---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 19:19:49 -0500 From: Mikus Grinbergs <mikus@bga.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Julie DeFalco from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank here in DC, today sent me what her organization filed with the FTC earlier this month.
DID YOU HAVE TO POST THIS to your list? Sure, it publicises what the "other side" has to say, but I find so much to object to in practically every sentence that it almost makes me ill. I can only hope that other filings to the FTC display more respect for the individual than this does. ----
The confusion surrounding the term privacy leads one to conclude that "privacy" is like a Rorschach ink blot - different people read different things into it. "Whenever an invasion of privacy is claimed, there are usually competing values at stake." In this sense, privacy is not a right, it is a preference.
Eek! Here the CEI is re-defining "privacy as a right" into "privacy as a preference"! In my opinion, the word "right" conveys a sense of moral conviction, whereas the substituted word "preference" conveys (as it is intended to) a connotation of malleable irresolution. I am not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with the various court precedents, but if "pursuit of happiness" can be considered a "right", I would argue that so can "privacy" be considered a "right". Is there even a dividing line between the two?
Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis said that privacy is the "The right to be left alone - the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people."
This quote is a brilliant stroke on the part of CEI - its presence here reassures those who agree with Justice Brandeis (of whom I am one), but the idea of value to "being left alone" is disregarded throughout the rest of CEI's submission. Let me illustrate what I think is meant by "privacy": Suppose I do not have a secretary to take care of my personal correspondence. As long as I receive only a few letters each day urging me to do something, I consider that to be a tolerable "cost" associated with living in this modern-day society. But suppose the mailman starts bringing me hundreds of such letters each day -- it will take me time and effort just to dispose of them (even if I did not look at their content) -- time and effort diverted from my goal of "pursuit of happiness". Because I was not left alone, my ability to _choose by myself_ what to do and what not to do (that is, my *privacy*) was violated. ----
The allocation of costs and benefits deriving from data collection depends upon whom you ask. Again, privacy is a preference, not a universal right.
This seems to be the central message of what CEI is proposing -- run a poll, and if the plurality of respondents say that they see a benefit to society of identifying who you are each time you buy something (or even enter any store or Web page) -- why then, let's all be good citizens and not be irritated and just present our tamper-proof IDs when asked.
<snip> The FTC should be extremely cautious in regulating the free flow of consumer information.
[Surely CEI can convince them that for "free flow of consumer information" what is important is the flow of information about consumers to marketers -- after all, it is the market that rules, not vague intangibles like "individual privacy".] mikus