Politech mailing list archives
FC: New York attorney general will review ACLU's bulk email
From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:04:41 -0500
Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/p-04498.html --- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2355-2003Feb25.html By Robert O'Harrow Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, February 26, 2003; Page E02 [...] The gaffe, on Monday afternoon, came just weeks after the group was chided by New York State Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer for exposing the names, phone numbers and other details of about 91 people who bought merchandise in 2001 from an ACLU site online. The group apologized, paid a $10,000 fine and agreed to implement changes to prevent similar mishaps.... Spitzer's office said it will review the new case. "This incident is disturbing in light of the recent enforcement action," spokesman Paul Larrabee said yesterday. [...] --- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:34:37 -0800 (PST) From: Shane Ham <alvernon90 () yahoo com> Subject: ACLU spam To: declan () well com You should also mention that the ACLU privacy policy notes their (indirect) affiliation with CAUCE. And as a recipient/victim, I can tell you that the list included some prominent anti-spam crusaders were also recipients. Why don't they come out and admit their guilt, offer restitution to the victims (most of whom would probably decline) and promise to upgrade their procedures? Is it because weasel words are the first refuge of a lawyer-heavy organization? --Shane Ham Progressive Policy Institute sham () dlcppi org --- From: "Meredith Dixon" <dixonm () pobox com> To: ewhitfield () aclu org Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:50:29 -0500Subject: Re: FC: ACLU replies to Politech, says exposed email was not to members
CC: declan () well org>We created the database from scratch, and we got the emails by calling around
>to these organizations and asking for them, as anyone could do. In other words, the ACLU was spamming. Wonderful. An excuse that is worse than the crime. >We hope that those who share our concerns about the government's assault on >our liberties will continue to subscribe to Safe and Free News and will >continue their own advocacy on these important issues. I share your concerns about the government's assault on our liberties. I alsohave significant concerns, which you apparently do not share, about the sending
of unsolicited e-mail. If you had sent me a copy of Safe and Free News, I would have trashed it unread on principle, and most probably flamed you into the bargain. I neither associate with spammers, nor tolerate those who spam. -- Meredith Dixon <dixonm () pobox com> Check out *Raven Days*: http://www.ravendays.org For victims and survivors of bullying. And for those who want to help. --- Subject: Re: FC: Politech members reply: ACLU's bulk mail was spam To: declan () well com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.10 March 22, 2002Message-ID: <OF40D61E37.4D2F654E-ON85256CD8.004DBE62-85256CD8.004E2048 () corp checkfree com>
From: JTomaszewski () checkfree com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:14:06 -0500 Declan, Along with the spam issue, and the Eli Lily-type mistake of the ACLU, I wonder if anyone remembers that the ACLU recently settled a privacy complaint with New York State for actions taken last year. One of the elements of the settlement is:"The settlement agreement requires the New York City-based ACLU to strengthen its internal standards relating to privacy protection, training, and monitoring. The organization will undergo annual, independent compliance reviews over the next five years and make the findings of those reviews available to the Attorney General's office." I wonder what the effect of this latest e-mail gaffe is going to be on the
settlement? John P. Tomaszewski, Esq. Chief Privacy Officer JTomaszewski () checkfree com Phone: 678-375-1265 Cell: 678-360-0916 Pager: 888-478-4408 Fax: 678-375-1430 The #1 Way to Pay Online http://www.checkfree.com/paybillsonline --- From: "Jim Harper - Privacilla.org" <jim.harper () privacilla org> To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan () well com> Cc: <EWHITFIELD () aclu org> Subject: RE: ACLU replies to Politech, says exposed email was not to members Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:44:05 -0500 Declan: I did assume that I was sent the e-mail because I have subscribed to other ACLU lists. My assumption was inaccurate. However the list was generated, though, it easily could, and did, create the impression that recipients were ACLU-friendly. I am . . . much of the time. This converts it from a privacy tempest-in-a-teapot to a spam tempest-in-a-teapot. To be clear, no one asked me to be on such a list. I like to be informed, so I don't mind ACLU folks assuming I would want the e-mail. (That kind of assumption is dangerous given the terrain in the spam debate, no? I may be unable to sleep grappling with the idea that an organization could compile a list of people that overlaps with subscribers to its lists, then spam the 'offline'/scraped/address-book list and not subject it to the organization's privacy policy.) I'm satisfied with the apology/explanation. Putting all the recipients in the "To:" line was an ordinary mistake, and not that big a deal, but for the ACLU's imperiousness when Eli Lilly did the same thing (from the perspective of recipients). I'm happy to hear about the ACLU's "Safe and Free" effort and encourage people to support it (in general). Government encroachments are the most significant threat to both civil liberties and privacy. This is the ACLU's strength, not commercial privacy issues such as those raised in Eli Lilly. Jim Harper Editor Privacilla.org --- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:48:55 -0800 From: Brad Templeton <brad () templetons com> To: "Jim Harper - Privacilla.org" <jim.harper () privacilla org> Cc: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan () well com>, EWHITFIELD () aclu org Subject: Re: ACLU replies to Politech, says exposed email was not to members Message-ID: <20030225014855.GR2858 () main templetons com> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 08:44:05PM -0500, Jim Harper - Privacilla.org wrote: > Declan: > > e-mail. (That kind of assumption is dangerous given the terrain in the spam > debate, no? I may be unable to sleep grappling with the idea that an > organization could compile a list of people that overlaps with subscribers > to its lists, then spam the 'offline'/scraped/address-book list and not > subject it to the organization's privacy policy.) > Alas, that's the trouble. There's no way to let the other party decide if you "might be interested" that doesn't open a floodgate when you force yourself to apply it consistently. Aren't all the people who post to the newsgroup comp.sys.ibm.pc interested in new PC related products? Sure seems like they might be. I've worked long and hard on my definition of spam, tried to make it as narrow as I could (in fact most of the anti-spam community seems to think it's too narrow) but it's hard to see how you can include implied transitive permission and make it work. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- FC: New York attorney general will review ACLU's bulk email Declan McCullagh (Feb 26)