FC: Politech members criticize ACT privacy survey; ACT replies

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[ACT is a free-market leaning group, probably the only one exclusively 
focused on general tech policy here in DC. You may disagree with ACT's 
political views -- and I have on occasion -- but Jonathan is doing his best 
to represent his members' needs by advocating a hands-off approach. You can 
see some of his previous Politech contributions here: 
http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=zuck --Declan]

**********

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:19:34 -0400
To: declan () well com, politech () politechbot com
From: "Robert (Bob) J. Aiken" <raiken () cisco com>
Subject: Re: FC: ACT poll of 1,001 voters says no new privacy laws, please
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010627150823.021238c0 () mail well com>

This survey is meaningless.

Why are the questions not all posted? Even a high school kid of today would 
be askin questions about how the "poll" was taken - was it truly 
random?  Also - everyone knows that you can easily rig a poll result 
through the choice of the questions - for instance -

"-    71% of respondents agree that educating users and giving them tools 
to protect personal information is better than having
        one-size-fit-all government rules"

How many people will choose a "one size fits all government rules" against 
anything else-  when asked this way ? They would rule against the FAA and 
air traffic control with a similar comparison - BUT if you asked them would 
they want a consistent and enforceable set of privacy policies nationwide 
(or in case of Air traffic - a nationwide system that ensured safety) you 
will get a different set of results. These questions were obviously worded to
get a certain result.

And then this email subject line -  - it says no new privacy laws please, 
but they really were saying enforce the ones we have 1st  which are NOT
being enforced - I bet you that when they don't work they will want
something later and it will be to late.

Another view - think about if we decided to put safety belts in cars based
on a survey like this but in lieu of asking about new laws for privacy you
asked about new laws to mandate seat belts. The public would have chosen
everything else above seatbelts then and maybe even  now with the wording 
chosen in this "poll".

this poll is a joke.

bob aiken

CISCO SYSTEMS  Bob Aiken, Manager
  :     :     University Research, Office of the CTO
.:|:...:|:..  6519 Debold Rd., Sabillasville, Md. 21780,USA
1-301-271-2919(v),1-240-461-1744 (mobile), raiken () cisco com
http://www.cisco.com/go/research
Be the Packet!

**********

From: "Ben" <bmw () carolina rr com>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: ACT poll of 1,001 voters says no new privacy laws, please
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:38:58 -0400

People are supposed to trust these results, when they come from an
organization comprised of businesses that can profit from lack of privacy
regulations? An organization who's goal isn't to show any objectivity, or to
protect peoples' rights -- who's own about page states that "ACT members
share a preference for market-driven solutions over regulated ones", and
that their purpose is to shape their future by lobbying on capitol hill. The
specific survey isn't even shown as far as I can see, so how am I or anyone
else to know how the issues were represented, or misreprestented. You know,
why don't the guys at ACT just spit in consumers' collective face? It would
be a lot more straightforward.

**********

Subject: A few words from an unashamed champion of businesses and market 
based solutions
From: "Jonathan Zuck" <jzuck () actonline org>
To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>

Bob and Ben raise some interesting points and some legitimate concerns
so I'm happy for the opportunity to address them.

First on the poll itself, I agree that there are lots of bad polls. We
made an effort at least to be different here. We all saw the reference
to Solveig Singleton and Jim Harpers excellent critique of polling on
the privacy issue and are sensitive to those concerns  (see
http://www.cei.org/PRReader.asp?ID=1525) . So, for your reading
pleasure, here are some links to the actual poll  questionnaire, answers
to our unprompted questions, and some interesting stuff like crosstabs.

Survey topline results: http://www.actonline.org/pubs/polls/toplines.pdf
Q11 verbatim responses: http://www.actonline.org/pubs/polls/q11.pdf

Q18 verbatim responses:  http://www.actonline.org/pubs/polls/q18.pdf

CrossTabs:  http://www.actonline.org/pubs/polls/crosstabs.pdf

I'm anxious to receive feedback on better wording for a future poll that
helps to eliminate bias from either direction.

Second, to Ben's observations about the source, I'm forced to agree that
we are an organization that represents IT businesses. Where we don't
agree is that the interests of businesses and consumers are necessarily
mutually exclusive or that the government has the answers. With the
almost clandestine passage of the Children's Online Privacy Protection
ACT (COPPA) and subsequent interpretation by the FTC, a situation was
created where compliance costs forced companies with legitimate
children's content out of business (yes, two ACT members) while
providing questionable protection of children's privacy. In fact, in
most cases, compliance required collecting MORE information from users
than before, making it easier to sign up for an adult site than a
children's site.

Accordingly we feel it is legitimate to assess the  cost we pay for
regulation in the context of the protection we ultimately receive. The
completely SPECIOUS distinction being drawn by many between the online
and offline collection of data is just such an example. It will take one
of our little online retailers a hundred years to collect as much
information on consumers  as Sears  has already  collected . Who exactly
are we trying to protect? Consumers or big offline companies, worried
about the competition brought by the Internet?

As Ben reported, ACT member support market based solutions over
regulatory ones. If consumers put our member companies out of business
because they don't like the way they do business, you won't hear a peep
from us. If the government puts our members and others out of business
because of the self interested advocacy of a few lobbyists, thereby
removing the choice from consumers, we will indeed scream and yell. That
IS what we have been charged to do.

**********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------