Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!grover.llnl.gov!howell From: howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Lotus Marketplace Message-ID: <86447@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> Date: 20 Nov 90 19:01:48 GMT References: <5010@rsiatl.UUCP> Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV Reply-To: howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Lines: 103 Nntp-Posting-Host: grover.llnl.gov John made a decent try, but his scheme still sounds way too harsh to me. What it boils down to is that he would like to make sending a letter to a stranger a major crime. I just can't swallow that. In article <5010@rsiatl.UUCP>, jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: |> Not at all. Here's how to do it without a police state. The |> concept is to put the onus of proving that it is NOT violating |> our rights onto the entity that proposes to push the privacy envelope. Put the burden of proof on the defendant. Any use of a database is forbidden unless explicitly permitted. A blanket prohibition like this could be twisted in all sorts of unforseen ways by anyone with a grudge. (Just look at how RICO has evolved over time.) Sounds like you're giving anyone an excuse to sue on the flimsiest of pretexts, with little chance of a countersuit. |> * Make it illegal to use personal or corporate information for any |> activity that has the potentional to violate the target's |> privacy rights without the express written consent of the target. |> Spell such activities out in excrutiating detail if you wish - gives the |> Congressional Record something to print, after all. |> |> * Allow one exception and that is the effort necessary to seek permission |> from the target. Isn't this inconsistent? First you say we explicitly spell out the violations, then you say that everything but asking permission is a violation. In any case, the rest of your note shows that you consider practically anything a violation, even direct mail. |> * Set up a fund, initially seeded from tax funds but sustained from |> fines, that pays a flat fee for an attorney to prosecute a violation. |> Stipulate in the law that all that is necessary to prove violations |> is evidence that it occured and from where. No looking at intent |> or other time consuming evidence. Provide fixed fines that cannot |> be modified by the court for each violation. $50,000 seems about |> right. In the event that the government is the violator, hold |> the individual within the government liable. Designate fixed |> portions of the fine to go to the fund and to the victim. Since you're not looking at intent and not giving the court the option of being lenient, even the most unintentional of violators can be nuked. A $50000 fine for sending a letter is outrageous, particularly since many people would not even consider beforehand that this could be a crime. Five people object, for whatever reason, and suddenly you've given someone a debt that makes a second mortgage look like a bar tab. This law could wipe out grass-roots organization efforts with one blow. |> Will it provide extreme incentive to toe the line? Hell yes. This sounds just like the War on Drugs propaganda we hear all the time. |> Not only are the penalties consistent with punishment for lesser crimes |> such as certain RICO violations, it harshly regulated an industry |> wtih an overwhelming potential to harm large numbers of citizens. |> We've accepted such harsh regulations for much less harmful activities |> such as liquor stores, shooting ranges, and racetracks so why not a |> truely harmful activity? What's the truely harmful activity? I agree that some uses of personal data are harmful, but most are at worst an annoyance. Credit databases are already regulated, as are employers' files on their employees. I have nothing against regulations targeted at specific abuses, but a blanket prohibition would be crazy. |> >If a community activist makes a list of |> >people living in one corner of town and sends them mail opposing a |> >proposed zoning change, should he be prosecuted for Illegal Possession |> >of a Database? |> |> Damn right. Implicit in this question is the assumption that because |> someone calls himself an activist, he deserves special privilege under |> the law. I reject that assumption. I'd probably call that same |> person a troublemaker, an obstructionist or a loudmouth. Of course |> under my program, the activist COULD set up shop in a sympathetic |> mall and solicit names. Anyone who signed under those conditions |> would give explict permission for that one use. What makes you think I'm advocating some kind of special privilege for activists? I'm just talking about a private citizen trying to influence public affairs. From what I remember of my civics classes, this is supposed to be a good thing. Sounds like you'd rather have people cowering in their basements for fear of offending their betters. |> I'm not advocating calling out computers or any other form of |> data manipulation in the law. But the concept, now that you mention it, |> is intriguing. Give the private citizen a method of shutting up the |> loudmouth who pushes the outer limit of acceptable behavior. You might |> have something there. Before you knee-jerk too violently, remember |> that your activist is my troublemaker and vice versa. Everyone who tries to be heard is someone's troublemaker. He may be your troublemaker, Exxon's troublemaker, or the government's troublemaker, but there's always someone who would like to see him shut up. Your law would be just the tool to do it, too. -- Louis Howell "A few sums!" retorted Martens, with a trace of his old spirit. "A major navigational change, like the one needed to break us away from the comet and put us on an orbit to Earth, involves about a hundred thousand separate calculations. Even the computer needs several minutes for the job."