[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Blessing in Disguise? (H.R. 98, the "Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997")
>--- begin forwarded text
>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:24:09 EST
>Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications
> <[email protected]>
>Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications
> <[email protected]>
>From: "Jonathan I. Ezor" <[email protected]>
>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: [email protected]
>-----------------------------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
[email protected]