Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!emory!rsiatl!jgd From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Lotus Marketplace Message-ID: <5022@rsiatl.UUCP> Date: 21 Nov 90 10:59:41 GMT References: <5010@rsiatl.UUCP> <86447@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> Organization: Rapid Deployment Systems, Inc. (making go fast things and things go fast) Lines: 153 howell@grover.llnl.gov (Louis Howell) writes: >John made a decent try, but his scheme still sounds way too harsh >to me. I intend it to be very harsh. In a way, the manner in which our privacy is invaded and we are harmed by centralized databases is more severe than if the purveyors of harm would just kill us. It would not matter then :-) The damage personal information databases do can follow you for a lifetime. What it boils down to is that he would like to make sending >a letter to a stranger a major crime. As I noted in my proposal, defined exceptions would be permitted under the law. Obviously writing a letter to a stranger would be permitted. Writing many letters to many people trying to collec personal information to sell would not. >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. Putting the burden of proof on the offender is not uncommon. Consider the guy driving down the road with a tank truck leaking some unknown liquid. You damn sure bet that the burden of proof is on him to prove that the liquid is harmless if he is stopped. Same with the information collectors. If they choose to enter into an area that we have said through our government representatives is almost intolerable, then they should expect to walk the straight and narrow or else be slaped down. >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. Yes, I do consider direct mail an invasion unless I ask for it. Invariably with direct mail, I've been selected on the basis of a personal profile assembled by some data collector. They probably know more about me than I do myself. THAT is what I object to. If the law only permitted the mailing of a simple permission card, perhaps not even with a name but only an address with no selection criteria applied, then there is no incentive to attempt to collect my personal information. You would probably appreciate where I'm comming from if you saw first hand how the system works. I've consulted to the credit industry and have also worked with information collectors. It is enough to make one sick. >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. Then the organizations should be careful NOT to violate the law. As long as the law is kept simple, violations would not be difficult to avoid. Of course, the easist way to avoid a violation is to simply stay away from that practice. Such fines are not unheardof in other important areas such as nuclear safety. It is common for nuclear operators to be fined multi-hundred thousand dollars for minor violations such as leaving an inside door unlocked. You can damn sure bet that not many operators leave doors unlocked! >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. No they are not. It only appears that way. I can get more information on you than you know about yourself with little more than a name, and address and preferably a SSN. While I might technically violate the law, the authorities turn their heads and let it go. My proposal would enable any harmed person to use the resources of the government to right the wrong. Or consider the fact that the insurance industry keeps a cooperative pool of medical information on every one of us. You only learn about it when some (most likely inaccurate) information is used to deny you coverage. You have little recourse. I fought for over a year trying to get some bogus information purged from my record. That will haunt me for years, perhaps forever. Or consider that the IRS buys pre-qualified mailing lists and attempts to impute a lifestyle and therefore an income to you and then compare to what you report. If you are like me and are a wheeler-dealer who stretches a dollar as far as it will go and therefore appears to have more money than you have, you'll sooner or later end up on the receiving end of an audit thanks to those databases. Or consider even the most basic right to own a phone and have it for your convenience. I work mostly at night and sleep in the morning. Except that I cannot do that because despite my best efforts, some slime has managed to get my name and telemarkets to me almost every morning. Yes, I can use an answering machine but that denys me the right to know if, for example, my wife is in an emergency and needs help. I should NOT have to take special and inconvenient measures to peacefully use something that I've bought and paid for! We have to ask the question, If 90% of the players in a certain activity are harming us, do we try to pick out the bad ones on a case by case basis or do we just restrict the activity such that the 90%'ers can't stand the risk of getting caught? I vote for banning. There is no constitutional right to collect personal data on others without their permission. It is a priviledge, a priviledge that has been sorely abused. I'm damn tired of being a number! >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. Having been involved in organizing more than one political effort, all I can say is bullsh*t! I was able to obtain massive names on peittions without invading anyone's privacy. And my methods would be altered only slightly under this proposed law. people who want to be on a list can be. What it would stop is stunts like the Sierra Club selling you a calendar by mail and then taking your name and calling you a member. Or HCI buying a mailing list and calling everyone on the list "contributors" in an effort to fraudulently appear larger than they are. If you put a petition out on a table at a public gathering, that's fine. If you put a petition in my mail box unaddressed, that's fine too. I can send it back or I can anonymously chunk it. But if you collect my name from someone, send me a solicitation and then claim to have my support on the basis of soliciting me, you're in big trouble. Hell, I'd even slam the NRA for that stunt :-) >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. No, it would just make you play by the same rules as everybody else or else be financially destroyed. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of Performance Products Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | to the Trade " (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"