[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 ;-)

hehehehehe no James, no offense taken.

> -- 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. 

I agree with this, as I said before in class---but only up to a point. I
personally feel that ignorance is no excuse, but well one can't do much
about something that is threatening to destroy their privacy (and all the
other perks that go along w/it like the threat of identity theft,
etc., etc.) if they haven't the foggiest that there even is a threat in
the first place.

Many American consumers are pretty clueless when it comes to knowing what
kind of info can & cannot be collected on them and about their habits (if
they even know that, that is) and what can be done w/it. I think they may
change as more an more people get online and if/when identity theft
becomes more rampant. If you & all of your buddies all begin to have a
cousin or a friend who was a victim of identity theft or fraud due to
information that was pilfered by the criminals themselves using electronic
means or by the criminals physically gaining access (i.e. dupmster
diving) or by other means (i.e. social engineering) to information that
was gathered online or stored in electronic format, maybe then people will
start to wake up and protect themselves or at least try to. There hasn't
been considerable consumer action b/c right now consumers don't feel
terribly threatened imho.

I don't have any "hard" data to back my little theory up either. I can
only go on the informal polling of family and friends, some who are online
and some who are not, and they all seem to be woefully uninformed on this
particular issue. 

> 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.

I also agree w/this point as well. Those of us in this class are to a
large extent ---when compared to the rest of America---the information
elite. Yes, yes, I know there are people that are certainly more hardcore
than we are, this I realize but in the larger scheme of things, there are
a lot more people that see no problem using AOL and think Open Source
might be a music group they never heard of than there are people like
those us in this class that have been exposed to such things and more
either via education or work in the IT field or both.

Just my 2 cents. 

Robyn

 > 
> 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
> >
> ===========================================================================
> >
> 
>