FC: Campaign Net-privacy violations, from National Journal's Hotline

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

*********

> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 08:30:39 -0400
> To: declan () well com
> From: Howard Mortman <hmortman () njdc com>
> Subject: Campaign Internet privacy violations
>
> Declan --
>
> I'm a huge fan of Politech and a loyal reader.
>
> I'm national editor of National Journal's Hotline, a daily web briefing on
> politics.
>
> Below is a column I wrote on the newest chill for Internet libertarians:
> the invasion of privacy from campaign and candidate web sites.
>
> Perhaps you could post this piece?  I would love to read your thoughts and
> your readers' thoughts.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -- Howard Mortman
>
> http://hotlinescoop.com/web/content/columns/exfri.htm
>
>
> Priva-See How They Run
>
>
> By Howard Mortman
> © National Journal Group Inc.
> Friday, April 14, 2000
>
> Name a campaign practice that invades privacy.
>
> You probably said push polls, those intrusive negative phone calls. But
> push polling is losing its shameful throne as king of intrusion to far more
> severe types of privacy violations: those occurring on the Internet.
>
>
> Commercial Internet privacy is already one of the most pressing issues
> facing Congress and the Web-based business community; now it's spilling
> over into campaign practices. The ways in which candidates and professional
> campaigners can violate our privacy is chilling, and that alarms online
> political strategists.
>
> Take Jonah Seiger, a principal of Mindshare, an Internet campaign designer
> and promoter of political communications strategies for the new medium.
> (Full Disclosure: Some of those communications strategies involve paid
> advertising on NationalJournal.com.) Seiger sees campaign Internet privacy
> issues arising most prominently out of two practices: use of voter lists
> and use of e-mail addresses.
>
> First, voter lists.
>
> Companies with software that manage voter files could, for a profit, try to
> get their files matched with ad buyers.
>
> The voter then gets bombarded with unsolicited ads, simply because he or
> she votes and appears on voting rolls.
>
> Seiger points out that no matter how bad push polling was in, say, the
> Michigan primary this year, we "weren't talking about... information taken
> from voter files." But we soon may be.
>
> Mapping and then selling voting information is a real privacy concern -- so
> much so that AOL and Microsoft already say they won't do business with
> software companies that sell voter lists.
>
> Then there's the equally worrisome campaign practice: unauthorized use of
> e-mail addresses.
>
> Every good campaign Web site asks a user to sign up by providing an e-mail
> address. But what happens to your address once the campaign is over?
>
> Bill Bradley's campaign is a good example.
>
> The two-sentence privacy statement on Bradley's Web site said that the
> campaign will not trade or sell names. So what will Bradley do with the
> names now that his campaign has ended? Bradley campaign techie Lynn Reed
> told a recent E-Voter conference that "Bradley archived his database and
> it's in Senator Bradley's hands" to decide what he'll do with the names.
>
> He has a lot of names in his hands. Only 15 percent of visitors to
> Bradley's Web site did not give e-mail addresses, Reed said.
>
> The commercial world is grappling now with weighty privacy issues.
> DoubleClick Inc., for instance, has a two-part business model: (1) link
> buying profiles with Web browsing patterns, and (2) hire lawyers to battle
> the Federal Trade Commission.
>
> But isolating specific privacy violations is difficult. One basic problem
> for Web privacy is timing: Consumers might want privacy all the time, or
> they might want it at first but are willing to give up personal data later.
>
> It gets even murkier with campaign practices.
>
> First, campaigns are different from DoubleClick and similar companies that
> sell consumer information in one key way: Campaigns are "opt-in." If you
> support a candidate or want to learn more, then you voluntarily provide an
> e-mail address. With DoubleClick and other "opt-outs," however, you must
> tell the company you do not want to be targeted.
>
> Second, the use of personal voting information varies. Bradley might not
> necessarily sell his list for commercial profit, Seiger points out. He
> could let Al Gore or the Democratic Party use the names for fund raising or
> voter contact. Or, on the other side of the aisle, John McCain could send
> out an e- mail to his lists saying wonderful things about Rudy Giuliani (or
> Hillary for that matter, since we're using a McCain example).
>
> But if Bradley turns over his names to Gore, or McCain sells or leases his
> names to Giuliani, is that a privacy violation?
>
> There's already an example of campaign cyber-space privacy violations.
> Seiger remembers "an interesting question in the political context" from
> 1996: Bob Dole's campaign leased its e-mail list to other candidates "and
> got in a little bit of trouble" in the trade press over spamming. The Dole
> campaign, Seiger said, "I think a little bit too late gave people an
> opportunity to unsubscribe to the list."
>
> So how do you protect an innocent or curious voter?
>
> Seiger: "The first rule is that... if you're collecting personal
> information like an e-mail address, you should have a privacy policy. ... A
> campaign should have a privacy policy. It should state it in advance. And
> you should stick to it."
>
> >From there, Seiger thinks it's appropriate for a candidate to do whatever
> he wants to do with the lists, as long as he has stated that first. McCain
> could send an e-mail to supporters saying Giuliani's a great guy, and
> "that's different than actually leasing or giving their names to Rudy
> directly."
>
> "Standard and appropriate practices for business on the Internet is to give
> users information" on how they will be used, Seiger said. "Consumers who
> are concerned about their privacy don't do business with their site.
> Candidates have the same obligation."
>
> In the May issue of Yahoo! Internet Life, cyber-columnist Jon Katz writes:
> "Privacy is over. The Internet killed it." OK, fine. But then he writes,
> "Privacy, as most of us have come to understand the idea, is no longer a
> possibility, let alone a political issue."
>
> That's taking the argument a little too far. Privacy is very much a
> political issue, one that will be vigorously debated in the halls of
> Congress as well as on candidate Web sites.
>
> "People are more sensitive to privacy" on the Internet, particularly when
> information is used without consent, Seiger says. "Privacy considerations
> are very important to Internet users. Some of the business practices in the
> offline world may or may not be appropriate in the online world."
>
> Seiger has a simple message for candidate: "Don't mess around with this
> stuff. It's only going to cause problems. You may not win or lose as a
> result of" privacy violations, but "what you're really selling is your good
> faith or your image.... Ultimately, this is as much a political question as
> it is a good practice."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------