Note: My Web pages are best viewed with style sheets enabled.

Unrated

Privacy

Copyright © 2001, 2003, 2012 by David E. Ross

Laws to protect individuals from having their privacy used as a business commodity are being fought on two fronts in the United States: internationally and domestically.

On the international front, the European Union now has laws that effectively prevent businesses from selling, trading, or otherwise disseminating personal information about their customers and employees. Complaints from U.S. businesses that want to operate in Europe and therefore must abide by those laws threatens to create a trade war between the E.U. and the U.S. Even our own government has branded those laws as unfair. In a joint letter from the Treasury and Commerce Departments, the Bush II administration described E.U. laws as imposing "unduly burdensome requirements that are incompatible with real world operations."

On the domestic front, laws proposed in Congress — definitely weaker than the laws already in force in the E.U. — have triggered major lobbying efforts to defeat them. Business organizations — joined by top members of President Bush's administration — claim these laws would be too costly.

This political opposition to privacy laws raises several questions:

• How is it that European businesses continue to prosper while abiding by strict privacy laws while U.S. businesses would not?
• Do not European companies have "real world operations"?
• How would U.S. laws less stringent than exist in the E.U. put our businesses at a competitive disadvantage in world trade?
• How is it unfair to ask U.S. businesses operating in Europe to abide by European laws that apply equally to domestic and foreign companies?
• How much profit do U.S. companies make in the commerce of personal, private information?

Perhaps that last question is the key to the whole issue. If so, the time has come to tell businesses that there are some commodities that should not be merchandised. Since personal information really would not exist if we did not live our lives, this is indeed one of those commodities.

In the meantime, rather than fighting the E.U. over privacy legislation, our own government should embrace the very same laws. No, this would not be over-regulation. U.S. companies have already demonstrated that self-imposed privacy rules mean we have no privacy.

1 April 2001
(but no April Fool's joke)

Because of the growing problem of identity theft, privacy has become much more important since I wrote the above. The widespread dissemination of personal information about us by various businesses is the primary resource of identity thieves. In recognition of the growth of this crime, California and other states — seeing inaction at the federal level — have enacted stringent laws to limit the dissemination of personal information. In response, the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress are railroading a law that would address identity theft by overturning those state laws. The federal approach will not prevent identity theft, it will only punish the thieves after they destroy our credit worthiness and our reputations.

One of the most important pieces of personal data used by identity thieves is your Social Security number (SSN). You must protect this.

• Start with your wallet.
  • Remove your Social Security card and put it in a safe place in your home.
  • Look at your insurance and other cards. If they contain your SSN, use a hole punch to remove at least part of the number, removing the same part from each card. You should have already memorized the entire number.
• When someone asks for your SSN, you should ask, "Why?" They better have a good reason. And they should be able to tell you how they will protect your SSN if you give it to them.
• Do not allow your SSN to be printed on your bank checks. Do not give your SSN to a sales clerk when you pay by check. If they won't accept your check without your SSN, take your business elsewhere — after telling the store manager why.
• In California, Civil Code §1798.85 strictly limits the use of SSNs as ID or account numbers. This is being phased in. Eventually (by 1 July 2005), not even health insurance companies will be allowed to use your SSN. If you do not live in California, request your representatives in your state's legislature to enact a similar law.

When I first wrote this commentary, I was merely annoyed with the thought that businesses were profiting by trading in my personal data, data that exists only because of my actions. And not only businesses were profiting; even non-profit charities generated revenues by selling information about their donors. Now we find that criminals are profiting, too; and we can suffer real harm.

By the way, I am an officer of a public charity whose privacy policy generally prohibits any disclosure of personal information unless the law mandates disclosure. This is quite the opposite of those privacy policies that say — as the credit union's policy quoted at the top of this page — that they will disclose whatever is permitted by law.

9 November 2003

Buying, selling, and exchanging personal information about you and me is a very big business. Therefore, Congress passed and President Bush signed a federal law that invalidates state laws that restrict such commerce. This new law punishes identity theft after it happens but does little to prevent such crimes.

9 December 2003

The following was found on a site that distributes a Firefox add-on for downloading YouTube videos. While it appear facetious, it illustrates the reality of privacy when using search services, social networks, and other means of communicating through third-party Internet services.

20 February 2012

David Ross home