The Post's proposal is so obviously ridiculous it's almost difficult to discuss fruitfully. The fact is, it just doesn't really matter who has access to certain

The Post's proposal is so obviously ridiculous it's almost difficult to discuss fruitfully. The fact is, it just doesn't really matter who has access to certain individual's security; as long as somebody other than the owner has access, than privacy is violated. There's no such thing as half measures when it comes to security and there's no such thing as a semi-permeable security "membrane", so to speak. A story: The Belgian census bureau in 1930-31-32-33 conducted a nationwide survey, noting down, among other things, people's religion. Although this was done innocently for records' sake, when the Nazis invaded the country, they had access to a perfect registry of Belgian Jews. The takeaway is that the "good guys" won't always be in possession of sensitive information, no matter how good they are. Safety comes in people's ability to manage their own information, not in their ability to manage others'.