Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
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.
Entertaining stories, but here’s what really caught my eye:
A few weeks ago I [sat] next to a US Senator on a commercial coast-to-coast flight. While I read up on the FISA debate, he played a pong-like game on his phone almost the entire time. Hello?
No need to read the whole thing.
I’ve documented a couple of times my frustration with organizations that try to collect a Social Security Number for payments that don’t require it. The IRS does not require reporting of expense reimbursements, which are not income, and income of under $600 (total in a year) is also not subject to reporting. Small payments and reimbursements do not require an SSN.
I’m happy to report that a multinational media conglomerate that initially refused to reimburse my travel expenses for a conference at which I spoke has relented. They reimbursed my travel expenses without collecting my SSN.
It took a lot of patience. I had to speak to three or four different people in the organization, each of whom believed that their corporate policy should naturally trump my personal policy. But I suspect that my persistence and courtesy caused someone to pick up the phone to someone else and say, “Oh, just pay him, will ya’?”
This kind of thing is a good exercise because the next person will have an easier time of it. Do yourself and your neighbor a favor and refuse sharing your SSN when it’s not needed, mkay?
Some recent reporting by the Washington Post reveals some of the hardball tactics that the federal government may have used in support of mass surveillance programs, even preceding the attacks of September 11, 2001. In an article published last Saturday, Ellen Nakashima and Dan Eggen report that Qwest’s Joe Nacchio sought to have the cancellation of government contracts introduced in his trial on insider trading charges. He alleges that he fully expected the contracts to make up for losses the company would otherwise suffer, which would contradict the allegation that he sold his shares knowing of an imminent drop in price. The contracts were canceled in retribution for Qwest refusing to go along with the government’s surveillance demands, he says.
Because so much is cloaked in secrecy, one must speculate about where those machinations are today, but a Statement of Administration Policy (veto threat) issued yesterday laid down a notable marker: Congress must retroactively immunize telecom firms for past law violations in any FISA amendment or the President will veto it.
The common rap on this is that the Bush Administration wants to help out its buddies in the telecom industry. But Joe Nacchio was a buddy – he was chairman of the president’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee – and the administration threw him right under the bus. There is probably more than the standard corruptions of government involved.
My guess is that the telecoms have the Bush administration by the short hairs because they have information about yet more egregious surveillance activities. They’ve probably signaled that if they don’t get immunity in a FISA amendment, they’ll spill the beans and really bring it down on the administration.
This, again, is speculation, but it best explains the administration’s excessive commitment to immunizing the telecom firms that violated the law.
First it was those clown-ass oversized jackie-o glasses. Then it was carrying around a miniature dog, paralyzed with fear (and shame). Now the latest fashion trend is to name a law after yourself.
C|Net star reporter and self-styled “iconoclast” Declan McCullagh has established himself a law – following right on the heels of . . . hmmm, how shall I put this . . . MOI.
McCullagh’s law is:
As the certainty that legislation violates the U.S. Constitution increases, so does the probability of predictions that severe harm or death will come to Americans if the proposal is not swiftly enacted.
Nicely put. Has a Godwin-y quality to it, but is certainly distinct. I like it.
Let’s have it, people. Name your law! But only one a piece!
A recent New York Times article has some precious and prescient commentary about how to address concerns with the abundance of data being collected as we move further into the digital age, something I wrote a bit about yesterday.
Here’s Insight #1:
It’s an interesting ‘blog post, but a little over the top. Jeff Jonas of IBM writes about the plausible steps that take us to a total surveillance society – by popular demand!
I think it’s over the top because he doesn’t factor in a number of countervailing trends. I attempted to catalog the (mostly economic) forces that would drive RFID to meet consumer interests (including privacy) in this paper a few years ago, for example. And a few weeks ago, I wrote about a version of privacy self-help touted by none other than Google CEO Eric Schmidt: Turn off your phone!
Jonas raises good things to think about – and it’s certainly the general direction we’re headed – but we aren’t going to end up in the midnight dystopia Jeff describes.
In a Cato TechKnowledge newsletter issued today, I’ve updated the world on the status of the REAL ID Act.
One of the more interesting recent developments is the decision by New York Governor Elliot Spitzer to break the link between driver licensing and immigration status. He and the Department of Motor Vehicles commissioner announced the policy September 21st.
Delinking driver licensing and immigration will reduce unlicensed driving, uninsured driving, hit-and-run driving, insurance costs for legal drivers, and roadway injuries. Linking driving and immigration status is a requirement of REAL ID, and Spitzer’s move is another nail in the coffin of this national ID law.
In my TechKnowledge piece, I laud the governor’s action as follows:
Spitzer is not willing to shed the blood of New Yorkers to “take a stand” on immigration, which is not a problem state governments are supposed to solve anyway.
It’s a welcome — and somewhat surprising — move, to see a Democrat and law-and-order-type former attorney general resist mission creep in a state bureau and hold fast to the federal system devised in the constitution. But he’s done the right thing. Thanks most recently to Governor Spitzer, and to state leaders from across the ideological spectrum, REAL ID is in collapse.
The move has subjected Spitzer to withering political attacks from Republicans. The attack most embarassing to witness, though, comes from “relatives of 9/11 victims.”
Update: New York Senator Charles Schumer (D) gets it wrong. His plan for REAL ID and a “non-forgeable” biometric immigrant card would mean mass surveillance of law-abiding citizens, and a system that’s easy for illegal aliens to defeat – simply by acquiring a REAL ID. Ya gotta think about this stuff!
Congress gave itself 6 months to reconsider the dreadful Protect America Act, a careless recent amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Word is that they want to come up with something before they recess for the year.
The ACLU has a campaign underway called The FISA Flood of 2007, inviting Congress to control warrantless wiretapping. It’s a meritorious idea, controlling warrantless wiretapping, don’t you think? If you’re uncertain, take it from me: It is. It’s up to you, of course, but if you want to see the campaign do so here.
Phil Windley has a mature and thoughtful post on the iPhone (inspired by a clever CrunchGear post) that captures a lot of the issues we’ve been discussing here.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
