Articles by Jim Harper 
Jim 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.
Google is promoting its “privacy tips” video series. As I’ve noted before, this is good stuff. Over the long haul, education will be much more effective protection for consumers than privacy regulation – and it will have none of the costs of regulation in wasted tax dollars, market-distorting rent-seeking, and regulatory capture.
Conflict of interest warning!: I was a guest of Google at the recent International Association of Privacy Proffessionals dinner. As you weigh the credibility of what I’ve written here, you are welcome – indeed, encouraged – to consider the embarassingly close relationship I have with Google – how I basically survive on the rubber chicken dinners they sneak me once every . . . 40 years. If it appears that I am being too nice to Google, you are welcome to call me out on it. It is much more fun being mean, but it is important to be fair, so I do say nice things when I see good being done. Now that my disclosure is longer than the substantive post, I’m relatively sure that I won’t be regarded as easier than an FTC Commissioner after an Aspen Summit – at least not this time.
Via PDF, Beth Simone Noveck, director of the Institute for Information Law & Policy at New York Law School, highlights the Peer-to-Patent experiment being conducted with the PTO in her very interesting article about using collaborative software in the regulatory process.
Our institutions of governance are characterized by a longstanding culture of professionalism in which bureaucrats–not citizens–are the experts. Until recently, we have viewed this arrangement as legitimate because we have not practically been able to argue otherwise. Now we have a chance to do government differently. We have the know-how to create “civic software” that will help us form groups and communities who, working together, can be more effective at informing decision-making than individuals working alone.
Good stuff. Here’s more.
Continue reading →
If you’re in D.C. and a lawyer or legally-minded, that’s two strikes against you you might be interested in attending the Third Annual Homeland Security Law Institute, January 17-18, 2008 at the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel in Washington, DC.
This program provides a comprehensive look at some of the most critical issues and initiatives being undertaken as part of the Nation’s Homeland Security agenda. We have an impressive group of former DHS employees, as well as key figures from the private sector. Keynote speakers include The Honorable John Ashcroft, Former Attorney General of the United States, and The Honorable Congressman Bennie Thompson, Chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
I’ll be speaking on a panel Friday the 18th entitled: Immigration Policy and Legal Issues: Do All Roads Lead to a National Identity System and if so What are the Implications?
Amid Op-Eds and news stories today decrying REAL ID and illustrating its defects, DHS assistant secretary for policy development Richard Barth steps up to defend the national ID law.
Real ID is not a national identification card. Under Real ID, the federal government will not be issuing licenses or IDs, nor will it collect information about license or ID-card holders.
To which the commenters reply:
“Oh….a Bush Toadie… What a load of (inappropriate term)!”
“If someone from the Department of Fatherland Security says it…I believe it!!”
“I think that using your public office to lie should be a punishable offense. I would also say, the comment ‘The Real ID is not a National ID’ should get this man about 3 Years, maybe 2 with good behavior.”
Pity poor Richard Barth.
Such a great idea – CommitteeCaller.com – and it’s even gotten play on BoingBoing. But ultimately its use would not help improve our democracy. This clever new app allows you to call every member of a congressional committee, and even rate the quality of the response.
Here’s the thing. Every citizen is represented by only one member of Congress. The other 434 members of Congress are not interested in hearing what you have to say (unless, I suppose, you’re a lobbyist or a potential contributor). They’re not supposed to be interested in what you have to say. They represent the people that live in their districts.
So if lots of people start calling lots of different congressional offices, it will simply make it harder for real constituents to get through to their own representatives’ offices. Email is already well known to be of limited utility, and Congress takes pains to filter out constituent email that doesn’t come from the actual people members represent.
Bombing Congress with calls will just cause Congress to withdraw further from public contact. And it’s withdrawn enough already.
Update: This problem came up pretty quickly in the comments on BoingBoing. Crowds. Wisdom.
Terrorism is a strategy used by the weak to goad the strong into self-injurious overreaction.
DownsizeDC has a campaign underway that I think is critical to defeating terrorism. It’s described on their site this way: “We’re looking for a few brave Americans to start a real war on terror — by not being afraid!”
The “I am Not Afraid” campaign is not about passing or killing any legislation. It is just to get Washington, D.C.’s consistent overreaction to the threat of terrorism under control. The sense of proportion this campaign seeks to create really makes it worth a visit, but here’s a taste:
Nearly 800,000 people have died in car accidents in the last twenty years. During that time there have been exactly two Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, with less than 3,000 total fatalities. That’s more than 200 TIMES as many Americans dying in their cars as at the hands of Islamic terrorism. And yet . . .
We’ve turned the whole world upside down in response to the two terrorist attacks. We’ve launched invasions, created vast new bureaucracies, shredded the Bill of Rights, compounded regulations, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and disrupted travel and commerce. But no one is suggesting that we do 200 times as much to address the driving risk, which is 200 times greater.
Terror warriors, keep your straw men in the barn. This is not a pacifist, terrorism-denial campaign. It seeks proportional responses to threats, and acceptance of harms that cannot reasonably be prevented. The message to legislators:
“I am not afraid of terrorism, and I want you to stop being afraid on my behalf. Please start scaling back the official government war on terror. Please replace it with a smaller, more focused anti-terrorist police effort in keeping with the rule of law. Please stop overreacting. I understand that it will not be possible to stop all terrorist acts. I accept that. I am not afraid.”
This is good, important work to defeat terrorism.
I was amused to read in the Register about a new breach of UK citizens’ data. Apparently, a disc with data about three million driving test applicants was lost by Pearson Driving Assessments in Iowa, USA. Entertainingly, the article explains:
Most Brits, of course, have no idea where Iowa is and why should they care? But the question remains: what the bleeding nora was the Driving Standards Agency using an Iowa-based company for? Is there no British company that could do whatever it is this bunch of yank chancers was supposed to be doing?
Civil servants can’t guarantee the security of OUR data in this country, and here they are doling it out willy-nilly to shifty, untrustworthy foreigners.
Heads should roll. OUR data should stay in the UK, Its management should not be outsourced all over the planet to save a few pence.
I do my best to stay shifty, and am proud to see my labors finally recognized! More seriously, data security is difficult anywhere – it doesn’t really matter where the data is.
Poor Stewart Baker. He’s the DHS policy guy who has been pushed forward to argue that signing “MOUs” (memorandae of understanding) with one or two states overcomes the dozen+ states that have passed legislation opposing or rejecting the REAL ID Act.
It’s true that REAL ID has had a good couple weeks. Arizona’s Governor claims to have signed up her state – oh, except for everyone from the ACLU to the John Birch Society saying “Hell NO!”
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.