Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1998/privacy.updates.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
privacy updates
``` [Here are some updates on DoubleClick, web filtering in libraries, and financial, medical, online transaction, and children's privacy from the Privacy Forum. For details on Privacy Forum see http://www.vortex.com]
---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu
---
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 98 19:22 PDT From: privacy@vortex.com (PRIVACY Forum)
PRIVACY Forum Digest Saturday, 27 June 1998 Volume 07 : Issue 11
---
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 98 10:24 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator) Subject: Update on DoubleClick, Inc.
Greetings. Regular readers of this digest will recall my recent discussion of banner ad practices ("Sex, Crime, and Banner Ads" in Vol 07 #10), and my attempts to reach DoubleClick, Inc. to discuss their particular practices regarding sexually-oriented advertising, ads for online gambling, and related privacy concerns. At that time, the spokeswoman I reached told me they didn't wish to discuss these issues with me.
Subsequently to the publication of my article here in the digest, there was a significant change in their attitude. Within 48 hours I received e-mail from DoubleClick's CEO, and shortly thereafter I received separate calls from the original spokeswoman and Kevin Ryan, DoubleClick's president. All were very cordial and expressed a willingness to chat about the issues. I much appreciated this sudden turn of events.
I had a long, friendly, and detailed conversation with Mr. Ryan. Unfortunately, my sense at the end of the conversation was that my original analysis was correct, and that we're dealing with wildly divergent world views when it comes to responsibility vs. what I would personally term "exploitation."
My interpretation of DoubleClick's view (as expressed to me by Mr. Ryan) is that they are willing to carry ads for essentially anything that "is legal." They say that they attempt to avoid their keyword sales from creating inappropriate responses, and claimed that the case I pointed out where religious searches could yield adult-oriented ads was an aberration that would be fixed (as of today, as I write this some weeks later, it apparently has not been "repaired" and continues as before...)
They also say that each of their web site clients must specifically approve the classes of ads that they will carry, so that, for example, adult ads wouldn't appear unless the client said they were willing to accept them. Mr. Ryan insisted that Digital Equipment Corporation's AltaVista site must have approved the provision of adult ads in response to keyword searches, otherwise they wouldn't be appearing.
On the overall subject of their ad content (adult, online gambling, etc.), they apparently do not consider themselves to be like ordinary ad agencies (which I pointed out often exercise considerable control over the types of products and services with which they will deal). Mr. Ryan said that since they have exclusive contracts with their client sites, they feel that they "must" make available all sorts of ads, subject only to their not being considered "illegal" according to their research, and with the approval of the ad categories by the client. He feels that they don't provide any "content"--even though all the ads are sitting on their servers for provision to web sites.
I pointed out that, if it were desired, DoubleClick could easily have a provision in their contracts to let their clients get ads from elsewhere if DoubleClick didn't want to carry particular types of ads, but by creating "exclusive" contracts DoubleClick seems to have an excuse for an almost total lack of discretion in their ad inventory.
I posed a hypothetical to Mr. Ryan that I think goes a long way towards illustrating the attitudes at work in this situation. I asked if they would be willing to carry ads from someone selling books or other information on constructing bombs. He said yes, they would, as long as the information was considered legal. He added that he didn't believe it likely that any of DoubleClick's client web sites would be interested in carrying such ads, however.
But what's striking to me is the seeming lack of any apparent attempt to introduce even a minimal social conscience to their ad inventory. A good business policy in the short run? How about in the long run? No matter what your own feelings may be about such issues, it appears that DoubleClick is operating completely legally and within their rights. But does such an attitude play directly into the hands of those who would impose outside censorship upon the Internet? I'm afraid that's indeed the case.
It would appear that it's up to the users of web sites to express their displeasure (or approval, if that's their feeling) about the ads they see, directly to the operators of those sites. Some users might wish to make it clear that they will choose not to patronize sites which don't attempt to show at least a degree of ethics in their ad inventories. If users choose to silently accept whatever flashes forth on their screens, and don't bother to express their views to the folks making the ad purchase decisions for those sites, it's unlikely that we'll see any improvement, anytime soon.
--Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein Moderator, PRIVACY Forum http://www.vortex.com
---
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phil Agre
In a front-page article in the 6/11/98 Washington Post "Hot High-Tech Trade: Your Financial Facts; Sales of Confidential Data Raise Concerns"), Robert O'Harrow Jr. describes businesses that advertise their ability to obtain personal financial information such as account balances and stock portfolios by making false or misleading "pretext calls" to the banks and brokerage companies that control the information. This is evidently legal in some states, though law enforcement officials are quoted claiming that it is illegal in other states. Jim Leach (R-Iowa), chairman of the House Banking Committee, plans to hold hearings.
This article is just one more illustration of a big fact: the traffic in personal information in the United States has grown to monstrous proportion. Because the victims of this practice are unlikely to learn that they have been violated, and the firms whose "security" has been breached may never realize that they have been deceived, market competition is not likely to repair the problem. This kind of invasion -- the simple unauthorized disclosure of personal financial information, with or without any proof of harm -- should be both illegal and a cause of action for a lawsuit.
Phil Agre
---
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:19:20 PST
From: "JERRY KANG"
An article entitled "Information Privacy in Cyberspace Transactions" will appear shortly in 50 Stan. L.R. 1193 (1998). An Acrobat PDF copy is available at my web site (URL in my signature block). Any reactions are welcome. An abstract follows:
---------------------------------------
Cyberspace is the rapidly growing network of computing and communication technologies that have profoundly altered our lives. We already carry out myriad social, economic, and political transactions through cyberspace, and, as the technology improves, so will their quality and quantity. But the very technology that enables these transactions also makes detailed, cumulative, invisible observation of our selves possible. The potential for wide-ranging surveillance of all our cyber-activities presents a serious threat to information privacy.
To help readers grasp the nature of this threat, Professor Jerry Kang starts with a general primer on cyberspace privacy. He provides a clarifying structure of philosophical and technological terms, descriptions, and concepts that will help analyze any problem at the nexus of privacy and computing-communication technologies.
In the second half of the article, he focuses sharply on the specific problem of personal data generated in cyberspace transactions. The private sector seeks to exploit this data commercially, primarily for database marketing, but many individuals resist. The dominant approach to solving this problem is to view personal information as a commodity that interested parties should contract for in the course of negotiating a cyberspace transaction. But this approach has so far failed to address a critical question: Which default rules should govern the flow of personal information when parties do not explicitly contract about privacy? On economic efficiency and human dignity grounds, Professor Kang argues in favor of a default rule that allows only "functionally necessary" processing of personal information unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. The article concludes with a proposed statute, entitled the Cyberspace Privacy Act, which translates academic theory into legislative practice
---
Privacy Alert: Do not forward without permission.
---
Jerry Kang, Acting Professor UCLA School of Law, Box 951476 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1476 (overnight mail street address: 405 Hilgard Ave.) Voice: 310.206.7298 Fax: 7010 mailto:kang@law.ucla.edu http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/kang
---
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 12:51:41 -0700
From: Beth Givens
New Guide Alerts Parents to Internet Privacy Perils for Children
Contact: Beth Givens, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse E-mail: prc@privacyrights.org Phone: (619) 298-3396 Web: www.privacyrights.org (Fact Sheet 21)
It's 10 p.m. Do you know where your children are? In many households, they're surfing the Web. A new consumer guide by the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, "Children in Cyberspace: A Privacy Resource Guide," (12 pages) offers numerous tips for parents, their children, and policymakers on safeguarding children's privacy while online. The guide lists many Web sites to visit, reports to read, and the names of nonprofit organizations and government agencies that are working on children's privacy issues. It is available on the PRC's web site, www.privacyrights.org. Look for Fact Sheet 21.
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse 1717 Kettner Ave. Suite 105 San Diego, CA 92101 Voice: 619-298-3396 Fax: 619-298-5681 bgivens@privacyrights.org http://www.privacyrights.org
---
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 18:26:43 -0400
From: Dennis Melamed
HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY ALERT May 1998 Digest
EUROPEAN PRIVACY DIRECTIVE TAKES DEBATE OUT OF THE REALM OF THE PRIVATE
The House International Relations Committee sees the European Union's Privacy Directive as a nontariff barrier to trade, but acknowledges that the U.S. must address the issue. Drug companies and others who handle medical records fear that if the E.U. decides the U.S. does not provide adequate privacy in this sector, it will prohibit the swapping of data.
The danger may not be imminent regardless of the Oct. 1998 deadline, the Commerce Department told Congress. Many E.U. members have not enacted the required legislation, thus making enforcement against third countries more difficult.
NEW HOUSE BILL REVERSES PRESUMPTION ON PATIENT CONSENT
The House of Representatives showed signs of life in the medical records confidentiality debate. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) introduced a provocative proposal which attempts to identify prohibited uses of protected health information and then carve out exceptions to those prohibitions to health care services can be provided and paid for without the need for individual authorizations. The House Government Reform & Oversight Committee held a hearing in May to examine the proposal, which was received favorably by business groups. However, some groups noted that unless better clarity in what and what was not allowed, health care providers would still seek patient authorizations out of fear of the strong sanctions in the bill.
HEALTH CARE LAGS IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
Electronic commerce will grow at an explosive rate within two years, according to a Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group survey of chief information officers. Health care will not be leading the charge, however. Customer electronic transactions in the health care sector today stand at 6.1% and are predicted to rise to 33.3% in two years. But the survey showed that this lags well behind other industries, such as financial services. Statistical Svengalis will note that this means a 546% increase for the health care sector.
CONGRESS URGED TO CLOSE HIPAA LOOPHOLE ON GENETICS
Fear of discrimination by insurers based on genetic testing prompted Congress to include a ban on using that information for group coverage under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, but such prohibitions were not placed on the individual market. This market now is of particular concern to Sen. James Jeffords (R-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Labor & Human Resources Committee. In a May 21 hearing, Jeffords said an upcoming General Accounting Office report will show Americans aged 55-65 will increasingly rely on the individual market.
States are not providing adequate protection either as up to 125 million people fall under ERISA plans, which are pre-empted by federal law, the National Breast Cancer Coalition said. Without a fix, research will suffer as well as people will be afraid of the data finding its way to employers and insurers.
PHARMACISTS IRATE OVER CVS SUIT
Pharmacists have been fuming over the criticism they have received because of the CVS-Elensys-Glaxo Wellcome controversy. Pharmacy groups say the reproofs have been unjustified because the customer data was sold by the owners of the pharmacies, not by the practicing professionals behind the counter.
PATIENT CONSENT LAWS THREATEN RETROSPECTIVE RESEARCH
The Mayo Clinic warned that retrospective research is being threatened by state patient consent laws. A researcher told Congress that frequently there is no way to statistical adjust for individuals who refuse authorization for use of their medical records.
Health Information Privacy Alert is an independent monthly business newsletter. For subscription information, send a message to HIPAlert@aol.com. Due to the sensitivity to spam, please specify that you wish to receive information via e-mail. If you wish to receive a sample issue, e-mail your mailing address.
---
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 00:43:24 -0400
From: Monty Solomon
Excerpt from ACLU News 06-19-98
New ACLU Report Condemns Mandatory Blocking Software in Public Libraries
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, June 17, 1998
NEW YORK -- In a 17-page white paper released today, the American Civil Liberties Union said that the mandatory use of Internet blocking software in libraries is inappropriate and unconstitutional.
The new report, Censorship in a Box: Why Blocking Software is Wrong for Public Libraries, continues a line of argument the ACLU first made in a well-received 1997 report and furthers its critique of industry plans to
adopt blocking mechanisms and expand them to libraries and schools. The report comes as more and more librarians are being pressured to install the software on library terminals to prevent minors from accessing objectionable materials.
But the ACLU said mandatory blocking is not the solution. "Blocking software is clumsy and ineffective," said Ann Beeson, an ACLU national staff attorney who co-wrote the report. "It censors valuable speech and gives parents and educators a false sense of security about what their children are encountering online."
Beeson added that while the ACLU supports parents' right to using the software in the home, they warn that no product can effectively screen the vast content of the web, and many companies block sites for ideological reasons that parents may not agree with.
The report also criticized a plan to condition Internet funding for schools on the use of blocking software. The "Internet School Filtering Act," introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), is also supported by lead Democratic sponsors Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, home to Microsoft, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, home to Silicon Valley.p> In a letter sent with the report to the Senate, the ACLU is urging Senators not to support the bill when it comes up for a vote. "We believe that educators, not Congress, should be the ones making decisions about what students can learn on the Internet," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU's Washington National Office.
Today's report follows up an August 1997 ACLU white paper, Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning?, which offered guidelines for Internet Service Providers and other industry groups contemplating ratings schemes.
Similarly, Censorship in a Box proposes five guidelines for libraries and schools looking for alternatives to clumsy and ineffective blocking software:
-- Acceptable Use Policies. Provide carefully worded instructions for parents, teachers, students and libraries on use of the Internet.
-- Time Limits. Establish content-neutral time limits on use of the Internet; request that Internet access in schools be limited to school-related work.
-- "Driver's Ed" for Internet Users. Condition Internet access for minors on completion of a Internet seminar similar to a driver's education course.
-- Recommended Reading. Publicize and provide link to websites recommended for children and teens.
-- Privacy Screens. Install screens to protect users' privacy when viewing sensitive information and avoid unwanted viewing of websites by passers-by.
The report also includes a two-page "Q&A" on blocking software and examples of sites that have been blocked by various products. The ACLU emphasized that it did not seek to evaluate any particular product, but rather demonstrate how all blocking software censors speech based on subjective views about what is offensive.
Recently, the American Family Association, a conservative religious group, learned this lesson when it found that CyberPatrol, a popular brand of blocking software, had placed AFA on its "Cybernot" list because of the group is considered "intolerant" of homosexuality.
"Clearly, the answer to blocking based on ideological viewpoint is not more blocking, any more than the answer to unpopular speech is to prevent everyone from speaking, because then no viewpoint of any kind will be heard," the ACLU's Beeson said.
The principal authors of Censorship in a Box are Ann Beeson, ACLU National Staff Attorney and Emily Whitfield, Deputy Media Relations Director of the National ACLU.
Censorship in a Box can be found online at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/box.html.
---
End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 07.11
--- ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.