@#%$ Scalia

[JollyRoger]

I wonder if Scalia let out a few fleeting expletives when he found out about the project.

 

[GoodGame]

Original source...

I read the source, and while it is a pretty funny story and inspiring bit of activism, it doesn't seem to make Scalia look ignorant. He just reiterates that he doesn't feel those data need to be protected in the law. In a way I agree. Sure one might get info like so and so likes spaghetti, but it doesn't amount to anything, and it's not even guaranteed to be an accurate statement. Some of the data, like house value, might be better off if only non-digital & FOUO.

Anyways, he seems to pro-Free Speech with this stance. Protection from identity fraud would be a more important focus I think when discussing the issue, I believe.

The teacher has a response to Scalia et al here: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/justice_scalias_3.html

 

[.Shane.]

I just thought it was funny. /shrug :/

Sorry that my reply came across so sternly.

I read the source, and while it is a pretty funny story and inspiring bit of activism, it doesn't seem to make Scalia look ignorant. He just reiterates that he doesn't feel those data need to be protected in the law. In a way I agree. Sure one might get info like so and so likes spaghetti, but it doesn't amount to anything, and it's not even guaranteed to be an accurate statement. Some of the data, like house value, might be better off if only non-digital & FOUO.

Anyways, he seems to pro-Free Speech with this stance. Protection from identity fraud would be a more important focus I think when discussing the issue, I believe.

I'll disagree w/ you here, but I appreciate your argument and tone w/ which you present it.

 

[Cutlass]

You Scalia fans might appreciate this.

Spoiler :

Last year U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave a public speech questioning the need for more privacy protections.

This year a Fordham University law professor teaching a course on privacy gave his class the project of turning up publicly available information on Scalia.

The fifteen-page dossier completely flipped Scalia out.

"It seems that Professor Reidenberg successfully created an active learning environment where his students took control and learned the subject in a way they will not soon forget."

Snip: His class turned in a 15-page dossier that included not only Scalia's home address, home phone number and home value, but his food and movie preferences, his wife's personal e-mail address and photos of his grandchildren, reports Above the Law.

Original source...

And the response from Professor Reidenberg (who I know!):

Spoiler :

I’m surprised by Justice Scalia’s characterization of the project. The scope of protection for privacy in our society is at the forefront of the public policy debate. I assign this research project annually and last year used myself as itssubject. The exercise never fails to provide a keen demonstration for my students of the privacy issues associated with aggregating discrete bits of otherwise innocuous personal information.

When there are so few privacy protections for secondary use of personal information, that information can be used in many troubling ways. A class assignment that illustrates this point is not one of them. Indeed, the very fact that Justice Scalia found it objectionable and felt compelled to comment underscores the value and legitimacy of the exercise.

Cleo

I read the source, and while it is a pretty funny story and inspiring bit of activism, it doesn't seem to make Scalia look ignorant. He just reiterates that he doesn't feel those data need to be protected in the law. In a way I agree. Sure one might get info like so and so likes spaghetti, but it doesn't amount to anything, and it's not even guaranteed to be an accurate statement. Some of the data, like house value, might be better off if only non-digital & FOUO.

Anyways, he seems to pro-Free Speech with this stance. Protection from identity fraud would be a more important focus I think when discussing the issue, I believe.

The teacher has a response to Scalia et al here: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/justice_scalias_3.html

I think what's being missed on all the perspectives on the privacy issue, and especially the privacy on information that businesses have issue, is that it should not be treated as an issue of privacy as much as an issue of property.

If I give some information to a business as part of doing business with them, that information is not theirs it is mine. It is my property. And they have no right to use it in any means not directly authorized by me. They have no right to make that information available to the public. They have no right to sell or transfer the information.

This is a fundamental failure of property rights.

The theory that the market can assign property rights has entirely failed in this area. So it is time for government to step in. Lawyers and activists should take this approach. Take the legal possition that it is an unlawful appropriation of private property for an organization to make customer (or donor, or whatever) information available in any respect short of a court order.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Ouch! Cat fight!

 

[Millman]

What's this about really? Scalia? The Supreme Court? Censorship? If you dislike the Golden Globes then don't watch it. If you don't like the government remind them of their term limits, we could also consider age limits, legislation limits, and salary caps if they don't do their job right either.

 

[GoodGame]

I think what's being missed on all the perspectives on the privacy issue, and especially the privacy on information that businesses have issue, is that it should not be treated as an issue of privacy as much as an issue of property.

This is a fundamental failure of property rights.

But what property rights are you talking about? What the city values your house at? Any other examples?

The only privacy/property right taht I see is the one the professor above sites in his response to Scalia:

First, the transparency of personal information that is created by private sector activities enables government to collect and use personal information purchased from the private sector in ways that side step political and legal checks and balances.

In theory, a government employee can know more about you than legally they should, via a net search.

 

[Cutlass]

But what property rights are you talking about? What the city values your house at? Any other examples?

The only privacy/property right taht I see is the one the professor above sites in his response to Scalia:
In theory, a government employee can know more about you than legally they should, via a net search.

But all of that information should be considered the property of the private citizens. Some information is more iffy than others. But if a company is selling information on it's customers, then they are in reality selling someone else's property.

 

[GoodGame]

But all of that information should be considered the property of the private citizens. Some information is more iffy than others. But if a company is selling information on it's customers, then they are in reality selling someone else's property.

So if you love spaghetti and tell us on the internet, should we have to sign release agreements with you not to divulge that info, as your constitutional right? Don't ya think that's a little silly? It's simple common sense to refuse to give out information that you choose not to share. If a business refuses to deal with you on the grounds of your refusal to share info, they're 1. phishing (obviously!), or 2. they're possibly doing some kind of profiling (race, gender, etc..) that you might be able to sue them for).

Hypothetically you can also lie, if you aren't make a false statement in a legal context where you have real responsibility (e.g. if you're lieing socially rather than lieing in the context of legally binding contract. E.g. Lieing about your age to ride an amusement park ride might still make you culpable in case of physical injury, but lying about age to get into a website just puts the onus on you for any effects.

 

[Cutlass]

Not at all. Many businesses have a legitimate reason to have information on you. Should they be allowed to sell it? You order a pizza, they have your address and phone number. You order anything delivered, they have your info. But it should still be your info and not their property that they can turn around and sell to make an extra buck.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Before the credit agencies were set up, there were local businesses in all the towns that used to keep paper files on all the residents. If one of them wanted a loan, the bank would pay them to see your file. People were routinely denied credit for what was in that file, and you could do nothing to fix any possible errors or omissions.

There was a great hue and cry. Congress enacted all sorts of privacy laws that prohibited the collection of such data, especially by using automated means. All sorts of safeguards were put in place to assure you could properly dispute and resolve the information the credit organizations could collect, especially government agencies due to the potential abuses.

Except for the laws regulating the credit agencies, most of those safeguards have now been abolished...

 

[Cutlass]

Put them back.

 

[illram]

So if you love spaghetti and tell us on the internet, should we have to sign release agreements with you not to divulge that info, as your constitutional right? Don't ya think that's a little silly? It's simple common sense to refuse to give out information that you choose not to share. If a business refuses to deal with you on the grounds of your refusal to share info, they're 1. phishing (obviously!), or 2. they're possibly doing some kind of profiling (race, gender, etc..) that you might be able to sue them for).

Almost everything you do these days, especially online, requires personal information. E-mail, first and last name and address, phone number, home address, etc. etc. It would be very difficult to realistically adopt a policy where you refused to give out your personal information. In reality people are lazy, don't read privacy agreements, and fill in the little blank spaces on online forms when they want something. Not saying whether that is right or wrong one way or another but that is how it is.

I think in some respects a variety industries, including the banks (BofA was sued awhile ago for privacy stuff) are taking advantage of people's lack of a) knowledge about how valuable their information really is; and b) their lack of caring or understanding about how to protect their private information. Those industries that are most "guilty" (in the most negative sense) are those industries, like banks, where the consumer really has no choice whatsoever and must divulge lots of sensitive information about themselves, and then must later "opt-out" (if they even can) in a complicated and convoluted way full of loop holes that takes forever.

 

[GoodGame]

Almost everything you do these days, especially online, requires personal information. E-mail, first and last name and address, phone number, home address, etc. etc. It would be very difficult to realistically adopt a policy where you refused to give out your personal information. In reality people are lazy, don't read privacy agreements, and fill in the little blank spaces on online forms when they want something. Not saying whether that is right or wrong one way or another but that is how it is.

I disagree, it's very easy to spoof information, and I do it without compassion, and without requiring Scalia to rule in favor of it.

If there's no legal context for you to be honest (e.g. there's a legal context to be honest on a credit card application or a government application, but not to some generic website or mail order company who you're just soliciting a catalog from) why tell the truth (intelligent forum discussions excluded)? In anonymous situations, you safeguard your own anonymity.

EDIT: The flipside, I believe, is as Scalia says----if you have nothing to hide, why fear telling all? In general, how can the private, data collector be certain your data is correct?

Like I said before, I do agree that some government collected data on individuals shouldn't necessarily be publically available to the internet.

 

[Berzerker]

I think you can make a non-originalist argument that the right to self defense emanates from the penumbras of the 2nd Amendment.

but that would be an originalist argument, the framers were big proponents of self defense, even used the 2nd amendment to tell the states they are responsible for their own defense. Remember, it was the British attempt to seize an armory that triggered the war, the Framers were not too keen on letting a central authority decide if people can have guns.

 

[JollyRoger]

but that would be an originalist argument, the framers were big proponents of self defense, even used the 2nd amendment to tell the states they are responsible for their own defense. Remember, it was the British attempt to seize an armory that triggered the war, the Framers were not too keen on letting a central authority decide if people can have guns.

Which is the more centralized authority, a city council or a national court?

 

[a_propagandist]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/6/721853/-Scalia-Owned-by-Students,-Flips-Out!

 

[illram]

If there's no legal context for you to be honest (e.g. there's a legal context to be honest on a credit card application or a government application, but not to some generic website or mail order company who you're just soliciting a catalog from) why tell the truth (intelligent forum discussions excluded)? In anonymous situations, you safeguard your own anonymity.

I'm not talking about the BS stuff, but the stuff where you have to enter the info. On line stores, credit cards, banks, whatever; these types of services sometimes sell your information. Perhaps the hyper vigilant consumer can guard themselves against this by being super picky about who they do business with, but the vast majority aren't like that. I mean I generally have to be pretty on top of stuff for a living but even I am pretty lazy when it comes to inspecting privacy agreements. Frankly I don't think everyone should have to be Sherlock Holmes or have a doctorate to figure out the privacy agreement or contract they sign off on when they but a book online.