On the surface, it seems like a good idea. Who better to 'own" one"s own information than one"s own self? However, despite Arthur Miller and Alan Westin"s assertion to the contrary, such exclusive ownership of private information remains problematic. Legally, information about one"s past history does not only affect one"s personal life-if individuals with bad credit can willy-nilly open up new store credit cards, obtain mortgages and car loans from the bank, without those institutions discovering that they have declared bankruptcy in the past or have a poor credit history, all Americans will suffer in the long term. .

             There are additional ethical concerns, criminals could more easily escape their pasts and past constraints put on their behaviors-for instance, 'dead-beat" dads would be able to easily flee the area where they lived, without paying child support, because they did not leave a traceable 'paper trail" of credit card and social security information. This raises safety questions as well, as in a completely anonymous society, where one only had to divulge information if one released it willingly, one could also more easily conceal a past criminal record from an employer when entering a high-security job. .

             Also, from a practical issue, taking tax and social security out of most American"s paychecks would become a logistical nightmare, as this is done via the knowledge of the government of one"s own social security system. True, one might counter-credit card companies could still require the data, one would simply have to agree to release it voluntarily. But this would give little additional advantages to owning one"s personal information, and result in a sea of bureaucratic red tape, regarding the validity of different types of informational requests, from credit histories to employment and legal personal data.