Re: FC: Yet Another Survey: Americans have become privacy pragmatists

[Duncan Frissell]

Business President Alan Westin says that more Americans now fall into the 
category of "privacy pragmatist" rather than "privacy fundamentalist." Ron 
Plesser of Piper Marbury Rudnick  Wolf says that the Internet industry 
must determine how to properly use Social Security numbers. "Regulating 
the purchase and sale of Social Security numbers over the Internet won't 
come overnight," Plesser says.

Damn few "privacy fundamentalists" out there.  Most "privacy advocates" 
support massive government privacy invasions including the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986, as amended, the Census Bureau, and the various state DMVs.

Unless a "privacy advocate" is prepared to call for the elimination of the 
above privacy invading institutions or at least their conversion to 
anonymous credential technology, then I submit that they are *not* privacy 
advocates at all.

As for the eternal SS# question, Amex and Discover will currently give you 
"one time use" cc numbers to use over the nets.  A consumer-friendly 
government could do the same.  Particularly since they already have the 
institutional setup in place.  Anyone who forms an entity of any kind that 
has US tax implications (sole proprietorship, partnership, trust, estate, 
corporation, etc.) can/must apply for a taxpayer ID number (TIN).  The Feds 
could issue them to the rest of us for one-time use.

DCF

I knew America was in trouble when I found that the application to join the 
Sons of the American Revolution asks for your Social Security Number.

Yet Another Survey: Americans have become privacy pragmatists

[Declan McCullagh]

[Originally sent to politech at politechbot.com. --DBM]

---

[I believe Americans care a lot about privacy invasions _when they don't 
have a choice_ -- such as cops sniffing your house for illegal drugs with 
airborne drones or Thermovision 210s. But when Americans _get to choose_ 
whether to give up their privacy in exchange for something of value, they 
often do. Just look at Safeway discount cards (and, in DC, Fresh Fields 
discount cards). Obviously not all choices -- health insurance comes to 
mind -- are as clear. But I don't think Americans will pay a lot extra to 
protect their privacy. How many Internet consumer-privacy firms have 
succeeded? --Declan]

***

From: Sonia Arrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: another privacy survey
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:41:15 -0800

"Ranks of Privacy 'Pragmatists' Are Growing"

Most Americans support the dissemination of data contained in public 
records, but they also say that there must be a legitimate legal or social 
reason for the extraction of this data, according to a recent survey 
conducted by Privacy and American Business and ORC International. As long 
as the information is not abused, most Americans support the use of 
personal data on the Internet for commercial purposes. This support 
includes the use of home or work addresses by law enforcement, potential 
employers, or consumer credit companies. Those surveyed believe it is less 
acceptable to allow private investigators or ordinary citizens to access 
the information. The 1,000 people surveyed in the report also say that they 
object to the government posting personally identifiable public information 
on the Internet unless there are safeguards. These safeguards include the 
government requiring the consent of the individual before personal 
information is displayed on public record, and requesting a specific 
purpose for such information to be displayed on the Internet. Privacy and 
American Business President Alan Westin says that more Americans now fall 
into the category of "privacy pragmatist" rather than "privacy 
fundamentalist." Ron Plesser of Piper Marbury Rudnick  Wolf says that the 
Internet industry must determine how to properly use Social Security 
numbers. "Regulating the purchase and sale of Social Security numbers over 
the Internet won't come overnight," Plesser says.

http://www.acm.org/technews/articles/2000-2/1211m.html#item6