From: Will Rodger <rodger@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 05:16:31 -0800 (PST)
To: e$@thumper.vmeng.com, cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Whitehouse Releases Blueprint...
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961129081302.006bb848@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 04:08 AM 11/29/96 +0000, you wrote:

>
> Notably, the emphasis is on the needs of business, not "people."
> 
> We are in an excellent position to observe and document the process whereby
> "business" -- that is, organizations motivated primarily, if not
exclusively,
> by the desire for short-term profits accruing to vested interests -- comes
> to dominate and control a technology.  The auto and television industries
come
> to mind as two prior examples.  We are about to see the net go the same way.
> Take notes.
> 
> 			"I have to praise the administration and Ira for
>                       reaching out to the private sector for
>                       comments," Computers and Communication
>                       Industry Association President Ed Black said.
>                       "There's a great emphasis on the needs of
>                       business here."
> 
>                       Even so, privacy activists remained
>                       disappointed with many of the document's
>                       features. "This isn't anything new," said David
>                       Banisar, counsel to the Electronic Privacy and
>                       Information Center. "The privacy stuff is
>                       terrible. They say it's market driven, but
>                       markets don't work with privacy. It's like what
>                       happened with P-Trak."
> 

You bring up a point that is implied - but not explicit - in the article.
And it's a good one. Funny thing is, two of the _industry_ folks suggested
individuals probably needed to be included in the document more than they
were. Neither was keen on being quoted on the record regarding non-business
interests, of course.

Given the attitude of the folks I talked to, I suspect non-business
interests are still fairly important to the White House on this one. 

And remember: Ira Magaziner won no friends in industry with his health care
proposals a couple of years back; some folks think he's leaning in favor of
industry at least initially to make sure what happened then doesn't happen
again.

If Netizens find suggestions from the administration too heavy-handed, my
guess is there's still time to move the discussion.

Cheers.

Will Rodger
Washington Bureau Chief
Inter@ctive Week