[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Congressional Privacy Caucus launches -- pro and con views (fwd)



We're re-forwarding this because we didn't see it in the archive and we
wanted to link it to our page for our presentation.
hannah & robyn

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:47:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Jones <pjones@MetaLab.unc.edu>
To: inls310-74@ruby.ils.unc.edu
Subject: Congressional Privacy Caucus launches -- pro and con views 

Rants, raves, links and other madness on privacy, government and database
concentration from Declan McCullagh's list. These touch on several areas
that we've identified for our presentations. I think you'll find all of
them interesting and provocative.

 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:49:59
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: FC: Congressional Privacy Caucus launches -- pro and con views

***********

>From: Kent Lassman <KLassman@CSE.org>
>To: "'declan@well.com'" <declan@well.com>
>Subject: CPC.
>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:58:27 -0500
>
>What's up with the Congressional Privacy Caucus?  It seems that when
>Democrats like Tom Daschle, Paul Sarbanes, and Barbara Boxer team up on an
>issue the very essence of individual liberty is not on the tips of their
>tounges.  While I'm glad to see the Hill take an interest in the issue and
>its role in a healthy and functioning market economy, I'm ready to wager
>that the first of their proposals will be pro-regulatory.  Note to self, Bob
>Torricelli says that his new legislation is not pro-regulatory...it only
>would clog up the civil justice system with even more crank lawsuits.

***********

If the Congressional Privacy Caucus actually did anything, it could be a 
very dangerous group. It's primarily a collection of folks not known for 
their commitment to individual liberty.

It is not focused on government invasions of privacy, and is instead 
intended to lobby for severe restrictions on businesses' use of 
information. The goals are worthwhile, but the means are not. Regulations 
they demand would require businesses to open their books -- "an individual 
must have access to personably identifiable information held by a private 
company" -- to anyone in a way that begs for application of the law of 
unintended consequences.

It also might give folks a false sense of security. Some of the principles 
that ostensibly apply to government agencies -- "individuals must be 
informed in a clear and conspicuous manner when... governmental agencies 
plan to collect... personally identifiable information" -- clearly won't. 
The NSA is not likely to request permission when conducting Echelonesque 
surveillance, and the FBI is not known for asking nicely before wiretapping 
you.

Background:
http://www.senate.gov/~shelby/press/prsrs314.htm
http://www.senate.gov/~shelby/press/prsrs315.htm
http://daschle.senate.gov/releases/00/02/2000209705.html
http://torricelli.senate.gov/Live_NEWS.htm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:s.00809:
Markey background:
http://www.house.gov/markey/cp_telecommunications.htm
http://www.house.gov/markey/cp_health.htm
http://www.house.gov/markey/cp_finance.htm

-Declan

************

 From National Journal's Tech Daily Thursday:
>"When everyone from Joe Barton to Ed Markey calls
>for greater privacy, it is not a question of if, but a question of how and
>when," Barton said, comparing his conservative record with
>Markey's more liberal one.
>Barton said one of the reasons he joined the group
>was that it had the support of House Republican leaders. "That way it is
>hard to
>say that this is a Democratic issue," he said.
>Meanwhile, the dozen Senate Democrats who met during
>the task force's first meeting have taken a different approach. The group
>is hoping to build consensus among Democrats on privacy
>and promote Democratic initiatives, according to a source who attended
>the meeting.
>Democratic senators who attended the closed-door
>meeting included Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Paul
>Sarbanes of Maryland, Barbara Boxer of California,
>Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Robert
>Torricelli of New Jersey, and Richard Durbin of Illinois.

************

>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:23:41 -0800
>From: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com>
>Subject: Re: FCF's Dean Lauds Congressional Privacy Caucus
>
>Can anyone tell me, precisely, why it is so very scary to imagine that
>somewhere in a corporate database is a notation that you like to buy Coca
>Cola? Corporations don't scare me -- they want me to be alive, free, and
>earning money so that I can buy their products. Corpses and prisoners make
>lousy consumers.
>
>I'm just curious as to the source of this fear of corporate 'spying', at
>least as regards public habits like what you buy. If they were tracking
>union membership or the like, I'd be more scared -- that's information that
>they could use to wreck your life. But who gives a smeg if they know what
>soda you drink or your favorite brand of shampoo? The WORST that will
>happen is you'll end up on some mailing lists. The best? You'll get a
>coupon and save 50 cents.
>
>Can anyone who finds the concept of corporate databases keeping them awake
>nights explain to me precisely WHY this bothers them? Obviously, it IS a
>major concern for a lot of people -- but, as with genetic engineering or
>nuclear power, I cannot understand the CAUSE of the fear. I need to know.

************


>From: "Trei, Peter" <ptrei@rsasecurity.com>
>Subject: RE: FCF's Dean Lauds Congressional Privacy Caucus
>Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:34:49 -0500
>
>I'm sure that a lot of people are going to respond,
>but since when has that ever stopped me? :-)
>
>Peter
>
>
> > ----------
> > From:         Lizard[SMTP:lizard@mrlizard.com]
> >
> > Can anyone tell me, precisely, why it is so very scary to imagine that
> > somewhere in a corporate database is a notation that you like to buy Coca
> > Cola? Corporations don't scare me -- they want me to be alive, free, and
> > earning money so that I can buy their products. Corpses and prisoners make
> > lousy consumers.
> >
> > I'm just curious as to the source of this fear of corporate 'spying', at
> > least as regards public habits like what you buy. If they were tracking
> > union membership or the like, I'd be more scared -- that's information
> > that
> > they could use to wreck your life. But who gives a smeg if they know what
> > soda you drink or your favorite brand of shampoo? The WORST that will
> > happen is you'll end up on some mailing lists. The best? You'll get a
> > coupon and save 50 cents.
> >
> > Can anyone who finds the concept of corporate databases keeping them awake
> > nights explain to me precisely WHY this bothers them? Obviously, it IS a
> > major concern for a lot of people -- but, as with genetic engineering or
> > nuclear power, I cannot understand the CAUSE of the fear. I need to know.
> >
> >
>Consider, Mr(?). "Lizard": Why exactly are you posting under
>what appears to be a nym? Could it be that there are people
>or organizations who you do not want to know your taste in
>mailing lists?
>
>If you're an employee of PepsiCo, you might very well want to
>conceal your personal preference for Coke.
>
>This is really an issue that relates to the value of privacy
>and anonymity in general. Your question is closely related
>to the old "If you have nothing to hide, why would you object
>to being watched?"
>
>The thing is, you, I, and many people engage in activities
>which, while we think they are OK, we'd rather not have to
>justify at every turn. For example: many people rent adult
>videos: how would you feel if your taste in movies was exposed
>on a webpage for your colleagues at work, your mom, and your
>girlfriend to see?
>
>You can imagine all sorts of bad scenarios if your every action
>was recorded and subject to public scrutiny.
>
>"Your Honor: My husband's a drunk: These supermarket loyalty
>card records show that he drinks 2 sixpacks of beer a week!
>I want a divorce, the house, the cars, and half his income.
>(this actually happened in San Francisco a while back).
>
>"I'm sorry Miss ... your purchase records from RiteAid show that
>though single, you purchase condoms every month. Our firm
>does not hire fornicators."
>
>"John, we're firing you for non-performance; your outstanding
>record up to this point must have been an error. Oh, by the
>way: we all hope you stay healthy: our self-insurance office
>has just reported that you've started purchasing anti-viral
>drugs for HIV."
>
>I myself have been surprised at job interviews when some of
>my leisure time activities have been raised by the
>interviewer (purely out of curiosity - not as a hiring issue.
>At least, so far)
>
>Peter Trei
>ptrei@rsasecurity.com

************

>FCF's Dean Lauds Congressional Privacy Caucus
>
>Privacy: 'single most important issue facing American citizens'
>
>WASHINGTON, DC - Today the Free Congress Foundation lauded the formation of
>the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Privacy Caucus.
>
>"We laud the tenacity of Sens. Shelby and Bryan and Reps. Markey and Barton
>for being among the first in Congress to take the initiative on the single
>most important issue facing American citizens going into the next century,"
>said Free Congress Foundation's Vice President for Technology Policy Lisa S.
>Dean.  "It is critical that we establish laws and regulations regarding
>individual privacy while the technology designed to protect it is still in
>its infancy."
>
>"We must rely on Congress - and not the courts or federal agencies - to
>decide what our rights are in the information age.  And I am delighted to
>see these members take this initiative by lending their voices to those of
>Rep. Bob Barr, who has long been warning the public about the erosion of
>their privacy through regulation and legislation," said Dean.
>
>"This is a great today for all Americans," said Free Congress Foundation
>spokesman Robert McFarland.  "The formation of this caucus will bring
>privacy concerns to the forefront and serve to move the debate in the
>direction of protecting Americans' private information.  Now more than ever
>we need legislation protecting our privacy from Big Brother and his Little
>Brother in corporate America."
>
>On August 16, 1999 The Washington Times reported the following on the state
>of medical privacy:
>
>"Executives at more than a third of the Fortune 500 companies scan their
>employees' medical files before making hiring, firing and promotion
>decisions. An untold number of smaller businesses with self-insured medical
>plans do that as well.  Life insurers increasingly obtain data on clients'
>genetic backgrounds and use the information to drop coverage or reject
>applicants who might contract an illness others in their family have had.
>Health maintenance organizations gather data that allow them to recruit only
>the healthiest clients -- a tactic known as "cherry-picking."  Internet
>information brokers sell for about $400 an individual's complete medical
>file to any interested person with a computer and cash, including lawyers,
>detectives, political and business foes or vindictive neighbors.
>Drug-company marketers buy patient lists from pharmacies for about 30 cents
>apiece, then make direct-mail drug pitches to heart patients, diabetics,
>arthritis suffers and others."
>
>###
>
>The Free Congress Foundation is a 21-year-old Washington based think tank,
>which teaches people how to be effective in the political process, advocates
>judicial reform, promotes cultural conservatism, and works against the
>government encroachment of individual liberties.
>
>Visit Our Website at http://www.FreeCongress.org
>
>This publication is a service of the Free Congress Research and Education
>Foundation, Inc. (FCF) and does not necessarily reflect the views of the
>Free Congress Foundation nor is it an attempt to aid or hinder the passage
>of any bill.
>
>Free Congress Foundation, 717 Second Street NE,  Washington, DC  20002
>202.546.3000 x450  Fax: 202.544.2819  Project Manager: Angela Wheeler
>
>Copyright * 2000  Free Congress Foundation - All Rights Reserved.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text:
subscribe politech
More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------