**********
In response to: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02023.html
**********
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:24:41 -0400
To: declan_at_well.com
From: James Moyer <james_at_moyer.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Privacy as general-purpose bludgeon: Ditch the draft!
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010514182450.02012ca0_at_mail.well.com>
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: declan_at_well.com
From: "J.D. Abolins" <jda-ir_at_njcc.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Privacy as general-purpose bludgeon: Ditch the draft!
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010514182450.02012ca0_at_mail.well.com>
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.harper_at_privacilla.org>
To: <declan_at_well.com>
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on May 15 2001
Intro
