At 04:08 AM 11/29/96 +0000, you wrote:

Notably, the emphasis is on the needs of business, not "people."

We are in an excellent position to observe and document the process whereby "business" -- that is, organizations motivated primarily, if not

exclusively,

by the desire for short-term profits accruing to vested interests -- comes to dominate and control a technology. The auto and television industries come to mind as two prior examples. We are about to see the net go the same way. Take notes.

"I have to praise the administration and Ira for reaching out to the private sector for comments," Computers and Communication Industry Association President Ed Black said. "There's a great emphasis on the needs of business here."

Even so, privacy activists remained disappointed with many of the document's features. "This isn't anything new," said David Banisar, counsel to the Electronic Privacy and Information Center. "The privacy stuff is terrible. They say it's market driven, but markets don't work with privacy. It's like what happened with P-Trak."

You bring up a point that is implied - but not explicit - in the article. And it's a good one. Funny thing is, two of the _industry_ folks suggested individuals probably needed to be included in the document more than they were. Neither was keen on being quoted on the record regarding non-business interests, of course. Given the attitude of the folks I talked to, I suspect non-business interests are still fairly important to the White House on this one. And remember: Ira Magaziner won no friends in industry with his health care proposals a couple of years back; some folks think he's leaning in favor of industry at least initially to make sure what happened then doesn't happen again. If Netizens find suggestions from the administration too heavy-handed, my guess is there's still time to move the discussion. Cheers. Will Rodger Washington Bureau Chief Inter@ctive Week