Articles by Jim Harper

Jim HarperJim is the Director of Information Policy Studies at The Cato Institute, the Editor of Web-based privacy think-tank Privacilla.org, and the Webmaster of WashingtonWatch.com. Prior to becoming a policy analyst, Jim served as counsel to committees in both the House and Senate.


Via Ellen Miller, I came to a post on techPresident lamenting corporations’ use of their customer databases to lobby Congress. Zephyr Teachout received an email from United Airlines asking her to go to a petition site which asked her to contact her member of Congress about oil speculation.

This is clearly just the beginning, and its a crude one–a few years from now you’ll see more organizing, including international organizing, to leverage corporate databases to influence policies that help corporate wealth. At least as of 2004, the airlines were among the biggest email/database owners in the country (along with casinos). As someone concerned about concentrated power in any form, this is not a great development.

I don’t think this is the unfortunate story Teachout believes it to be. More important than the fact that a corporation is using information at its disposal to advance its public policy agenda is the fact that the corporation feels obligated to communicate with Congress through the intermediary of its customers (and presumably shareholders). That’s a move in the direction of openness and democracy.

Consider the alternative: corporate officials going to Congress for meetings in smoke-filled rooms – or just showing up with bags of cash. No, there’s a dimension of modern politics that requires them to produce actual voters to support the policies they like. That’s good.

Most large corporations are publicly held so the term “corporate wealth” (assumed bad) refers to the wealth of investors and workers (in retirement funds), which is actually good.

Corporations come in every size and shape, so the formula corporate=bad fails to describe the world well. Corporations sometimes lobby for bad policies just like individuals and government agencies do. I have called out corporations with substantive policy agendas that are bad, and there are plenty. But just because an agenda is “corporate,” it isn’t necessarily bad.

Corporations lobby for freedom of speech (booksellers and publishers); they lobby for policies that keep down the cost of food (importers; agribusiness; grocers); they lobby for wind energy; etc. etc. There’s just no shorthand which holds that corporate interests are bad.

BTW, it sounds like the policies United was pitching Teachout are pretty dumb. Oil “speculation” is a hobgoblin that masks real issues of supply and demand. I hope they fail to win the day – not because they’re corporate; because they’re wrong.

The Image Says it All

by on July 10, 2008

Via Hit & Run, Sarah Lai Stirland reports on the plan to roll out a new political action committee called Accountability Now, which would punish members of Congress who voted to legalize warrantless wiretapping and immunize the participation of telecommunications companies in illegal spying.

On the Accountability Now site, you can pledge to donate money in a newsworthy August 8th money bomb that will raise money to defeat candidates selling out privacy and civil liberties. I rarely, rarely support politicians, even the ones I think are good. The opportunity to oppose some bad ones is quite delicious.

August 8th is the day Nixon resigned thirty-five years ago.

Too funny. Anti-Google gadfly Scott Cleland has coined a hilarious new name for the company to highlight his privacy concerns with the search giant and its business practices. My chief concern now is . . . Which executive do we suspect of being a cross-dresser?

Cleland has a point. Foremost, I think, the judge that ordered Google to disclose a great mass of YouTube viewer information is being cavalier with the legitimate privacy concerns in a data-dump that big. I don’t share Berin’s confidence that a protective order will control access to, and uses of, this information. Data is so, so volatile.

But the judge is in a position to rule like this because Google collects and keeps so much information.

I have complimented Google on good practices in the past, but the modesty of the steps it has taken to protect user privacy is showing. At the time, their niggardly protective efforts forced them to try importing shades of gray into a circumstance that is black or white: They said their logs were “much more anonymous” than before, rather than flatly anonymous.

Well, they’re ‘not very anonymous’ if they have IP addresses and usernames in them, are they. But Google also boxed itself into a corner by arguing elsewhere that IP addresses aren’t really personally identifiable information.

“We . . . are strong supporters of the idea that data protection laws should apply to any data that could identify you. The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot.” (‘Sure, we love the heavy regulatory regime you’ve got going because we love privacy, but let’s not include IP addresses, mkay?’)

The modesty of its protective steps, and the company’s go-along get-along approach to regulators in Europe (+ would-be Europeans here in the States), are coming home to roost. Instead of taking great strides to protect privacy and telling regulators to just back off, Google has taken small steps and tripped over its shoelaces.

‘J. Edgar Google’ has created the circumstances in which a judge can require them to hand over lots of personally identifiable user data. It’s a situation in which few people believe they will be protected.

Over at the new WashingtonWatch.com blog, I’ve got a new post up called “Putting Politicians First?“.

Who is Randy Vanderhoof, you say?

More than a year ago, I posted here about a quote Randy Vanderhoof of the Smart Card Alliance had given to Federal Computer Week:

Privacy concerns are all perception and hype and no substance but carry considerable weight with state legislators because no one wants to be accused of being soft on privacy.

Though I’m not sure, I have a vague recollection that someone from his organization called me up or emailed and explained that he was misquoted. All a misunderstanding.

So I was interested in a Q&A Randy Vanderhoof had with David Pogue of the New York Times recently. Asked about the obstacles to adoption of smart cards in the U.S., he said:

It’s the business rules and legal barriers that are the biggest obstacles to overcome, and some cultural norms have to change as well, like the privacy advocates who don’t trust any technology that touches their identities (especially if the government is somehow in the middle).

There may be some privacy advocates that don’t trust any technology touching identity, but maybe it’s that all the technologies touching identity yet seen fail to meet the demands of the public for privacy and data security – especially if the government is in the middle.

I’m all for changing cultural norms. The dismissive culture at the Smart Card Alliance seems to be the right place to start.

Google has changed its homepage, providing a link to its privacy policy “Privacy Center” on the homepage. So ends one of the highest dramas to grip the privacy world in a generation. I’m being facetious.

On the Google Blog, Marissa Mayer explains how Google has long been careful not to crowd its homepage – and remains so: they took a word out before including “privacy” – ummm, actually “privacy”. Google had come under fire recently for not having a link to its privacy policy on the homepage, a triviality that I wrote about here and here.

Would that this were the end of Google’s privacy troubles though. It is still a fiendish violator of the law. The facetiousness continues.

The privacy legislation California passed in 2003 requires a thing that Google still contemptuously refuses. Google must “conspicuously post” its privacy policy on its Web site, yet it has decided that it will not, flouting the will of the people’s representatives.
Continue reading →

Via C@L, Glenn Greenwald has thoroughly fisked Senator Obama’s most recent statement on FISA and immunity for telecom providers.

It’s more and more clear that Obama has flip-flopped, reversed course, sold out, and whatever else you want to call it.

Obama himself set high expectations about standing for something, being different, and getting away from “politics as usual.” It didn’t take long for him to demonstrate that he is a typical, disappointing politician.

Does he have time to reverse course again, redeem himself, and build back support? Or has he already handed the election to McCain?

Happy Fourth of July everyone!

“What better way to celebrate the founding of our nation than . . . um, by . . . blogging?” So begins the introductory post of the new WashingtonWatch.com blog.

The blog will tie the bills in Congress to the day’s headlines, discuss the bills being debated on the House and Senate floor, and reveal some hidden stories. Readers of TLF will understand this line from the opening post all too well: “Oh, there’ll be jokes – and I’m telling you right now they’re not all going to be funny.”

On the more serious side, the first substantive post tells the the inspiring story found on WashingtonWatch.com of an Army NCO who has taken Iraqi interpreters into his home. They served the U.S. military in Iraq and received special visas to come to the United States. He has helped them make their way in the U.S., and awaits three more who are on waiting lists, simply because “it’s the right thing to do.”

Check out the WashingtonWatch.com blog. If you want to subscribe to the RSS feed straight away, it’s here.

This article is full of bad ideas. Read to the end and you’ll see why I posted about it, risking that it would emerge from the obscurity it deserves.