FC: NYT: William Safire on privacy and databases

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[Safire has always been smart about government invasions of privacy -- I
remember and love his "Sink the Clipper Chip" column from circa 1994. But
I'm not sure if I (as a journalist) can stomach the idea that people
necessarily own information about themselves when dealing with PRIVATE
entities. Heck, what if I see Orrin Hatch with a floozy in the back of a
limo? Surely *I* now own whatever personally identifiable information I've
picked up from my voyeuristic escapade, and not the distinguished (not to
mention trouserless) senator from Utah. People in general, including
Congresscritters, would be better served by not letting that info out in
the first place rather than trying to restrict its distribution post-facto.
--DBM]


> September 23, 1999
>
> ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE
>
> Nosy Parker Lives
>
> WASHINGTON -- A state sells its driver's license records to a
> stalker; he selects his victim -- a Hollywood starlet -- from
> the photos and murders her.
>
> A telephone company sells a list of calls; an extortionist
> analyzes the pattern of calls and blackmails the owner of the
> phone.
>
> A hospital transfers patient records to an insurance affiliate,
> which turns down a policy renewal.
>
> A bank sells a financial disclosure statement to a borrower's
> employer, who fires the employee for profligacy.
>
> An Internet browser sells the records of a nettie's searches to
> a lawyer's private investigator, who uses "cookie"-generated
> evidence against the nettie in a lawsuit.
>
> Such invasions of privacy are no longer far-out possibilities.
> The first listed above, the murder of Rebecca Schaeffer, led to
> the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. That Federal law enables
> motorists to "opt out" -- to direct that information about them
> not be sold for commercial purposes.
>
> But even that opt out puts the burden of protection on the
> potential victim, and most people are too busy or lazy to
> initiate self-protection. Far more effective would be what
> privacy advocates call opt in -- requiring the state or business
> to request permission of individual customers before selling
> their names to practitioners of "target marketing."

[...]
> The groundswelling resentment is in search of a public champion.
> The start will gain momentum when some Presidential candidate
> seizes the sleeper issue of the too-targeted consumer.
>
> Laws need not always be the answer: to avert regulation, smart
> businesses will compete to assure customers' right to decide.
>
> The libertarian principle is plain: excepting legitimate needs
> of law enforcement and public interest, control of information
> about an individual must rest with the person himself.
>
> When the required permission is asked, he or she can sell it or
> trade it -- or tell the bank, the search engine and the Motor
> Vehicle Bureau to keep their mouths shut.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe: send a message to majordomo () vorlon mit edu with this text:
subscribe politech
More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------