1997-02-07 - Re: Blessing in Disguise? (H.R. 98, the “Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997”)

Header Data

From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
To: Robert Hettinga <cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 3afd2c69915e0da6d6148381570755145d5967253e15da686402f954c5f4856b
Message ID: <199702070742.XAA07034@mail.pacifier.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-02-07 07:42:26 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:42:26 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:42:26 -0800 (PST)
To: Robert Hettinga <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Blessing in Disguise? (H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997")
Message-ID: <199702070742.XAA07034@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>--- begin forwarded text
>Date:         Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:24:09 EST
>Reply-To:     Law & Policy of Computer Communications
>              <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
>Sender:       Law & Policy of Computer Communications
>              <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
>From:         "Jonathan I. Ezor" <jezor@NEWMEDIALAW.COM>
>Subject:      Congressional Bill worse for 'Net than CDA? (crosspost)

>
>Sorry for the crossposting, but I felt this one might be important enough
>to do it.  The following is a shortened version of an article I've written
>for my firm's client newsletter about H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet
>Privacy Protection Act of 1997", introduced by Rep. Bruce Vento (D. MN) on
>January 7, 1997.  [snip]
>
>Jonathan I. Ezor
>New Media Attorney, Davis & Gilbert, 1740 Broadway, New York, NY 10019
>Tel: 212-468-4989   Fax: 212-468-4888   E-mail: jezor@newmedialaw.com
>-----------------------------Cut here-------------------------------
>
>Congress Tackles Internet Privacy
>        Recently, there has been significant press coverage over real and
>rumored revelations of personal information such as Social Security numbers by
>online services, including the alleged availability (later shown to be untrue)
>of mothers' maiden names and Social Security numbers on LEXIS' P-Trak database,
>and various governmental bodies have held hearings on issues of online privacy.
>On January 7, 1997, Representative Bruce F. Vento (D. MN) introduced the
>"Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997," (H.R. 98)  This bill
>provides that "an interactive computer service shall not disclose to a third
>party any personally identifiable information provided by a subscriber to such
>service without the subscriber's prior informed written consent." 

Gee, this sounds great!  Sounds like it would become illegal for ISPs to 
"cooperate" (aka:  getting strongarmed) by the local thugs (cops) to reveal 
information about subscribers.   Except, as is so often the case, they seem 
to always figure out ways to explain that cooperation with cops was somehow 
not covered in the law above.

One of the non-obvious dangers of having laws such as this apply to ISPs is 
that they increase the likelihood that legal force could be applied to them 
in order to get them to sell-out their customers.   And, obviously, the 
average citizen isn't going to have a lot of luck getting these laws 
ENFORCED unless he has friends in the prosecutor's office.


One of the numerous advantages of an AP-type system is that a person will be 
able to make a violation of his privacy a crime regardless of whether the 
powers-that-be agree.  Also, he can enforce that "law" on anyone, including 
government agents, without the cooperation of the prosecutor.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com





Thread