Yes, my mistake actually. Our press guy told me about it briefly over the
phone while I was out of town and painted a rather favorable picture of it
which warranted my more "positive" comments. You're right, Declan, this is
not a good idea and we'll be watching it cautiously, as I'm sure you will
be. Sorry about that and I hope it clears things up a bit.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Declan McCullagh [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 12:54 AM
> To: Matthew Gaylor; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FCF's Dean Lauds Congressional Privacy Caucus
>
> If the Congressional Privacy Caucus actually did anything, it could be a
> very dangerous group. It's primarily a collection of folks not known for
> their commitment to freedom and liberty.
>
> It is not focused on government invasions of privacy, and is instead
> intended to lobby for severe restrictions on businesses' use of
> information. The goals seem worthwhile, but the means are not. Regulations
>
> they demand would require businesses to open their books -- "an individual
>
> must have access to personably identifiable information held by a private
> company" -- to individuals in a way that invites unintended consequences.
>
> Some of the principles that ostensibly apply to government agencies --
> "individuals must be informed in a clear and conspicuous manner when...
> governmental agencies plan to collect... personally identifiable
> information" -- clearly won't. The NSA is not likely to request permission
>
> when conducing Echelonesque surveillance, and the FBI is not known for
> asking nicely before wiretapping you.
>
> The Congressional members of this new caucus generally are not known for
> their opposition to recent government invasions of privacy, and bills they
>
> have championed would rob us of our most cherished freedoms. I'm not sure
> why this caucus will be any different.
>
> Background:
> http://www.senate.gov/~shelby/press/prsrs314.htm
> http://www.senate.gov/~shelby/press/prsrs315.htm
> http://daschle.senate.gov/releases/00/02/2000209705.html
> http://torricelli.senate.gov/Live_NEWS.htm
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:s.00809:
> Markey background:
> http://www.house.gov/markey/cp_telecommunications.htm
> http://www.house.gov/markey/cp_health.htm
> http://www.house.gov/markey/cp_finance.htm
>
> >From: Kent Lassman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: CPC.
> >Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:58:27 -0500
> >
> >What's up with the Congressional Privacy Caucus? It seems that when
> >Democrats like Tom Daschle, Paul Sarbanes, and Barbara Boxer team up on
> an
> >issue the very essence of individual liberty is not on the tips of their
> >tounges. While I'm glad to see the Hill take an interest in the issue
> and
> >its role in a healthy and functioning market economy, I'm ready to wager
> >that the first of their proposals will be pro-regulatory. Note to self,
> Bob
> >Torricelli says that his new legislation is not pro-regulatory...it only
> >would clog up the civil justice system with even more crank lawsuits.
>
> From National Journal's Tech Daily Thursday:
> >"When everyone from Joe Barton to Ed Markey calls
> >for greater privacy, it is not a question of if, but a question of how
> and
> >when," Barton said, comparing his conservative record with
> >Markey's more liberal one.
> >Barton said one of the reasons he joined the group
> >was that it had the support of House Republican leaders. "That way it is
> >hard to
> >say that this is a Democratic issue," he said.
> >Meanwhile, the dozen Senate Democrats who met during
> >the task force's first meeting have taken a different approach. The group
> >is hoping to build consensus among Democrats on privacy
> >and promote Democratic initiatives, according to a source who attended
> >the meeting.
> >Democratic senators who attended the closed-door
> >meeting included Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Paul
> >Sarbanes of Maryland, Barbara Boxer of California,
> >Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Robert
> >Torricelli of New Jersey, and Richard Durbin of Illinois.
>
> -Declan
>
>
> At 00:13 2/11/2000 -0500, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
> >FCF's Dean Lauds Congressional Privacy Caucus
> >
> >Privacy: 'single most important issue facing American citizens'
> >
> >WASHINGTON, DC - Today the Free Congress Foundation lauded the formation
> of
> >the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Privacy Caucus.
> >
> >"We laud the tenacity of Sens. Shelby and Bryan and Reps. Markey and
> Barton
> >for being among the first in Congress to take the initiative on the
> single
> >most important issue facing American citizens going into the next
> century,"
> >said Free Congress Foundation's Vice President for Technology Policy Lisa
> S.
> >Dean. "It is critical that we establish laws and regulations regarding
> >individual privacy while the technology designed to protect it is still
> in
> >its infancy."
> >
> >"We must rely on Congress - and not the courts or federal agencies - to
> >decide what our rights are in the information age. And I am delighted to
> >see these members take this initiative by lending their voices to those
> of
> >Rep. Bob Barr, who has long been warning the public about the erosion of
> >their privacy through regulation and legislation," said Dean.
> >
> >"This is a great today for all Americans," said Free Congress Foundation
> >spokesman Robert McFarland. "The formation of this caucus will bring
> >privacy concerns to the forefront and serve to move the debate in the
> >direction of protecting Americans' private information. Now more than
> ever
> >we need legislation protecting our privacy from Big Brother and his
> Little
> >Brother in corporate America."
> >
> >On August 16, 1999 The Washington Times reported the following on the
> state
> >of medical privacy:
> >
> >"Executives at more than a third of the Fortune 500 companies scan their
> >employees' medical files before making hiring, firing and promotion
> >decisions. An untold number of smaller businesses with self-insured
> medical
> >plans do that as well. Life insurers increasingly obtain data on
> clients'
> >genetic backgrounds and use the information to drop coverage or reject
> >applicants who might contract an illness others in their family have had.
> >Health maintenance organizations gather data that allow them to recruit
> only
> >the healthiest clients -- a tactic known as "cherry-picking." Internet
> >information brokers sell for about $400 an individual's complete medical
> >file to any interested person with a computer and cash, including
> lawyers,
> >detectives, political and business foes or vindictive neighbors.
> >Drug-company marketers buy patient lists from pharmacies for about 30
> cents
> >apiece, then make direct-mail drug pitches to heart patients, diabetics,
> >arthritis suffers and others."
> >
> >###
> >
> >The Free Congress Foundation is a 21-year-old Washington based think
> tank,
> >which teaches people how to be effective in the political process,
> advocates
> >judicial reform, promotes cultural conservatism, and works against the
> >government encroachment of individual liberties.
> >
> >Visit Our Website at http://www.FreeCongress.org
> >
> >This publication is a service of the Free Congress Research and Education
> >Foundation, Inc. (FCF) and does not necessarily reflect the views of the
> >Free Congress Foundation nor is it an attempt to aid or hinder the
> passage
> >of any bill.
> >
> >Free Congress Foundation, 717 Second Street NE, Washington, DC 20002
> >202.546.3000 x450 Fax: 202.544.2819 Project Manager: Angela Wheeler
> >
> >Copyright * 2000 Free Congress Foundation - All Rights Reserved.
