Re: [ifwp] Re: Privacy Issues

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

To the DNRC:

Do you think that it is against the law to ask you how many members you
have?  If so, which law?


8/25/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Man, I can't believe I have to lecture anyone on this
>stuff.  It is not rocket science. What Kent, Dave, Martin
>and now Patrick are asking someone to do is either break the
>law (do not pass go. do not collect $200) or enter into a
>no-win situation. All the people on this list should at
>least know about fiduciary responsiblities of board members
>by now.  we've been talking about it for months.
>
>Sigh.
>
>Here a simple example.  Organization A advertises for
>members.  Prospective members ask 'you aren't gonna give my
>name out to anyone are you, I could get fired? or
>'you aren't gonna give my name out to anyone are you, I
>don't want more spam' or
>'you aren't gonna give my name out to anyone are you, I
>could get executed or deported' or
>'you aren't gonna give my name to anyone are you, if my wife
>finds out I'm in the same org as my former mistress she'll
>have a fit' or
>etc. for any one of about a million possible reasons.
>
>Org. A sez 'sure. we don't give out names.  In fact, here's
>our nice shiny new privacy policy in compliance with the
>following industry guidelines (or in compliance with
>existing law as applicable for some orgs. in some
>jurisdictions)."  So the person pays his/her fees and joins.
>
>Someone else wants to take org A down a notch (happens all
>the time in the advocay/lobbying/biz) , so they ask Org A
>"how many members ya got"?
>A replies "that's private"
>So they ask "aha, something to hide! Bet ya got just 4"
>A replies 'read my lips, that's private'
>So they reply "i knew it. they got something to hide. they
>don't represent noone"
>So A has a dilemma.  State a number (actual or not) like
>1000.
>in which case they say. "Yer just blowin' smoke.  Prove ya
>got more than 4"
>So A has to go to at least one member and ask 'please,
>please, I know we have a signed agreement guaranteeing your
>privacy, but can we make this teeny, tiny exception just
>this once?"  and they have already lost.  You can bet that
>word gets out about it 'cause the person who asked in the
>first place was just being nasty to put 'em on the spot and
>will be sure to get the word out that A doesn't really keep
>its membership private.  So Org A will lose membership come
>renewal time.  And it won't do them any good because when
>they divulge the name of that individual, the reply will be
>'SO?  That's just one. By my count ya got 5.  Big tickle". 
>And A has to do it again and again.  They lose no matter
>what they do.
>
>Or would you rather Org A violates its privacy agreement and
>face the consequences of court action (see for example:
>http://.ftc.gov/os/9808/geo-cmpl.htm for the recent
>GeoCities consent agreement negotiated by our friends at the
>FTC).
>
>So to recap:
>either DNRC violates its agreement and faces legal
>consequences or it enters into a no-win argument with
>someone contesting first the number of members and each
>subsequent painful disclosure.  You want to tell me it won't
>happen?  Fine.  I claim by virtue of my crystal ball that
>DNRC has 12,496 individual members and 329.38 organizational
>members (don't ask where I got the .38).  
>
>Either accept my assertion or ask DNRC to confirm/deny. 
>Aha, you want to ask DNRC?  You've already started proving
>my point.
>
>And when we finish with that argument, let's start on the
>other 'old favorite'.  That's the 'yeah sure, you have
>3,302,945 members'.  But did you consult them before taking
>this position or are you just blowin' smoke?'.
>
>
>
>We could do this all day.  Exactly what would that
>accomplish?
>
>
>Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>> 
>> > It has come to my attention that some members of these lists
>> > don't 'get it' when it comes to privacy.  One of the basic
>> > attributes of privacy concerns is that you shouldn't have to
>> > defend anyone's right to privacy.  When you keep on going,
>> > it immediately raises the unspoken assumption that someone
>> > has something to hide.
>> 
>> I'm all for privacy. However being the naturally suspicious sort I am, I
>> get concerned when people won't tell us who there members are, yet claim
>> to be representing any number of people in this open process.
>> 
>> Sorry Dan, I'm with Dave and Kent on this one. And I like Mikki and Kathy
>> a lot...
>>
>Dan Steinberg
>
>SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
>35, du Ravin
>Box 532, RR1		phone: (613) 794-5356
>Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
>J0X 1N0			e-mail:dstein@travel-net.com
>
>__________________________________________________
>To view the archive of this list, go to:
>http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
>___END____________________________________________
>
>
>