Rotenberg as the Uber Enemy

Sat May 31 11:40:31 PDT 1997

To be more clear, I should have mentioned in my last missive
that I'm thinking of a "liberty" right (to protect transactional
confidentiality) as opposed to a "privacy" or, to some extent,
"property" right.
MacN

On Sat, 31 May 1997, 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 at 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 at epic.org
> > Washington, DC 20003   USA              +   http://www.epic.org
> > ==================================================================
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 