Back to Tim's original point, I wonder if he knows that the P-TRAK data that Lexis/Nexis said was "public information" was actually taken from credit reports collected and sold by TransUnion. TU was able to sell the data because of a loophole in the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Sure, you post to the net that's public, but a lot of data collection is much more sleazy. I'd also appreciate some comment/criticism on the piece I did for Wired. My point was that in countries where there are legal rights to privacy it will be easier for technologies of privacy to flourish. I gave as examples the fact that PRZ was nearly indicted in the US while David Chaum was being applauded by the European Commission for building anonymous payment schemes. The OECD crypto policy drafting experience confirmed my suspicion. Let me also try to explain how the simple-minded First Amendment-privacy rights trade-off often misses the point about privacy claims. Consider the article about Judge Bork's video viewing habits back in 1987. Should Congress/the Courts prevent City Paper from publishing the article? Of course not. Could Congress/the Courts require video record stores not to disclose customer records without explict consent? You decide. For the hardcore free market types, take a look at Posner's *Economics of Justice.* There are good economic reasons for privacy laws, e.g. do you really want to negotiate with the telcos on a case-by-case basis whether they can sell the contents of your phonecalls? To be clear, I do believe that there should be laws to protect the right of privacy and that there should be an office within the federal government to advocate on behalf of privacy interests. I also believe that if such an agency had been established in 1991 when it was proposed, it would have been much harder for the government to push subsequently for digital telephony, Clipper, GAK, etc. Marc. At 12:12 PM -0400 5/31/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'm now more awake than I was before, and a little less flippant, so let me try to respond to Marc's statement saying my summary of his "views on privacy below are just silly."
The initial question has to be not how you protect rights, but how you define them. For example, we have a right to speak freely; there should be strict limits on government controls on free expression or the press. The state has unique powers of coercion. Similarly, there should be strict limits on government collection of personal data about its citizens.
But transactional privacy is a different matter. Sure, we may generally agree that privacy is the famous "right to be left alone," but how does that extend to what happens when I make an affirmative choice to connect to a web site that might record some info about my visit -- as an alternative to charging me? Nobody's forcing me to visit that site. That's why I'm starting to come around to the idea that privacy is not a universal right but a preference. We need a market in privacy, not inflexible FTC rulemaking.
Oh, and the much-touted European Privacy Directive has made it near-impossible to exchange employee information between branches of the same firm that are physically in different countries. Bad move, Eurocrats.
-Declan
On Sat, 31 May 1997, Marc Rotenberg wrote:
People who are interested in why I am pro-individual freedom but not anti-government should take a look a my piece in Wired "Eurocrats Do Good Privacy." [4.05]
I spent a year working for a good crypto policy at the OECD. During that time I watched European government officials argue for constitutional freedoms and against key escrow, while business representatives quietly backed the US GAK plan. Welcome to the real world.
Marc.
Btw - Declan's summary of our views on privacy below are just silly. Many of the greatest defenders of First Amendment freedoms have also felt most strongly about the right of privacy. The question is always how you protect rights. Perhaps libertarians would do away with all laws that protect personal freedoms. Bad call.
At 3:21 AM -0400 5/31/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Unfortunately, Tim is letting a rant get in the way of reality. A shame, really, for he's capable of better. Let me respond. I may not be very cordial. We lost tonight's soccer game (goddamn wimpy libertarians) and went to some cheezy Crystal City sports bar afterwards. I just got back home, and it's 3:20 am...
Anyway, Rotenberg and EPIC are not the Uber Enemy. Rather, they disagree with cypherpunk and libertarian positions on some issues. So we have issue-by-issue alliances with them. Let's break it down:
------------------------------ CRYPTO: EPIC takes a purist civil liberties approach to crypto. They've been the ones criticizing the SAFE "crypto in crime" provisions. Did the latest VTW alert sent out today even mention that portion of the bill, let alone criticize it?
ANONYMITY: No other group in DC is such a staunch supporter of online anonymity publicly, though look for something from Cato soon. In fact, I linked to EPIC's copy of the McIntyre decision for my Friday Netly piece. Many business groups don't like anonymity online -- hurts the marketeers.
FREE SPEECH: EPIC is co-counsel in ACLU lawsuit against CDA. I believe they've said some of the anti-spam legislation is unconstitutional.
FOIA: David Sobel does fabulous work snagging government documents the spooks don't want released.
PRIVACY: EPIC wants more Federal involvement to protect privacy and a Federal Privacy Commission (or something similar). Lots of laws, bureaucracies. Though EPIC does realize there's a First Amendment; other privacy groups are even more aggressive. EPIC is of course on the side of libertarians when it comes to government violations of privacy. ------------------------------
From a libertarian perspective, EPIC is good on everything but privacy. On that they want Big Government solutions.
But that doesn't mean we reject and condemn what they do on other issues. Do we reject Eagle Forum's anti-Clipper endorsement because they're a bunch of ultraconservative wackos? Do we reject the National Organization for Women's position on the CDA as bad because they're a bunch of ultraliberal wackos? How about the National Association of Broadcaster's amicus brief against the CDA? The Christian Coalition rejecting a national ID cards and numbers? Ralph Nader wanting open access to government databases?
No. We don't. Instead, we address this issue by issue. EPIC and Rotenberg are not always, but are often, our allies.
-Declan
On Fri, 30 May 1997, Tim May wrote:
I suppose I am developing a reputation amongst the Inside the Beltway
Cyber
Rights Groups (tm) as a pain in the ass, but nearly everytime I see one of their chief spokeswonks giving a policy statement I realize they are "not on my side."
The latest quote is from Marc Rotenberg, on a CNN piece on spam and anti-spam legislation, saying that what the legislators in Congress really need to look into is how the spammers develop their data bases.....
Incredible. Does he propose investigations of private data gathering? Perhaps search warrants served on those who take public postings and construct data bases?
Look, I'm annoyed by getting 5-10 "unwanted" spam messages a day. But I realize the "spammers" are merely taking publicly available (= legally available, as 99.99% of all such information is) information and using legal channels to contact me. I may not "like" it, but their behavior is as legal as someone calling me on the phone.
(And ny nearly any measure of hassle factor, dashing to get to the phone only to find it's a salesman selling something I don't want is worse than any 20 unwanted e-mail messages.)
So, Marc Rotenberg wants Congress to "look into" (= interfere with) compilation and use of public information.
These people are NOT our allies.
--Tim May
There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
================================================================== Marc Rotenberg, director * +1 202 544 9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * +1 202 547 5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 301 * rotenberg@epic.org Washington, DC 20003 USA + http://www.epic.org ==================================================================