News.
     Even though the manner in which information is distributed
changes, the Nature of Information does not.
     But despite the fact the Nature of Information does not change,
Information itself is fluid and very volatile.  Because the
underlying facts change from moment to moment, conclusions that may
have been accurate an hour ago may no longer be accurate.
     For example, your friendly smiling TV Weatherman says "It's
going to be a dandy day."  And he places little bitty suns all over
his weathermap.  But suddenly, a cold front collides with a warm
front.  Now your friendly TV Weatherman is no longer smiling, "A
severe thunderstorm watch is in effect."  And he circles the area
affected by the watch.
     This is because the facts to support the conclusion were no
longer valid.  The original facts did not change.  But new facts
superseded them, which forced a new conclusion.
     As a more subtle example, in the past several months what
appears at first glance to be new facts have emerged about the Gulf
War.  During our war with Iraq, it was generally assumed that the
Allied Air Strikes had an efficiency rate of 80% or above.  We
reached the following conclusions based on that information:
1.  Our weaponry is very good.
2.  Military Targets in Iraq were destroyed with few civilian
casualties.
3.  Some Iraqi Targets left standing were unassailable.
4.  The Iraqi military was ill prepared.
5.  The Iraqis never had a chance.
     But closer examination of the data has revealed an efficiency
rate of roughly 50%.  What can be concluded from this new
information?
1.  Our weaponry, although more efficient than in previous wars, is
not quite as good as we thought.
2.  Iraqi complaints of unnecessary civilian casualties may have
some merit.
3.  Some Iraqi Targets left standing may have been missed completely.
4.  The Iraqi military was even more ill prepared than we thought.
5.  The Iraqis never had a chance.
     In this situation, there were no new facts to override the
first facts.  The difference came from closer study of the existing
information.  The first set of conclusions may remain valid, but the
second set of conclusions may be more accurate because the facts
were more focused and detailed.
     This same kind of examination and reexamination of data is
continuous with all sorts of information.  This includes our credit
records, our medical records, our bank statements, our tax
liabilities, even our birth and death records.  Anything that
involves any kind of data is constantly being updated.
     This is a classic example of the difference between the Haves
and the Havenots.  Those who do not have Information are subject to
the whims of those who do.  Imagine the feeling you get when playing
Trivial Pursuit and you know the answer while those around you
don't.  Now imagine this on a national or even global scale.
     Because of this, we should be on our guard to ensure that
personal and business information is used only by those who should
rightfully have access to it.  This doesn't mean we should be
paranoid, but we should be watchful.
     The Electronic Age has considerably increased access to
information.  Electronic Publishers should have the same First
Amendment protections as print publishers.  Access to information is
a First Amendment Freedom in that Electronic Publishing is an
extension of the printing press.  But for some, Electronic
Publishing is a new area that demands new regulations.  This is
another area in which we should be on guard.  Freedom cannot exist
without Information.  Each new regulation on Access to Information
closes another door to Freedom.
     "Knowledge is Power."  That phrase is more true than you or I
can possibly imagine.

NEXT:  I can find anyone anywhere
                                  (c) 1992 Robert Parson