This article is nothing more than a PR piece. Ronald Plesser, quoted at the end of the article, is an attorney for the Individual Reference Services group. You may remember the group as among the most vocal defenders of Lexis-Nexis when LN was going to sell social security numbers via it PTRAK service. Lexis is one of their members. Westin, the academic who ran the survey, is less than loved among many privacy advocates. I don't know the guy. He's probably on this listserv somewhere. This whole "broad support for commercial access to personal information from public records" thing is probably a response to the LAPD v. King and Condon v. Reno decisions issued by the Supreme Court last year. The former upheld a CA law which excluded access to public records for marketing purposes, the industry's primary source of such info. Further it said marketers and journalists are not the same (something I'm sure Declan was tremendously relieved to hear.) The latter (as most people on this group probably know) upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, ruling that the Federal goverment can restrict states from selling driver info and regulate the exchange of personal info within the commerce clause and without violating the tenth amendment. I suspect the Direct Marketing Association, IRSG, and friends are getting a little nervous Congress might actually act. Also, note the total absence of response from any actual privacy group such as EPIC or Junkbusters, something a balanced piece wouldn't omit. Did I say PR piece? Yeah, it's a piece all right... -----Original Message----- From: Anonymous To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Sent: 12/7/00 10:18 PM Subject: Ranks Of Privacy 'Pragmatists' Are Growing By Mary Mosquera, TechWeb News Dec 7, 2000 (6:02 AM) URL: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20001207S0002 WASHINGTON -- The issue of privacy is growing increasingly complex as Americans express concern over abuse of their personal data -- yet still support institutions that handle their information. In a new survey of privacy and protection, an inevitable paradox emerges: While most Americans support the free flow of information from public records, they are concerned about their privacy in some instances when personal information is extracted from those records, a recent survey showed. Consumers are accepting that commercial companies supply background information on them from public records. Still, they said, it must be for a valid social or legal purpose, such as for employment or law enforcement. And protections against misuse must be in place, according to the survey, Public Records and the Responsible Use of Information. More Americans are concerned about privacy than in the past, but they take a more balanced view now, said Alan Westin, president of Privacy and American Business, which conducted the survey with ORC International. "More of those now registering concern fall into 'privacy pragmatist' rather than the 'privacy fundamentalist' camp," Westin said. That more balanced outlook contributes to the broad support for commercial access to personal information from public records. And the focus on information gathering over the Internet by millions of Net users has fostered consumers accepting commercial access to their information, Westin said. How to balance good privacy policies and social values served by disseminating public-record information is an important issue in an era when abuse of that information, especially over the Internet, has led to fraud and identity theft. The 1,000 adults surveyed found it acceptable if companies provided personal information for law enforcement, such as past or present fraudulent conduct or criminal convictions, or for hiring. Using public records to locate a current residence or work address was the least acceptable service, unless it was for law enforcement, potential employers, or consumer credit companies. Those polled thought it acceptable, but less so, for private investigators and ordinary citizens to access public records for background and location information, the report said. Consumers strongly oppose the government posting personally identified public information on the Internet. "However, opposition fades when specific safeguards are introduced," the report said. Safeguards included the government requiring the consent of the individual before displaying a public record file on the Internet and demanding a specific, legitimate purpose from a user before allowing their access. "Sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers or medical conditions, were removed prior to displaying the public record on the Internet," the report said. The sale of Social Security numbers over the Internet is a source of privacy abuse and identity theft. "Regulating the purchase and sale of Social Security numbers over the Internet won't come overnight," said Ron Plesser, a partner at Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, Washington. "It's a challenge for industry how to use Social Security numbers properly."
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:00:25AM -0500, Daniel Orr wrote:
Ronald Plesser, quoted at the end of the article, is an attorney for the Individual Reference Services group. You may remember the group as among the most vocal defenders of Lexis-Nexis when LN was going to sell social security numbers via it PTRAK service. Lexis is one of their members.
Ron is far more than that: He's also out of house counsel for DMA.
Westin, the academic who ran the survey, is less than loved among many privacy advocates. I don't know the guy. He's probably on this listserv somewhere.
I do; I was even at his 70th (I think) birthday party. I think the odds that he's on this list are phenomenally low. Privacy leftists (what you really mean when you're saying privacy advocates) don't like him because they think that after some seminal work he did, he sold out and now supports the idea that there are some valid reasons for corporate data exchange, etc. Heresy!
Also, note the total absence of response from any actual privacy group such as EPIC or Junkbusters, something a balanced piece wouldn't omit.
You mean "privacy leftists," don't you? -Declan
At 11:35 AM -0500 on 12/9/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Privacy leftists
We have a winner. Time to patch the old buzzword engine with something *truly* inflammatory... :-). Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
At 04:46 PM 12/13/00 -0800, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
At 11:35 AM -0500 on 12/9/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Privacy leftists
We have a winner. Time to patch the old buzzword engine with something *truly* inflammatory...
Of course, "Privacy Rightwingers" don't believe in real privacy either. (You can't use the term "privacy rightists" to parallel "privacy leftists" because it will be interpreted wrong, but "Privacy Rightwingers" is close.) After all, the government ought to be able to poke into your business, and tap your phone calls in traditional fashion, and keep track of your race, and keep track of your nationality in case you might be a furriner, and keep track of who lives where because there might be (gasp!) unmarried persons of opposite sex sharing living quarters, or otherwise shacking up. Motels, too. And anywhere Commies do anything. They probably don't insist on violating your privacy in everything - for instance there's no need to search people getting on airplanes, because if everybody took handguns on planes they could shoot any Commie hijackers trying to go to Cuba.... Then there's Barlow's definition of privacy in a small town "where you don't need to use your turn signal because everybody knows where you're going anyway." Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Bill, this is splendid! Can I talk you into writing a similar screed about privacy leftists? I'll cite you in my weekly column. --Declan At 21:28 12/13/2000 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 04:46 PM 12/13/00 -0800, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
At 11:35 AM -0500 on 12/9/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Privacy leftists
We have a winner. Time to patch the old buzzword engine with something *truly* inflammatory...
Of course, "Privacy Rightwingers" don't believe in real privacy either. (You can't use the term "privacy rightists" to parallel "privacy leftists" because it will be interpreted wrong, but "Privacy Rightwingers" is close.)
After all, the government ought to be able to poke into your business, and tap your phone calls in traditional fashion, and keep track of your race, and keep track of your nationality in case you might be a furriner, and keep track of who lives where because there might be (gasp!) unmarried persons of opposite sex sharing living quarters, or otherwise shacking up. Motels, too. And anywhere Commies do anything. They probably don't insist on violating your privacy in everything - for instance there's no need to search people getting on airplanes, because if everybody took handguns on planes they could shoot any Commie hijackers trying to go to Cuba....
Then there's Barlow's definition of privacy in a small town "where you don't need to use your turn signal because everybody knows where you're going anyway." Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
participants (4)
-
Bill Stewart
-
Daniel Orr
-
Declan McCullagh
-
R. A. Hettinga