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

Re: Clinton outlines new privacy legislation



>From my limited and informal polls taken in class and among friends, it
seems that most people do not take any actions to protect the privacy they
so staunchly claim a right to.  I'm interested in why this is and I think
the answer would add tremendously to the public debates on privacy.  The
answer, I'd argue, rests largely in the abdication of personal
responsibility and the reliance on external forces for change.

While I have no studies or data to support this (yet), I suspect that the
majority of individuals who claim to cherish their privacy and who support
sweeping federal privacy laws do little, if anything, to ensure the security
of their personal and consumer information.

For example -- Robyn, please don't take offense because I'm using this only
to make a point ;-) -- Robyn expressed fears over having her health
insurance company access her grocery purchases and then determine her
premiums accordingly.  Certainly this is a concern to us all, but it's not
one that is unavoidable or one that we cannot influence.  Simply paying cash
for items you don't wish to be recorded is the easiest way to avoid this
scenario.  Robyn knows she exhibits considerable control over her consumer
information and is fearful of how it may be used against her in the future,
yet she admittedly does nothing about it.

Further, how many individuals check the privacy policy of websites and
ecommerce sites before they surf or make purchases?  Not many.  Individuals
are willing to make online purchases and other information transactions
regardless of privacy policies or their enforcement.  There hasn't been
considerable consumer action taken against websites that don't post or honor
their privacy policy.  If Internet privacy was as big an issue with
consumers as the media and politicians would have us believe, information
transactions would be limited to the sites that clearly post and vigorously
enforce their privacy policies.  Consumers vote with their dollars.  Online
businesses (DoubleClick is an exception but it's not a consumer site)
haven't faced significant economic pressures from consumers refusing
patronage because the site's privacy policy is insufficient.  Economic
incentives drive business decisions and consumers are taking conflicting
actions.  They continue to shop and surf largely irrespective of privacy
concerns yet they're eager to denounce privacy breaches and quick to pound
the table for federal privacy legislation.

In the proposals for privacy legislation, the emphasis on results and
effectiveness is embarrassingly thin.  There's only an outcry to "do
something."  Whether any of the proposals would be effective at shoring up
privacy is trivial.

Finally, self regulation has not failed; I think it's too early in the
adoption of the World Wide Web to make such a claim.  Commercial
applications of Internet technologies are in its infancy, Internet usage is
far from ubiquitous, and innovation far outstrips our capacity to manage it.
At this point, legal and legislative attempts to set the parameters of
growth will be immediately rendered ineffective.

James






----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Jones <pjones@MetaLab.unc.edu>
To: James S. Wilson <wilsj@ruby.ils.unc.edu>
Cc: <inls310-74@ruby.ils.unc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2000 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Clinton outlines new privacy legislation


> Clinton's come a long ways from the CLipper Chip days. Of course, he's had
> some experiences that we would have called "radicalizing" in the
> past. Even Monica has been out pitching for privacy.
> A quick story, David Lytel was one of the guys that the White House that
> we worked with whilst they developed their web site. Dave said his
> blackest day was having to defend the clipper chip at the Computers,
> Freedom, & Privacy Conference (www.cfp.org). Later, tho Dave called to say
> he had left White House and he was now working with private industry. With
> the RIAA, he hoped to put a special tracing program at university network
> entry points and so trace down MP3 sites. napster seems to have done a
> much better job.
> What James is arguing for seems too utopian to work for me. We have
> federal laws about banking and privacy now, CLinton seems to me (on an
> admittedly brief reading) to be translating that law into something that
> reflects the current times and practices. Obviously the transparency that
> say David Brin and it seems James are advocating is not guaranteed without
> some sort of umpire on the field. Selfregulation hasn't worked. TRUSTe and
> the like have failed at their first tests. That leaves goobermint. Unless
> someone has another idea. Got one?
> ==========================================================================
>                              Paul Jones
>    "We must protect our precious bodily fluids!" General Jack D Ripper
> http://MetaLab.unc.edu/pjones/ at the Site Formerly Known As
SunSITE.unc.edu
>   pjones@MetaLab.unc.edu   voice: (919) 962-7600     fax: (919) 962-8071
>
===========================================================================
>