********** In response to: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02023.html ********** Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:24:41 -0400 To: declanat_private From: James Moyer <jamesat_private> Subject: Re: FC: Privacy as general-purpose bludgeon: Ditch the draft! In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010514182450.02012ca0at_private> On a side note Declan, there may be much more about the connection between the Draft and privacy than meets the eye. I work on privacy issues here in Ohio...and my specialty is driver's license privacy. During my research on these issues, I found out that the Ohio General Assembly made the most changes to driver's license issuance in September 1967. Within days of each other, two bills were passed, one to collect Social Security Numbers for driver's licenses (which kicked in late 1967) and the other to mandate the color photograph on Ohio driver's licenses (effect 1/1/69. I think the legislation had the delay so that the Deputy Registrar offices could get the photographic equipment.) What's strange to me is that there was virtually no opposition to these bills. The SSN requirement bill passed both the house and senate unanimously, with no opposition during committee hearings. (May I remind you that SSN cards at that time still had "Not For Identification Purposes" printed on them?) The photograph requirement passed the senate unanimously, and passed the house with only four "no" votes. I'm fascinated that these two bills--which had a huge effect on privacy issues, prior to this time there simply was no such thing as an "ID" card--passed so easily. One theory is that it all has to do with the draft. The SSN collection and photographic license had more to do with decreasing draft dodging than anything else. I think you shall find that other states had similar actions right about the same time period (and those states that didn't either had lots of objectors or large segments of the population that didn't drive...Vermont and New Jersey still issue non-photographic driver's licenses for instance. (Well New Jersey less than before...but still.)) At least, that's my theory for right now. Perhaps others will have better theories. James Moyer President, Buckeye Privacy Coalition ********** Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:59:38 -0400 To: declanat_private From: "J.D. Abolins" <jda-irat_private> Subject: Re: FC: Privacy as general-purpose bludgeon: Ditch the draft! In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010514182450.02012ca0at_private> At 06:27 PM 5/14/01 -0400, you wrote: >[This is a fascinating trend: Groups using privacy as a general-purpose >bludgeon against government data collection. This is not a criticism of >Rep. Paul's bill -- he makes reasonable arguments -- but I doubt you'd see >privacy being used in "Dear Colleague" letters as the primary reason to >eliminate Selective Service, say, a decade ago. --Declan] It is indeed a fascinating trend. It has me introspecting on how I talk about privacy issues because the prevalence of the appeal to privacy without in-depth consideration of all the issues. Maybe one part is the changing view of privacy. In the 1960s and 1970s, privacy was seen very much as a niche left wing issue. The government data collection was generally seen as a part of securing the nation and providing services from the New Deal times onwards. In the start of the New Deal, there was almost no debate over privacy; the opposition was mainly economic. Perhaps, in part, the general experience of American males with military via the WW2 draft made the "GI" data collection more acceptable. The more recent years have seen a floating uneasiness concerning information in general and, in many places, a foggy distrust of the government. Many people want to go back to days when information about people was less fluid, less mobile (and less usable). But those days are not going to come back short of a major cataclysm and were those days really better? Or taking it further, is it good for the world if everybody were to practice intense privacy measures to become "persona non-data?" (The consequences can be quiet nasty.) What gets lost in the blanket use of privacy as argument against all government data collection is the ability to negotiate the information handling. People jump to "privacy" as a basis to oppose certain info handling practices without going any deeper. The government agencies tend to brush all privacy concerns because the arguments are generally very shallow. (I have run into the blowback from people who have ranted about the Mark of the Beast or Big Brother to government people and the government people see any discussion of privacy as an exercise in insanity. THe waters are so muddied.) It's made worse because the public asks the government to do things that entail privacy intrusions: crack down on crime, reform welfare, keep illegal immigrants out, protect the children, provide Social Security, prevent fraud, stop terrorists, etc. How do they expect to do all that and prevent the government form collecting and analyzing much information about the governed? Stated another way, how people really operate on a "Privacy for my family and me but not for thee" basis? Many I'd say. In the long range, I believe there will be a backlash and a likely swing towards coping via data preemption (people disclosing much about themselves to eliminate the internal tensions over keeping personal information private). I have a cartoon idea for "When Privacy Advocates' Kids Rebel" where the kids are walking around with wearable camera and T-shirts giving their name, address, SSN, list of personal habits, offers of DNA samples [what a pick up line!], etc. Sort of the privacy pendulum swing concept David Brin brought up in his book Earth. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the issues of working out privacy, security, freedoms of speech, openness, accountability, etc. will really get well discussed in discussions about public policy. J.D. Abolins ********** From: "Jim Harper - Privacilla.org" <jim.harperat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: Re: Privacy as general-purpose bludgeon: Ditch the draft! Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 21:29:36 -0400 Declan: If you dig into a lot of privacy proposals, you'll find that they are aimed at more than just privacy. Proposals for 'privacy' of genetic information seeks to prevent the insurance system from accounting for true risk information about potential insureds. This would tend to socialize the cost of genetic disease, a decision that should be made above board. Keeping medical information from employers in the name of privacy appears largely intended to keep them from making unfair decisions based on health status. This should be addressed through labor and employment law. (Also, changing the tax code could shift the incentive to purchase health care from employers back to consumers, handily separating employers from health information while bringing discipline to health insurance markets.) I was amused to see Richard M. Smith of the Privacy Foundation report that he had actually *corrected* information about himself in files held by a information aggregator called ChoicePoint. http://www.privacyfoundation.org/commentary/tipsheet.asp?id=41&action=0 This may help him to be treated 'fairly' by whoever acquires the information about him, but it is definitely a step backwards for his privacy / obscurity / anonymity. Indeed, the idea that people should have an opportunity to correct database information about themselves is NOT about privacy at all --- unless people use the opportunity to falsify information . . . Jim Harper Privacilla.org ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue May 15 2001 - 08:55:02 PDT