"Matchcode" technology sparks privacy flames.....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 One of the main assertions made by both sides in the privacy battles is people must be informed when a third party is gathering "personal" information about them. But what constitutes personally identifiable information, anyway? Where do "real" privacy concerns begin? Below is a story I wrote about Imgis Inc. - a little-noticed company whose cookies are among the most common on the Net. If you don't them now, look in your cookie file. Chances are you'll find several marked "imgis.com." Imgis thought it knew what the privacy concerns were with its technology. Others thought otherwise. Within two days of hearing about impending opposition, the company apparently changed its views. Note that the technology described is not yet in use. from http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/inwo/0919/inwo0006.html Ad tracking technology sparks new privacy war By Will Rodger September 19, 1997 11:42 AM PDT Inter@ctive Week Online An effort supported by two of the world's largest advertising brokers to tailor advertising to individual Internet users may pose the greatest threat yet to the protection of privacy in cyberspace, activists said. Under a system due for rollout in the first half of 1998, the Web advertising service Imgis Inc. will begin comparing detailed demographic information about Internet users to its stock of Web- ready ads, sending Net users only those ads Imgis determines are best matched to their interests. The company, based in Los Angeles, will use a system of "match codes" to identify individual users. Match codes are unique identifiers used to pick information about consumers out of databases, much as banks use Social Security numbers to identify customers. Under the plan, when Internet users visit Web sites carrying Imgis ads, participating Internet service operators would send Imgis a match code corresponding to a demographic database of 140 million consumers maintained by database marketer Metromail Corp. Imgis would then compare users' names, addresses, estimated incomes and automobile ownership against an inventory of advertisements. Thus, a white, single 25-year-old man living in Dubuque, Iowa, could see an ad that differs from that seen by a 65-year-old American Indian woman living in Manhattan. Yet, at the same time, the system has the ability to track the movements of any Internet user across participating sites, potentially revealing a dizzying array of confidential information, including users' reading habits, health concerns, political inclinations and religious affiliations. Imgis executives insist they won't do so, but the danger remains, critics said. Shelley Pasnik, an analyst with the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Media Education, slammed the proposal. "This is huge. This is the most detailed proposal I've seen and probably the most significant threat to privacy I've heard of," she said. "This is a really big deal; this is a real step back," added Tara Lemmey, chief executive officer of Narrowline Inc., a San Francisco- based Internet advertising firm and a member of the TRUSTe privacy consortium. "This is a case where it's really important to step back and say we've really crossed the line." Imgis, which specializes in Internet advertising, will place ads sold by Petry Media Corp. and Katz Media Group Inc. Exposure of the plan follows four days of hearings on cyberspace privacy at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission last June. Though direct marketers were often on the defensive over their use of surreptitious techniques in gathering consumer information in cyberspace, the FTC tentatively concluded that the industry should police itself before the government takes action to protect privacy on the Internet. But the Imgis case "accentuates all the concerns we've been talking about," said David Medine, associate director of credit practices at the FTC and moderator of most of the sessions. "Up until today, I think that users naturally assumed that users were anonymous through their Internet service providers when they surfed the Web. I don't think that you can say that anymore. If that has changed, it represents a dramatic shift in the relationship between the user and the Internet." Medine said the FTC would expect Imgis to disclose all aspects of its data gathering through participating Web sites and ISPs if it begins using match codes to tailor ad delivery. In an interview Tuesday, Imgis Chief Executive Officer Chuck Berger told Inter@ctive Week that his company had signed two Internet service providers, GTE Corp. and Netcom On-Line Communication Services Inc., to carry the service sometime in the first half of 1998. At the time, Berger said he believed there were no privacy concerns with "anonymous match codes," since Imgis had decided not to record which sites users visit. "Once we pull your ad out of our database, we're done," Berger said. "We're not following you around the Web." Imgis abruptly altered its story Thursday after Inter@ctive Week found that privacy advocates were up in arms over the technology. Marisa Verson, a principal with San Francisco public relations firm Interactive Communications Inc., which represents Imgis, said Imgis never had agreements with GTE or Netcom. "GTE is nothing," she said. "If Chuck communicated that, I don't know how he even thinks that. This thing isn't even in the speculative stage until the privacy thing is down." GTE spokesman Bill Kula confirmed Thursday morning that "we do use Imgis - or plan to - related to using actual public billing files." But "there's not a contract between the two companies today." Netcom officials said they spoke with Imgis more than a year ago about the match code proposal but had discarded the idea over privacy concerns. "I have absolutely zero plans to be involved with this," said Netcom advertising director Terry Pittman. "Whatever we do needs to be in synch with some rules of the road so that people know what we do with their information." Imgis officials, stung by criticism of their plan, said they are moving swiftly. Though Berger earlier described Netizens who worry about their privacy online as a "vocal minority," Imgis marketing director David Kopp said the company is moving to develop some way of disclosing how it gathers information online and what it does with it. "We'll come up with a policy that makes sense," Kopp said. "These issues are very big issues. The main reason we haven't pursued the product is we're not entirely confident we have a set of standards that would work. Without informed consent you can't do this sort of thing." Kopp said the company would soon contact TRUSTe for guidance. TRUSTe Chairman Lori Fena said she hoped to hear from Kopp soon. "We mandate full disclosure," she said. "We expect full disclosure at all the Web sites, so this would no longer be a back-door deal." The FTC's Medine agreed. "It's going to take enough firms getting beat up in the press to make people realize they have to think about this first - before they develop the technology," he said. Imgis can be reached at www.imgis.com The FTC can be reached at www.ftc.gov -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNCQghdZgKT/Hvj9iEQLu5ACfSVkRIbX8iYE7EgKnwV2FIZK82fUAoIBl 2TyMisA624IB1nWUwhI3qx54 =08lI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Will Rodger blathered:
Ad tracking technology sparks new privacy war By Will Rodger September 19, 1997 11:42 AM PDT Inter@ctive Week Online
An effort supported by two of the world's largest advertising brokers to tailor advertising to individual Internet users may pose the greatest threat yet to the protection of privacy in cyberspace, activists said. ... Yet, at the same time, the system has the ability to track the movements of any Internet user across participating sites, potentially revealing a dizzying array of confidential information, including users' reading habits, health concerns, political inclinations and religious affiliations. Imgis executives insist they won't do so, but the danger remains, critics said.
Imgis Inc. would like to point out that these libelous accusations are being made by a sick, twisted individual who has visited over 3,000 pornography sites in the last six months. (68 of them on Mother's Day!) Will Rodgers is well known to Imgis Inc. to be a perverted leftist loser who spends the time he is not busy slandering honest, decent people such as ourselves, cruising the InterNet in search of underage teenage sluts who like long walks in the park, holding hands under the full moon, AND CROWBARS SHOVED UP THEIR ASS DURING STRANGE SEXUAL ACTIVITIES WITH FARMYARD BEASTS! He has AIDS, cancer, and will soon have his health insurance canceled by one of our biggest clients. He worships the *wrong* God and votes for the *wrong* political candidates. Our future projections, based on his past activities, indicate that he will soon become a drug dealing pornographer and a terrorist pedophile. So ask yourself, "Is this the kind of person I want to have shaping my views about Imgis Inc.'s public service software?" If your answer is "Yes.", then perhaps we should reveal what we know about YOU! Sincerely, A. Hoir Janitor, Imgis Inc.
At 12:14 PM -0700 9/20/97, Will Rodger wrote:
One of the main assertions made by both sides in the privacy battles is people must be informed when a third party is gathering "personal" information about them.
I don't know which two sides are the "both sides" you'r describing, but "my side" believes no such thing. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 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."
I spent the weekend in West Virginia, where folks are more than happy to gossip with (and about) their neighbors. Nobody would try to shut
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 them up
through force of law. This principle does not disappear when the information being shared is digital.
That's a bold assertion, but not one that squares easily with the half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the books at the federal level. I would like to go to those small-town folk of whom urban intellectuals write so eloquently and ask them what they would think of their neighbors posting all their gossip to a place where millions can read it. Something tells me they wouldn't see those two actions as one in the same. There is a qualitiative difference between the two. That's about as far as I'm going on that one. I'm sure Bernstein, DeFalco et al. will have clear reasons for why none of us should care less. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNCaES9ZgKT/Hvj9iEQJ03QCeLN5sLVLPLOqxtCXSBd85lBwFeMYAoKKI KAT20ILcFXUM7hFuBdocaomq =rWy6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Will Rodger Voice: +1 202-408-7027 Washington Bureau Chief Fax: +1 202-789-2036 Inter@ctive Week http://www.interactiveweek.com A Ziff-Davis Publication PGP 5.0: 584D FD11 3035 0EC2 B35C AB16 D660 293F C7BE 3F62 PGP 2.6.2: D83D 0095 299C 2505 25FA 93FE DDF6 9B5F
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Will Rodger wrote, quoting me:
I spent the weekend in West Virginia, where folks are more than happy to gossip with (and about) their neighbors. Nobody would try to shut them up through force of law. This principle does not disappear when the information being shared is digital.
That's a bold assertion, but not one that squares easily with the half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the books at the federal level.
Which law, specifically, would gossiping with (or about) your neighbors violate? And yes, some of the "half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the books" are misguided. Just as many argue laws against drugs, gambling, or FCC rules prohibiting the broadcast of "indecent" material are also unconstitutional -- and a waste of our police's time.
I would like to go to those small-town folk of whom urban intellectuals write so eloquently and ask them what they would think of their neighbors posting all their gossip to a place where millions can read it. Something tells me they wouldn't see those two actions as one in the same. There is a qualitiative difference between the two.
The problem is, I suspect, in drawing that line. Want to try your hand in drawing a line outlining the scope of "obscenity" laws? Remember they cover textual material in some states and comics in others. No? I didn't think so.
That's about as far as I'm going on that one.
I'm sure Bernstein, DeFalco et al. will have clear reasons for why none of us should care less.
I don't think the issue is whether or not individuals should "care" about others talking about them behind their back. I think the question is how to address it: through the force of law or not. I may not want to shut up the Net-Nazis through the force of law (I would argue against it), but I would certainly "care" what they say and speak out against it myself. Not all wrongs can be solved through the law. -Declan
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Will Rodger wrote, quoting me:
I spent the weekend in West Virginia, where folks are more than happy to gossip with (and about) their neighbors. Nobody would try to shut them up through force of law. This principle does not disappear when the information being shared is digital.
That's a bold assertion, but not one that squares easily with the half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the books at the federal level.
Which law, specifically, would gossiping with (or about) your neighbors violate?
Slander. Were I to maliciously spread a rumor, and you got fired, or suffered economic loss because of my gossip, you could sue me.
And yes, some of the "half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the books" are misguided. Just as many argue laws against drugs, gambling, or FCC rules prohibiting the broadcast of "indecent" material are also unconstitutional -- and a waste of our police's time.
True, but there is also a large body of law that is civil instead of criminal. While we are on social policy, police also enforce environmental laws which take property and affirmative action which violate all kinds of freedom of association. I can be damaged by information - which may be either wrong or out of context. Should I have no right to recover or correct such things? If no one had the right to the information in the first place (is personal information part of my personal property?), do I have any rights if it is both true and damaging (e.g. a felon with an expunged conviction - they can legally answer "no" if asked if ever convicted of a felony, but the historical record may show something different). When we talk about reputation capital, it becomes something that can be vandalized or stolen. Were any other form of capital stolen or vandalized, I could go for damages.
I don't think the issue is whether or not individuals should "care" about others talking about them behind their back. I think the question is how to address it: through the force of law or not. I may not want to shut up the Net-Nazis through the force of law (I would argue against it), but I would certainly "care" what they say and speak out against it myself.
Not all wrongs can be solved through the law.
And the converse, just because there is no law (or in the VPs words: "no controlling legal authority") does not mean it is not a wrong. virtue destroys vice, and truth destroys error. What there is no solution for is ignorance and apathy, and laws will neither inform people or get them to take action. --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
At 14:02 -0400 9/23/97, nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com wrote:
Which law, specifically, would gossiping with (or about) your neighbors violate?
Slander.
Were I to maliciously spread a rumor, and you got fired, or suffered economic loss because of my gossip, you could sue me.
Not quite. Truth is an absolute defense against slander and libel. If the gossip is true, which was my hypothetical, what's the cause of action?
I can be damaged by information - which may be either wrong or out of context. Should I have no right to recover or correct such things? If no\
No, you should have no right to "recover" what I know about you. This is a common beginner's misunderstanding. What you seem to be arguing for is property rights in information. But that is misguided. To grant you such a right would be to let you muzzle others who say truthful things, violating their free speech rights. That is why many "privacy laws" are censorship in disguise. -Declan ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
At 14:02 -0400 9/23/97, nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com wrote:
Which law, specifically, would gossiping with (or about) your neighbors violate?
Slander.
Were I to maliciously spread a rumor, and you got fired, or suffered economic loss because of my gossip, you could sue me.
Not quite. Truth is an absolute defense against slander and libel. If the gossip is true, which was my hypothetical, what's the cause of action?
Truth was not mentioned specifically. Gossip is rarely true after the first few iterations. You are correct that if the gossip can be proven true that the position is defensible (but I would have to check some legal references if it is absolute).
I can be damaged by information - which may be either wrong or out of context. Should I have no right to recover or correct such things? If no\
No, you should have no right to "recover" what I know about you. This is a common beginner's misunderstanding. What you seem to be arguing for is property rights in information. But that is misguided. To grant you such a right would be to let you muzzle others who say truthful things, violating their free speech rights.
Technically, I am arguing for property rights in reputation. Patent and copyright are already recognized property rights in information. As far as recovering information, I may have no right, but if I contract with my doctor or lawyer, he has a duty to protect my records. Perhaps I could not sue you, but I could sue the people who released the information to you, and those who had a duty to protect those records. The "raw" FBI files Livingstone got are an example - they contain lots of unverified rumor and gossip and could be used to damage the people they are about. Did Livingstone do anything wrong, and would there be a problem posting such information on the internet? How about personal information such as credit card or social security numbers or even tax records - you are saying if I can get them, I should be able to publish them. And who determines "truthful"? This gets back into the ratings scheme. Movie critics would be in trouble if you leave this caveat in.
That is why many "privacy laws" are censorship in disguise.
Then on the same basis, are copyright laws. If I can get a copy of MS Office, should I be able to publish that? Copyright does not directly prevent me from obtaining the information, but it does prevent others from publishing the information without my permission. Even cracking a copy protection scheme does not entitle me to publish the now unprotected information freely. I would simply argue that some personal information is functionally copyrighted by that person without going through the formality (if I remember right the Berne convention says something is still protected even if no formal steps have been taken). Some personal information can be made public domain - who I appear in public with, what I wear in public, what I post here, etc. but lots cannot be obtained without commiting some form of trespass or theft. You are effectively saying that if you get something that was stolen, you still should be able to own it (and if you publish it, have a copyright and own that same information). If you are arguing that there should be no legal protection for information of any sort (including patent or copyright) I think you have a point. We then would have an equal opportunity for information piracy.
Tom Zerucha writes:
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Technically, I am arguing for property rights in reputation. Patent and copyright are already recognized property rights in information.
And this is a good thing?
The "raw" FBI files Livingstone got are an example - they contain lots of unverified rumor and gossip and could be used to damage the people they are about. Did Livingstone do anything wrong, and would there be a problem posting such information on the internet?
It would be a real boon for privacy if they were posted to the internet. The fall-out ought to reduce government reporting demands.
How about personal information such as credit card or social security numbers or even tax records - you are saying if I can get them, I should be able to publish them.
Bingo! What you don't want published don't publish. Don't like it? Don't reveal information you don't want published. Argue for chaumian credentials. btw. your "you are saying if I can get them, I should be able to publish them." is almost a tautology -- clearly if you get information you _can_ publish it anonymously. Therefore anything that is obtainable is not private. Laws claiming to regulate what you can _know_ (data protection laws) are dumber yet, as it is legislating that you must forget something. And it is unenforceable -- who knows what you have on your database.
That is why many "privacy laws" are censorship in disguise.
Then on the same basis, are copyright laws. If I can get a copy of MS Office, should I be able to publish that? Copyright does not directly prevent me from obtaining the information, but it does prevent others from publishing the information without my permission.
Copyright doesn't prevent squat. It just sets up a procedure for your local force monopoly to harass you if you don't follow the procedure.
(if I remember right the Berne convention says something is still protected even if no formal steps have been taken).
More laws against gravity.
If you are arguing that there should be no legal protection for information of any sort (including patent or copyright) I think you have a point. We then would have an equal opportunity for information piracy.
Scrap patents and copyright. Disband WIPO police. Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* violated EAR today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`
Sorry for the delay, but I have been working massive overtime. On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Adam Back wrote:
Tom Zerucha writes:
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Technically, I am arguing for property rights in reputation. Patent and copyright are already recognized property rights in information.
And this is a good thing?
Possibly, possibly not. Declan was arguing that information cannot be protected. I was simply pointing out that some is.
How about personal information such as credit card or social security numbers or even tax records - you are saying if I can get them, I should be able to publish them.
Bingo! What you don't want published don't publish.
Don't like it? Don't reveal information you don't want published. Argue for chaumian credentials.
I don't think our tax authority will accept them. I am compelled to publish all kinds of information about myself (unless I had a few million dollars to go to court on each individual issue, e.g. here it is illegal to drive without insurance, but insurers will not underwrite you unless you give them lots of information). I can argue for chaumian credentials all I want, but I will be thrown in jail because people with guns don't accept them. If you really believe this, you can engage in your own acts of civil disobedience in your country and see if they will accept your argument.
btw. your "you are saying if I can get them, I should be able to publish them." is almost a tautology -- clearly if you get information you _can_ publish it anonymously. Therefore anything that is obtainable is not private.
This is like saying that if you keep one million pounds sterling in a locked safe in your house on your property, and I can break in and get it, that it is not stealing - anything not nailed down is unclaimed property? I am entitled to the contents of your wallet if I can get it? But extend that now if there was a law banning safes (the authorities don't like them), and that your assets could not be hidden, so should be kept someplace visible from the outside, and not otherwise protected. Under this condition should laws against theft be enforced?
Laws claiming to regulate what you can _know_ (data protection laws) are dumber yet, as it is legislating that you must forget something. And it is unenforceable -- who knows what you have on your database.
True, but laws can force you to pay damages. A law attempting to force restitution for vandalism is equally impossible (you can destroy something you cannot recreate), but that does not mean vandalism is not a crime, nor should it be discouraged or go unpunished.
Copyright doesn't prevent squat. It just sets up a procedure for your local force monopoly to harass you if you don't follow the procedure.
(if I remember right the Berne convention says something is still protected even if no formal steps have been taken).
More laws against gravity.
Laws against theft, rape, robbery and murder do not prevent said acts, but only tend to discourage them.
If you are arguing that there should be no legal protection for information of any sort (including patent or copyright) I think you have a point. We then would have an equal opportunity for information piracy.
Scrap patents and copyright. Disband WIPO police.
Agreed, but after my state scraps its demand for insurance and information before I can legally drive, and when the federal government stops demanding to see all my personal data (now including medical records). Also, things might simply go to copy-protection using strong digital signatures and licensing terms making you responsible for any piracy of your copy (I know, scrap contract law, common law, etc. and then the license will simply state that we will send thugs to kill you - since there is no government - if we see this anywhere it isn't in our opinion supposed to be - replace government force monopoly with private enforcers sort of like Chicago in the 1920's). It is not that things like copyright and patent won't be enforced, but it might be in a more chaotic and not necessarily better matter than what the government does. Or work technologically restricting the information to an even greater degree (a DVD will only play to a TV if it sees a anti-piracy DS cert). My argument is while government can compel me to publish information I do not want to (i.e. violates my rights), it should simultaneously compel third parties not to forward such information (limiting the potential damage from that violation). Scrap both or neither. Only arguing for repeal of laws that constrain tyrants as much as citizens is not arguing for liberty. In the context of a libertarian society, or even an anarchical society your arguments make a great deal of sense. In the current semi-socialism/faschism prevalent now, the effect is to only penalize me for any attempt to protect myself.
At 11:26 -0400 9/24/97, nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com wrote:
Truth was not mentioned specifically. Gossip is rarely true after the first few iterations. You are correct that if the gossip can be proven true that the position is defensible (but I would have to check some legal references if it is absolute).
Not all lies are libelous, nor should they be. "I love you," no?
Technically, I am arguing for property rights in reputation. Patent and copyright are already recognized property rights in information.
And these are divisive issues in the circles I travel in. But no, technically you are arguing for property rights in //personal information//. This is not a new concept. Brandeis and Warren first laid the groundwork for this in their landmark (and misguided) 1890 law review article. That article was written before the advent of modern First Amendment jurisprudence and does not take free speech rights into consideration. Your scheme -- which is hardly novel -- is worthy of the same contempt. -Declan ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 03:46 PM 9/22/97 +0000, Declan McCullagh wrote, regarding the right of people to say almost anything anywhere under any circumstance: This principle does not disappear when the
information being shared is digital.
To which I suggested that simple gossip is qualitatively different from posting confidential information about others to, say, a newsgroup or Web page. Thus:
That's a bold assertion, but not one that squares easily with the half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the books at the federal level.
(stuff snipped) Declan responded:
And yes, some of the "half-dozen or so privacy laws already on the books" are misguided. Just as many argue laws against drugs, gambling, or FCC rules prohibiting the broadcast of "indecent" material are also unconstitutional -- and a waste of our police's time.
I would like to go to those small-town folk of whom urban intellectuals write so eloquently and ask them what they would
That's a great response, but I still see little chance that this argument will go away on constitutional grounds. Until then, I'm reporting on what happens. It's shocking and intellectually indefensible, I know, but hey, my money's on reality.;-). think
of their neighbors posting all their gossip to a place where millions can read it. Something tells me they wouldn't see those two actions as one in the same. There is a qualitiative difference between the
two.
The problem is, I suspect, in drawing that line. Want to try your hand in drawing a line outlining the scope of "obscenity" laws? Remember they cover textual material in some states and comics in others. No? I didn't think so.
Actually, I'd be more than happy to "draw the line" if I did such things for a living - but I don't. In any case, I'd address the topic of privacy on its own without referring to hot button issues like obscenity. I invite everyone else to decide if the two issues are a fair parallel or not. I now invite Solveig, Julie and everyone else to comment. Me, I'm just betting on the horses.... Will -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNCb73tZgKT/Hvj9iEQLCiACghlPBpeIaUHheWN4Bp9JJXlEFp2IAoLB6 OVSFs2pSDjjRqidKHmy9uT6H =DRrn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tim May wrote:
At 12:14 PM -0700 9/20/97, Will Rodger wrote:
One of the main assertions made by both sides in the privacy battles is people must be informed when a third party is gathering "personal" information about them.
I don't know which two sides are the "both sides" you'r describing, but "my side" believes no such thing.
We do, we just like to phrase it differently. Such as "if you aren't using remailers, they're gathering information about you."
The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 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."
Consider yourself informed that a third party has gathered the above information about you.
There is, I'm told by reliable sources, a forthcoming Cato Institute report on electronic privacy that will help put this in perspective -- and buttress my and Tim's position. Someone from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, too, took this stance during a bunch of panels at the FTC June privacy hearings that Will and I attended. Simply put, you do not have any right to know when people are talking about you behind their back. It happens all the time and, even though people may not like it, it is a staple of society. I spent the weekend in West Virginia, where folks are more than happy to gossip with (and about) their neighbors. Nobody would try to shut them up through force of law. This principle does not disappear when the information being shared is digital. -Declan At 00:48 -0700 9/22/97, Tim May wrote:
At 12:14 PM -0700 9/20/97, Will Rodger wrote:
One of the main assertions made by both sides in the privacy battles is people must be informed when a third party is gathering "personal" information about them.
I don't know which two sides are the "both sides" you'r describing, but "my side" believes no such thing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 07:48 AM 9/22/97 +0000, Tim May wrote:
At 12:14 PM -0700 9/20/97, Will Rodger wrote:
One of the main assertions made by both sides in the privacy battles is people must be informed when a third party is gathering "personal" information about them.
I don't know which two sides are the "both sides" you'r describing, but "my side" believes no such thing.
Both sides, in this case, is pretty much everyone at the FTC roundtable last June. The one exception I recall is the position taken by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The CEI took the position that no regulation at all was needed and that marketplace forces would police the Net. Their view, for better or worse, is not very visible elsewhere. Another solution, of course, is a techno-arms race solution to privacy. That works for readers of this list, but that's not who the FTC worries about. Libertarians will, of course, shudder at the notion that they should. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNCaCENZgKT/Hvj9iEQKHVACfaDOopCNdjgRn+GbF+JieznWQ+1UAoI+r BHcfSL4Ns1bl9hAO2KOPYV+a =G/I3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Will Rodger Voice: +1 202-408-7027 Washington Bureau Chief Fax: +1 202-789-2036 Inter@ctive Week http://www.interactiveweek.com A Ziff-Davis Publication PGP 5.0: 584D FD11 3035 0EC2 B35C AB16 D660 293F C7BE 3F62 PGP 2.6.2: D83D 0095 299C 2505 25FA 93FE DDF6 9B5F
What Tim and Declan said. Historically, I think, third-party (3P) "notice" reflects concern about the accuracy of files held by others and their accountability. Much '74-era privacy talk was about 3Ps like credit issuers making decisions about you based on incorrect information. Notice would help you see and correct the files on you. Look at the report done on personal privacy in the information society commissioned for the Privacy Act. These weren't then and aren't now idle concerns, but a means to an end -- "notice" -- may be being confused with an end. I'd rather stop "womb-to-tomb" dossiers than assure their accuracy. IMHO "notice" of 3P info gathering misses the point. The problems start with first and second parties. Remember, this is about notice for *gathering* information, not publishing it. That means notice even if you never publish or use it. If we're concerned about the gathering of personal information from public records, for instance, why was that information collected in the first place? If because the gov't is regulating a transaction or relation, is that gov't regulation necessary? How much of the information is really needed? How much information does DMV need to issue a drivers' license? Also, requiring third parties to give notice to first parties would raise massive first amendment issues -- much of what we and the press do is gather personal information. What of the address books we all keep? The constitutional problems would not exist, IMHO, if the gov't had to notify us when it discloses our personal information. The gov't is a major information trafficker, both by extracting information directly, and by requiring us to report information to 3Ps like banks, etc. Lee PS. BTW, I am not a libertarian. At 11:48 PM -0800 9/21/97, Tim May wrote:
At 12:14 PM -0700 9/20/97, Will Rodger wrote:
One of the main assertions made by both sides in the privacy battles is people must be informed when a third party is gathering "personal" information about them.
I don't know which two sides are the "both sides" you'r describing, but "my side" believes no such thing.
--Tim May
participants (8)
-
Adam Back -
Declan McCullagh -
Imgis Inc. -
Lee Tien -
nobody＠REPLAY.COM -
nospam-seesignature＠ceddec.com -
Tim May -
Will Rodger