Click and type in a question or commentHow can we stop the medical field from using our SSN as an identifier? I live in Florida where there is no law that says they can't use it, and they give me a hard time whenever I don't want to give my number. They must stop this dangerous practice!
Response "A hard time" is a small price to pay for sticking up for your dignity. By objecting to collection of Social Security numbers, you may educate the doctor's office and you may lead others in the medical profession to understand that many Americans object to the practice and therefore the profession should do without Social Security numbers. Just as there is no law preventing them from asking for a SSN, there is no law requiring you to provide it to get medical treatment. Point out to the doctor's office that you will have to forego medical treatment if compelling SSNs is its policy. Maybe you will shame them into waiving the request; most of the time it will. Otherwise report the office to the local medical association. ONE EXCEPTION: The SSN is the Medicare/Medicaid number and there is no way around that presently. In this case, ask the doctor's assistant to write in the file: "The patient does not consent to disclosure of his or her Social Security number."
From Maryland: In this state, there is a law called the Maryland Social Security Number Privacy Act of 2006 which is supposed to prevent the transmission over the internet, mailing, and displaying someone's Social Security Number. But, as me and my family have learned the hard way, a lawyer could care less about the law and can violate this law anytime they want because they feel that no other lawyer would either sue or prosecute them out of profession courtesy. Do you know of any attorneys in Maryland that would want to hold another attorney's feet to the fire in a civil lawsuit regarding a lawyer breaking this law by purchasing, transmitting, and mailing Social Security Numbers WITHOUT someone's permission?
From Massachusetts: On obtaining a search warrant police install a GPS device on a suspects vehicle, can information resulting from the GPS tracking (search) be used or should it be suppressed @ trial under the exclusionary rule, if the warrant went stale? Do you know of any case law relating to GPS searches and monitoring that could be used as support of the argument in Massachusetts. This is a question put to me be my instructor, but is based on a real case heading for a SJC hearing in May Commonwealth v. Connolly SJC-10355 Fourth Amendment issues richc60@yahoo.com
Response: An answer will require legal research. If you want our legal research services, email the publisher.
From Minneapolis: We've recently acquired your "Compilation of State and Federal Privacy Laws" for our law firm's library, and it is a very impressive piece of work.
From Fort Wayne Indiana: Worthwhile newsletter.
From Pittsburgh PA:: The state sent my name, address, Social Security number, phone number to someone else. Do I have a claim?
Response: Not in Pennsylvania, which is not one of the dozen states with "fair information practices acts," which prohibit such disclosures in some cases. Still, a court might rule for you if a judge or jury were to find this information private and sensitive AND the disclosure "offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities."
Question: Can you tell me if there is any current statute in VT addressing consent to record a telephone conversation? CR- Cleveland, OH
Response: Vermont has no law on electronic surveillance, according to our
Compilation of State and Federal Privacy Laws. Interstate calls to or from Vermont are covered by the federal law.
Comment: Your analysis of what our government is doing could not be further from the truth. You have no understanding of biometrics much less the real danger they present. You speak about retina scans without having a clue of what you are speaking about. Please research iris scans. Fingerprinting is not the most accurate biometric. Facial recognition is the biometric of choice. You may want to read ICAO 9303, volumes 1, 2 and 3. I know you have no understanding of AAMVA so I would not expect you to know why what is being done is being done or who is promoting the policies. I know you may not believe it but the public needs facts. I have testified in many states on subjects say you are an expert on. What scares me is people actually probably do hire you as an expert. I recommend that you learn what a unique identifying number is before you speak about Enhanced Driver's Licenses and RFID technology. DHS is not the only agency responsible for EDL's. You may want to learn more about WHTI. Also research the State Department's involvement in EDL's. I will provide my name and a site for people to become informed based on fact not speculation. Co-Founder Stop Real ID Coalition. Mark Lerner
Comment: Can you put some or all of your books and newsletters on Kindle? Then I would buy them. Thanks.
Response: Our two most popular titles, Compilation of State and Federal Privacy Laws and Ben Franklin's Web Site, are available on Kindle, amazon.com's hand-held device for downloading and reading electronic books wherever you go. Amazon.com's enhanced Kindle now even reads the text to you!
From Louisiana: I was very relieved to find your Web site, as I was beginning to believe I am the only person who is uncomfortable with non-stop camera surveillance. On your list of privacy tips you recommend resisting this in our communities, so my question concerns that issue. I live in a very quiet suburb where there has been an explosion of surveillance cameras in every possible location: hospitals just outside patient rooms, restaurant dining rooms, traffic lights. There are no less than five cameras trained on people in line at the post office.
The latest plan is for installation of a widespread camera “security” system throughout all public schools, including elementary schools. As I have a child in this system and thought this was ridiculously over the top and open to potential abuse, I contacted the school board. Their security chief told me that the plan is in response to no specific threat, but to a survey of “concerned” parents and school administrators and the recent news about potential “catastrophic” school events.
I know this is apparently overwhelmingly popular with parents, but since you advise bringing up the cultural impact of constant surveillance on innocent people I would like to at least try to do that and see if it makes a difference. Can you direct me to any studies on this, particularly where schools and such young children are involved? Also, are there any studies on the effectiveness – or lack thereof – of surveillance cameras in schools? I know they did nothing at Columbine.
Response: Send us an email and ask for a copy of our March 2008 issue and October 2008 issue, which documented the studies done.
The consensus was that there is scant evidence of effectiveness. The U.S. Department of Justice said in 2006, “While there is a general perception among system managers and the public that video surveillance cameras are effective in preventing crime, actual evidence is more difficult to find.”
From Zanesville, Ohio: Are there chief privacy officers in the states?
Response: We count five: Joanne McNabb is director of California’s Office of Privacy Protection in the Department of Consumer Affairs. Laurie Beyer-Kropuenske is director of the Information Policy Analysis Division in the Minnesota Department of Administration, which enforces the state’s privacy law affecting all levels of government.
Paul T. Tsukiyama, a lawyer for the city of Honolulu, was appointed director of the Office of Information Practices in Hawaii last Nov. 28. Since last summer, Sol Berman in the Office of Information Technology has been the first chief privacy officer for the State of Ohio. Sally Hunt, an attorney who is also executive director of the West Virginia Health Information Network, is state privacy officer.
NOTE: Our publisher, Robert Ellis Smith, serves as an expert witness in lawsuits involving all aspects of privacy. For a list of his engagements, write orders@privacyjournal.net. PRIVACY JOURNAL is also eligible for "cy pres" awards from class-action settlements so that we can further our advocacy and consumer education.
Question: Is there any specific law that prohibits companies from asking for a Social Security number? I'm not sure where I saw it, but I remember seeing an article which states that the only agencies that can legally require an SSN are the Social Security Administration, the IRS, and the military.
- K.S., Portland, OR.
Response: There are no such laws. You may have read advice from us saying that the only legitimate demands for your SSN are when some tax reporting is involved - like payroll, home purchase or sale, bank accounts. The federal Privacy Act prohibits government agencies but not businesses from demanding SSNs unless certain conditions are met. States are starting to pass laws prohibiting certain disclosures of SSNs by state agencies and businesses, but these don't affect whether state agencies may demand the number from you.
RI law says merchants may not demand an SSN when a customer makes a purchase. ME disallows denying goods and services to a person who does not provide an SSN, but many industry categories are exempt. NM has a similar law.
DON'T give up your number unless the transaction involves tax reporting or it's for Medicare.
From Connecticut: Great newsletter. I look forward to it every month. and I learn something every month.
Comment: I understand your point about needless concern about transmitting a credit card number through unencrypted email. I do agree that the chances are rare, but it's just as easy to publish a PGP key for all emails. This failure to take such a simple step concerns me.
Check out this site that helps protect your privacy and reduce junk mail too: proquo.com. It's actually free...
Inquiry: I'm looking for some research that identifies a person's preference for maintaining their location privacy. For example, is there anything that indicates that people are willing to let strangers know where they are with an accuracy of x meters?
Response: Check our December 2007 issue for some answers.
When the public figure Jackie Kennedy Onassis complained in the 1970s about stalking on the streets of Manhattan by a paparazzi photographer, who claimed protection by his First Amendment right to gather news, a federal court successfully barred him from “approaching within 100 yards of the home of her and her children, 100 yards of the schools attended by the children; and at all other places and times 75 yards from the children and 50 yards from her.”
A state law in Massachusetts prevents anti-abortion protesters from approaching within six feet of a person who is within an 18-foot zone around an abortion clinic. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to question the constitutionality of this restriction. It has upheld a 36-foot demonstration-free zone in Florida. On Nov. 13, Massachusetts expanded the prohibition to a 35-foot zone.
From Rob Mayer, University of Utah: There are several studies in the U.S. that document the prevalence and consequences of ID theft. Have similar studies been conducted in other countries, or is ID theft not much of a problem outside the U.S.?
Response: You need a copy of our March 2005 issue in which we documented that ID theft is mainly a phenomenon in the U.S., and we explained why. Credit bureaus in other nations don't use a Social Security number or its equivalent to confirm identities in their files. "Identity Theft Happens Mainly in America," PJ Mar 05.
From a Reader: The March 2007 issue of PRIVACY JOURNAL states, at the bottom of page 5, that the PATRIOT Act ". . . merely requires banks to have a credible program for verifying identities of its new customers." Could you provide a reference in the PATRIOT Act that supports your statement? I have been having trouble with Washington Mutual over their statement that the PATRIOT Act requires a copy of my driver's license in order to open an account. -- Dan Durham Lacey, WA
Response: It's Section 326 of the Patriot Act. Go to 31 U.S. Code 5318 in a law library or online and scroll to Section l (as in the letter L). See the regulation under the law at http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js335.htm. Banks have discretion, but showing a drivers license is only one way to confirm one's identity. A drivers license is not specifically required.
From Julie Komenda, Florida: I am working on a bill currently stalled in the Florida Senate -no one wants it heard - concerning privacy and computer repair. Can you site specific examples of states with that are on the books already? My story is that instead of fixing my computer, Circuit City installed someone else's files on mine and wiped mine out. The person whose files were installed had also had her hard drive (with files intact) sold. Microsoft, Banking institutions, and the FL Retail Federation among others is making a huge lobbing effort to impede our progress. Senate Bill S0718 is stalled and if you can help, I'd appreciate it. I will be subscribing to your site but I am in a time crunch--James B Rule sent me. Thanks.
From Ontario: Your Web site is fantastic. I'm taking my 5th (and final) course to obtain an Access and Privacy certificate through the University of * * * Government Studies program. Many of your articles are required reading. I work as a Privacy Officer (x 3 years) at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board in * * * and your Web site has become an excellent resource for me. Of course, I'm usually so focused when I got into your site, I didn't catch the offer of finding spelling mistakes/typos.
From La Jolla, Calif.: The junkers have pulled another fast one. The telemarketers are calling for a federal law to set a uniform standard, thus preempting strong state laws.
Comment from Matfield Green, Kans.: After reading your notice about encouraging stores to forego “loyalty cards,” I promptly addressed my appreciation to the management of the card-free grocery store I shop at when visiting Kansas City.
From Annapolis, Md.: I’m incredulous. No one seems to care about the REAL ID Act. It’s an administrative nightmare and the information demands sound like something out of Nazi Germany.
Response: There are now bills in Congress with a chance (Akaka-Sununu in the Senate and Rep. Thomas Allen of Maine in the House) that would repeal some of the more onerous elements of the REAL ID Act. The Maine legislature voted in January 2007 not to participate in the costly uniform state drivers-license scheme, and regulations from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security have been significantly delayed. People do seem to care.
From Austin, Tex.: I appreciate your fine newsletter and the informative insights. You need to have your PR person get you on cable TV in order to enforce the message. Many folks (especially some legislators) just don’t get it. I am sure that Dobbs, O’Reilly or Scarborough would love to have such an interesting guest as yourself.
Ben Franklin's Web Site - I finished reading it, but it's not finished with me. What an eye-opener.
Dave, Oregon
Comment: Re: Laptop Hall of Shame [on forbes.com]. In regard to the “the next step is how to make personal data self-destruct when the laptop leaves the custody of the owner" - that moment arrived some time ago via CyberStor.net software. CyberStor two years ago identified laptops as the Achilles Heel of the data security and developed a state-of-the-art data security package which does in fact wipe all data from a laptop. However the data is available for the user as prior to erasure on the laptop the data is encrypted and transmitted to a safe-server via a standard wireless network - typically when the user logs off.
Comment: Your 9/7/06 commentary on Laptop Hall of Shame points to evidences of a problem, but doesn't accurately identify the problem. Your conclusion that more legislative controls are needed misses the bigger point. The real problem is that we've created a technological mental model that says it is OK to keep private data and store it. Most of the time this isn't truly necessary. With ever more ways to easily copy and move information that should never ever be moved, the problem is only going to get worse. The bottom line is that we've created a culture where personal information is effectively and sometimes literally being parked curbside for every Tom Dick and Harry to grab. Privacy should not be about 'keeping secrets', but we've modeled it that way architecturally and culturally.
From a Reader: What are the thoughts about the MyLaptopGPS system that can retrieve and even erase files from a stolen laptop? I found the information at MyLaptopGPS.com to be interesting. Is anyone using it?
Response: Our September 2006 issue lists three or four software offerings like this, in response to our column on forbes.com about the shocking number of lost or stolen laptops with sensitive personal data on them. Email us for a sample copy of the September issue.
Question: Are there any essential books regardless of author or publisher (like the top 3 books) that you feel do the best about educating the public on specific actions and steps they can personally take to establish more privacy?
Response: The final chapter of "Ben Franklin's Web Site" (offered for sale on this site, at "Books" or at amazon.com) includes specific tips for protecting your privacy. We offer TIPS for protecting your own privacy on this Web site, too. Go to "Privacy Tips."
Question: I wanted to sign up for your newsletter but I am concerned about credit card information sent in an email. Do you have a secured transaction site for subscriptions? Thanks and Take Care. j
Response: You will notice that we offer five alternatives for persons to order products. Some choose to use credit cards. Sending a credit-card number by email is no more risky than providing a credit card to a waitress or waiter or using the number to order a product by telephone. Interception of credit-card numbers transmitted by email is rare indeed; we cannot recall a single case, and we report on these matters all the time. Hackers are more interested in getting long lists of credit-card numbers and names, not spending lots of effort to get one in a transmitted email.
As experienced analysts in this field, we think that people fret needlessly about sending credit card numbers by email. Nevertheless we urge our customers to send the expiration date by a separate email later in the day and we urge them to delete their numbers when they write to us a second time.
Comment: I appreciate your excellent Web site. However, although it is nice to know what is happening with our privacy rights, it could be improved by giving us a way to take action (i.e. an Action Center) as Amnesty International USA’s site and many other sites do. They give you a sample letter, which you can modify, to send to government officials. Based on your Zip code, they provide addresses to write. They also give you the option of receiving periodic action alerts by e-mail.
From Lexington, Ky.: I am a new student at the University of Kentucky. I was surprised to find when I enrolled that my student ID # is my Soc. #. I'm not too happy about that. Now, everywhere i go i have to give out my soc. #. what can be done?
To the University of Kentucky student: At registration, the university should have given you a statement saying that you may select another number. This is required, sort of, by the Privacy Act of 1974 of all governmental bodies, including public universities. It was probably in the small type. Go to the registrar and ask for an alternative number. Point out the dangers of identity theft; a lot of it originates from wrongful access to university students' SSNs. Because of this, NY, WI, CA, and AZ have laws disallowing universities to use the SSN as a student number. Get your state legislature to consider similar legislation.
Question: Are there any meeting groups in the Akron area that get together to discuss privacy issues?
Response: Try the American Civil Liberties Union in your community.
Start your own monthly meeting, by visiting meetup.org.
Comment: Surfing the Internet should be a matter of anonymity. We don't need Big Brother's hawks' eyes paranoidly scrutinizing innocent behavior as though every move is criminally suspect. The Internet cannot be used freely at many libraries due to the required use of a library card which has a record of our address and phone number and requires ID to verify our identity so that should the government at its whimsy, not approve of certain website visits they can come knock down our door and arrest us without question to be vilified like poor Richard Jewell for innocent actions. The purpose in name and address on a library card is obvious as related to stolen property, but to require the use of the card to surf the web is a patent violation of our right to privacy. Merely reading about something that's available out there is not a crime. Shall we have thought police next? Personal rights and privacy are rapidly and insidiously being eroded under the euphemistic guise of protection; a misrepresentation of the truth. Such a practice is synonymous with propaganda and is a covert misappropriation of power. In the future, as well, we will be a "paperless" society which means we won't even have the right to make an anonymous purchase! Thus begins the rapid advancement of a police state.
Response: You should delete all history and Web sites visited when you finish your session at the library. Most libraries erase all of this information at the end of the day anyway (but they don't always succeed!). And many libraries will issue user cards if you provide a nickname or a pseudonym or a post office box or the address of a local contact, not your own. ASK. There is rarely linkage between a person's library card and Web sites visited from a library computer.
When you're asked for ID, use a passport, if you have one. It doesn't include your address or Social Security number.
Comment: ChoicePoint is outrageous. Now the state of California wants to give them another contract? Don't they know this company can't keep information accurate or safe?????
Question: My local bank had given out information on my account to a third party on three different occasions. The first time I did not say anything because I was not sure exactly what my rights were. The second time I went to the bank manager in which he assured me this would never happen again. The third time at a different branch the same thing had happened. I am very disgusted! I have gone through a lot because of this. Do I have a case against this branch of banks?
Response: Generally under the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley" law, banks may not release account information about you, except to certain affiliated companies. Further, your state may have prohibitions against release of personal information by banks. To answer your question further, we would need to know your city and state, the type of information that was disclosed, and the kind of institution that received the information and for what purpose. In the meantime, send a letter to your bank asking that no personal information be released without your consent.
From Cameron WI: The war in Iraq does not help gasoline prices at home, while the terrorist conspiracy does nothing for civil liberties, and lost constitutional rights, by the so-called Patriot Act.
Question: My bank has all privacy settings for me as "do not share any info" and "do not send any mail." They just sent me a piece of advertising with 18% APR loan (what a deal!) with their branch manager's name on it. DO I have a legal case to go to court? If so, where do I pick an attorney? Thank you.
Response: Federal and state laws on this subject do not prohibit financial institutions from sending advertising mail to their own customers. However, if the bank accepted your letter and continued to do business with you, it may have breached its contract with you. If you sue and win, you probably will not be entitled to any damages beyond the cost to you of restoring you to the "do-not-mail" position.
* * *
Question: What are the 10 worst states for privacy?
Response: YOU decide. See our ranking of the states in privacy protection by clicking at the top of this page on "Advocacy."
* * *
Get a trial subscription to Privacy Journal for $19.84. Send us an e-mail and mention "1984 Web offer."
Comment: Congratulations to Patrick Kenny of the City of Toronto for setting the new Privacy Journal record for finding typos in this Web site and winning free books!
Question: Does the driver license number and date of birth that banks and most businesses in Texas require and write on the check come under the Privacy Act? That information can be used to steal someone identity as all the information about the person and their banking is right there.
REPLY: No state or federal laws limit what merchants may copy on a check that is presented for payment or cashing. A dozen or so states prohibit copying credit-card data on a check OR prohibit copying personal information on credit-card slips. Sorry, no recourse for you here.
The information you refer to is usually used if a check bounces, and then you can be sure that the data finds its way into a database.
The Privacy Act limits collection and disclosure of personal information BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES only, not businesses.
Question: How can you find out what information exists about you on the Web? Bill M., Trenton N.J.
Response: Bill, Our December 2003 issue provided this tip: Google yourself. Go to www.google.com and search for your name, in all possible variations, then your address, your phone number, your Social Security number, and the last four digits of your Social Security number. Do this for all members of your family. See what comes up.
How can you delete this information about you on the Web? You can't.
But next time you fill in a form do not include information that you do not want shared on the World Wide Web. You may get resistance to this at first, but after a few tries, you'll find that businesses back off and accept your application anyway.
* * *
Comment:"Ben Franklin's Web Site" was the best publication that I have ever read on privacy. It was extremely comprehensive and enlightening. However, at the top of Page 155, J.E.B. Stuart is not a Union General. He was a Confederate General. This error needs to be fixed (especially in light of the South's feelings on the Civil War). Keep the enlightening work coming.
From a researcher’s point of view, [these are] great books that need to be converted to CD preferably PDF format 6.0 to take advantage of Adobe's new search engine. As a professional researcher, information must be at hand and you have plenty of it, just unable to get to it, by book format.
Response: We made JEB a Confederate and made many other updates and changes, in the second printing of this popular book, now available. You are able to download the text of Ben Franklin's Web Site and store it in your computer. Our other titles are also available for direct download. With a credit card, send us an email order.
Does the new federal do-not-call system work?
- Des Moines
Response: It is worth registering, because it DOES work. Be sure to check whether your state has a do-not-call list. Register there too. You can find out in our Compilation of State and Federal Privacy Laws. Mention "Feedback," and you get it for half price, $15.50!
Click and type in a question or commentComment: I heard an official of Homeland Security say on national TV that Americans do have a right to privacy, but we do not have a right to anonymity. One could argue that giving up my anonymity requires that I give up my name, my address, my SSN, and the state of my bank account, the state of my gall-bladder, my firstborn's name and whereabouts, and more. Where is any privacy left?
Response: We think that the Department of Homeland Security is not the place to get advice about your right to privacy, any more than Privacy Journal would purport to give advice about terrorist threats. In fact, law cases show that Americans have both a Constitutional right to privacy and a right to anonymity. See: "The Law of Privacy Explained," available from us on this Web site ("Books").
I find it ironic that on a Web site for "privacy," there are "500 names, address, phone numbers, and Web sites of the top experts and organizations in the field of personal privacy" for sale.
Response: We appreciate your sense of irony. You are referring to our Directory of Privacy Professionals, listed for sale at "Books." In fact, the right to privacy covers matters that are personal, intimate, and sensitive to an individual, not his or her professional affiliations. And, imagine a world in which only matters that a person consents to may be reported, published, listed, or commented upon!
Question: Have you published any recent articles regarding "use of SSNs as patient identifiers"?
Response: Yes, our newsletter covered the debates over whether to make that patient number the SSN or parts of the SSN. Ask us for three back issues (at $10 each).
Congress in 1996 decreed that there should be a unique ID number for each patient, to ease processing of health information in a national network. In the end, Congress enacted another law essentially freezing any action on a patient identifier if it involves all or part of a patient's SSN. There has been no action on this since 2001.
Question from Springfield, Mass.: I appreciate very much the necessary service that you provide. In my student debate research I've been unable to find published material supporting a very necessary claim. It is affirming the resolve that: Individual claims of privacy ought to take precedence over competing claims of societal welfare. The actual contention is, that in the most real sense, no harms are inherently caused by the individual's claims to privacy, in actuality, the harms society commonly associates with privacy are subsequent to much larger and specific sociological injustices...(or something like that). For example, 9/11 and incidents like it could not have, nor ever really could be ratified by being more imposing in terms of security standards affecting privacy, because their cause is completely independent of privacy, which is the perception of the US to religious sects such as the Taliban. I know that solutions like this are considerably impractical, but as an ideal, I believe that it is true nonetheless. I think this is a very good argument that needs to be introduced into the debate, however, I can be guaranteed little to no success if I don't support it with the stamp of an expert and/or professional. Can anyone help me prove this claim more conclusively, either by simply rendering it with your own views as to whether or not it is right or wrong, or stating so if you agree with it, or in any other way? Any response offered will be hugely appreciated.
Response: Our belief is that personal privacy is essential for mental health – and for public health. It’s a human craving at some level, and essential for an individual to develop fully, in order to take intellectual and emotional risks, to experiment, to “let go” without accountability or embarrassment so long as no one is victimized, to grow as a person. Thus, any successful society must foster a sense of privacy, especially a democracy, if it wants to develop strong citizens and a strong culture.
Even military and law-enforcement people who are necessary to defend a society must be nurtured in a culture that allows them privacy, autonomy, and intellectual growth. Societies like Orwell’s 1984 don’t develop creative people. Ultimately, such societies are more vulnerable to external threats, like terrorism. People in them are narrow-minded, fearful, and vulnerable.
An additional consideration is that there is a lot that a society can do to protect itself from terrorism and external threats without ever threatening the privacy, autonomy, and dignity of its own citizens. Dispelling the hatred in much of the Arab world is one. We can also secure cargo in airplanes; secure cockpits; add tracking “taggants” to fertilizer, weapons, and other substances used as instruments of terror; secure office and hotel buildings more than we do; pre-interview air passengers; cease American support for sects that later turn against the U.S. as terrorists; establish personal identity, where necessary and relevant, by means other than relying on paper or plastic documents; instruct and encourage citizens to protect themselves and recognize terrorist patterns in the U.S.; perhaps add air marshals to commercial flights (there are currently fewer than 3500 air marshals to protect 35,000 daily flights); keep personal information about U.S. citizens out of the hands of terrorists (and therefore off the World Wide Web); protect computer networks against terrorism. None of these threatens privacy.
Most of the “security” precautions since 2001 are mere window dressing. They insult our own citizens and do nothing to track potential terrorists or to keep them away from likely targets.
* * *
i'm robert ellis smith's son, ben, and i wrote the "child's introduction to intrusive bureaucracy". [PJ May 04] i'm bored and in school so i'm checking out this website.
* * *
Question: What can citizens do to encourage their state government to step up when it comes to issues of personal information? As a citizen of a state in your last tier, it is disappointing to me that this is held in such small regard...
Response: Start with a well placed state legislator, either a representative or senator from your area or the chair of the judiciary or government oversight or consumer affairs committee in either house. Sit down with that person and articulate your concerns, provide literature and Web sites about the issue. Then motivate public-interest groups with regular access to the state legislature so that they follow up with meetings and mailings to that member. Then engage a few other members and point out that your first contact is engaged. Perhaps arrange a joint meeting of your new recruits in the state legislature and review with them Privacy Journal's rankings and our criteria, found at ADVOCACY on this Web site. In addition, arrange a speech for your primary legislator so that he or she is forced to gather thoughts about privacy and come up with a legislative agenda. And keep us informed of your progress. - RES
Send us your questions here and we'll answer them.
* * *
Do you permit other Web sites to link to yours?
Response: Do we have a choice? Is there a way to prevent other sites from linking to ours? (We in fact welcome credible Web sites to link to ours.)
* * *
Do you still publish a list of actions that celebrities should take to maintain their privacy to the highest degree possible? I remember reading about this in 1999.
Response: Not quite. Our Celebrities and Privacy describes lawsuits brought by celebrities to protect their physical privacy and the commercial rights to their personalities. Also, it includes comments by celebrities who have successfully protected their personal privacy. It is still available, for $16.50 from Privacy Journal. This has been a popular item among celebrities who are increasingly concerned about their vulnerability.
Send us your questions here and we'll answer them.
What are your rights? How to create a privacy policy? Where can you find help? How does certain technology function? What's ahead for the FBI, Department of Defense, or the airport near you?
* * *
Comment: Pretty timely Web site. How long have you been around?
Response: PJ was founded in 1974 - same year as People magazine. Before email, before the Internet, before city-wide TV monitoring, before automated telemarketing, before biometrics, before camera surveillance. We have had a Web site since 1991.
* * *
