Our guests tonight are Deirdre Mulligan and Stephen Frazier:
Deirdre Mulligan is Staff Counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit public interest organization dedicated to preserving and enhancing democratic values and civil liberties on the Internet and other interactive communications media. Mulligan works with other privacy and civil liberties advocates, the communications and computer industries, and public policy makers to strengthen fair information practices and enhance individual control over personal information. Prior to joining CDT, Mulligan worked at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Stephen Frazier is a senior correspondent for IMPACT. Previously, Frazier served as senior correspondent for CNN PRESENTS, the network's award-winning newsmagazine. He joined CNN in 1993. Frazier's extensive contributions to CNN include CNN PRESENTS...OUR PLANETARY POLICE, an Emmy award-winning program that reported on the United Nations' more aggressive approach to peace. He also worked on CNN PRESENTS...WORK IN PROGRESS, a profile of America's changing workplace which won a CableACE award.
Moderator says, "We're getting ready to start our
chat tonight on Privacy Issues."
Moderator says, "Please go to the auditorium if
you would like to submit questions."
Moderator says, "Use the /go auditorium command
and use the command /ask to ask a question"
Moderator presents the speakers with question #67
from Sswoody:
How do you define privacy? What does it include?
Stephen Frazier says, "I don't define privacy, I just
know when it's been invaded."
Moderator presents the speakers with question #71
from Sswoody:
In the movie "The Net," Sandra Bullock finds that her identity is
systematically erased. People's fear of risk to their privacy seems to be
tied to technology. Is this reasonable?
Stephen Frazier says, "I think it is. I think the
technology makes it easier for people who are inclined to abuse other
people's privacy to do that more effectively."
Stephen Frazier says, "I was surprised for example,
about the highway business, those cameras were part of a system that was
completely benign at first. To save teme, we cut out
the other half of the system, which are big electronic scoreboards over the road, warning drivers there's a
jam ahead. The real intent is to smooth the commute, but now the FBI
wants more than just a look, they
want a line from that headquarters to their office."
Moderator presents the speakers with question #68
from Sswoody:
Are there more serious threats to people's privacy now than 10, 25 or 50
years ago? How would you measure the risks to someone's privacy?
Stephen Frazier says, "I'd say there's more of a
risk -- or lots more risks that all add up. Just 13 years ago, we were
worried about Big Brother in 1984, the novel, but really it's just a lot of
little brothers."
Deirdre Mulligan says, "hello"
Moderator says, "Hi Deirdre Mulligan, are you ready for a
question?"
Moderator presents the speakers with question #74
from Sswoody:
Has our Social Security number effectively become a national
identification number?
Deirdre Mulligan says, "Yes. Sorry for the delay."
Stephen Frazier says, "No, but it's really close.
You can ask for other numbers to be used instead of your Social Security number. ... The burden is on us to ask
that it not be used more and more and more for other purposes."
Deirdre Mulligan says, "The use of the social security
number has increased dramatically."
Moderator presents the speakers with question #70
from Sswoody:
Is the Internet a new risk to privacy? If so, how?
Stephen Frazier says, "I think it's a risk because
I leave a trace of where I've been when I go to some website of some
retailer who wants to capture my presence there. And there's already another
web site that can tell me where I go, what web sites I visit routinely."
Moderator presents the speakers with question #75
from Sswoody:
How safe is it to give your credit card number over the phone or over the
computer?
Stephen Frazier says, "On the previous, I think
it's worth pointing out, we think the Internet is a wonderful anonymous
experience, but people who operate web
sites can keep a record of who we are and can trace back to us. It's like the phone, we
think that's faceless and anonymous, but retailers who have installed this
new CallerID get a lot more information than we ever imagined and they can call us back
and follow up and try to sell us something."
Deirdre Mulligan says, "The Internet like all new
technologies pose both threats and opportunities to our privacy. It is
imperative that we think about the implications of new technologies while
they are being developed."
Moderator presents the speakers with question #83
from Anivil:
Is there any current legislation to limit the use of this kind of
sneakily gathered information
Stephen Frazier says, "On previous, If we don't
think about those implications, you can rest assured that those people who
are making those technologies up certainly have ..."
Deirdre Mulligan says, "There are a number of bills
recently introduced in Congress dealing with various aspects of information
privacy."
Stephen Frazier says, "Back to the CallerID,
which gets marketed to us as consumers to screen our calls, it gets
marketed to businesses to capture who calls with casual inquiries. It enables those
businesses to keep a database of all of those calls with varying levels of
detail depending on which CallerID package you want to pay for. And when you hear that, you
know why this was really invented."
Stephen Frazier says, "DONE"
Deirdre Mulligan says, "Caller Id and other technologies
that capture phone information raise privacy concerns. It is important to
recognize that there are privacy interests on both sides of the
equation. When you are dealing with private
paries, there are many people interested in limiting intrusions into the
home, the problem was that when implemented the recipients' privacy was valued, but the
callers wasn't. Often times the privacy implications of a technology
aren't well thought out at the front end. This is a classic example. done"
Stephen Frazier says, "The corporations buying
those systems can also buy a system that cloaks *them* ... that's not a
feature available to me."
Moderator presents the speakers with question #85
from Fortune_sysop:
I did not understand Stephen's consternation about learning his employer
can access his e-mail, even if it has been "deleted". I always understood
I checked my privacy rights to e-mail when I use my employer's computer.
Stephen Frazier says, "That's right, I was
surprised at my co-workers consternation, more than my own. ..."
Deirdre Mulligan says, "In general you are correct. And
some employers will tell you this. However, what is particularly troubling
is that many employees have been given little if any notice that email and
voice mail are not confidential..."
Stephen Frazier says, "You are absolutely correct
in your understanding of the attitude and understanding of the technology.
Because I had my own laptop which I paid for, my coworkers thought I was immune of the
privacy concerns that my company was warning us about. ... My coworkers
didn't realize that every time I use that privately owned
laptop as a workstation for the company mainframe there's nothing private
about it anymore."
Stephen Frazier says, "Deirdre is so right.
That's the heart of this. The reason why CNN executives got so specific in
explaining the company's rights is that they had several episodes where
they confronted emplotyees with harmful information gleaned from their
phones. And the employees exploded in rage that their voicemail on the
telephone had been monitored."
Stephen Frazier says, "So the executives realized
that the employees weren't paying attention to who has the rights. DONE
(Sorry to skip... you first next time)"
Moderator presents the speakers with question #95
from Anivil:
Deirdre, what does your organization do viz. protecting privacy?
Deirdre Mulligan says, "The Center for Democracy and
Technology works on public policy issues effecting privacy and free speech
in the online world. We work with policy makers, other
consumer and privacy organizations, and industry in an attempt to develop
solutions for this new medium. Currently we are working with a
diverse coalition in an effort to develop a language for privacy on the
Internet."
Deirdre Mulligan says, "done"
Stephen Frazier says, "Did the Center for
Democracy and Technology provide any help with state of Georgia lawmakers
during their big debate last summer that resulted in the passage of a
privacy act?"
Deirdre Mulligan says, "No, we weren't involved in that
effort. We focus primarily on federal policy. Efforts under consideration
by Congress include encryption policy, information privacy and health
privacy. done"
Moderator presents the speakers with question #90
from Don_brown:
Isn't the answer to follow Will Rodger's advice, Live your life so you
wouldn't be afraid to sell your parrot to the town gossip?
Deirdre Mulligan says, "Unfortunately this is often the
predicament people are left in. Too often the cost of participating in
society -- be it gaining a drivers license or accessing health care --
result in an extreme loss of control over personal information. done"
Stephen Frazier says, "I wish I'd known that line
when we were writing the script! Here's a line from Alan DeNiro of
CNN:
"Don't say anything on a CNN phone or write anything on a CNN computer
you wouldn't want read back to your mother.""
Moderator presents the speakers with question
#100 from Fortune_sysop:
Diedre, do you think that online anonymity should be guaranteed by law?
Or at the least that anonymous e-mail repeaters should have their records
immune from court search and seizure?
Deirdre Mulligan says, "Anonymity is an extremely
important component of privacy. It is a deeply held value that the Supreme
Court has consistently reaffirmed. Our ability to engage in anonymous
activites is diminishing -- and I believe this will come at a real cost to
First Amendment freedoms. It is important that people be able to engage in
activities anonymously -- and we must ensure that operating online does not
force all activities into the public light."
Stephen Frazier says, "I can remember in my own
research that it was a court as far back as the Frankfurter court and even
Oliver Wendell Holmes writing about privacy. What were the technologies
then that would have excited those legal debates?"
Moderator presents the speakers with question
#105 from Don_brown:
Should privacy always be protected? I've received some pretty vile email
from anonymous e-mail repeaters who might not have done it if they'd had to
take responsibility for them.
Deirdre Mulligan says, "As a society we have made some
conscious decisions about when an individual's privacy should be invaded
for some overriding purpose -- mandatory reporting of child abuse is an
example. Unfortunately, many times
decisions to override important individual privacy interests are made
without adequate consideration of the importance of privacy. done"
Stephen Frazier says, "Inn part, because most of
us don't give voice to our concern, because we don't realize to what
extent our privacy could be invaded. We just don't know. So thank
goodness for Deirdre and Evan and institutions like theirs. DONE"
Moderator presents the speakers with question
#106 from Ctwctw1:
I've recently been involved in two job interviews with written
applications in which the employer seeks the right to access your credit
card data, legal information, and drivers license information. It all
sounded very invasive, . . . would I sign away the right for the employer
to get this data forever, or for a limited time? This all seems to be some
new idea employers are hot to pursue, 'cause the last time I was playing
the job market, I saw none of this!
Deirdre Mulligan says, "Once you release information it is
difficult to control how it is used and disclosed. You've asked two
important questions that people should ask whenever they give someone
permission to access personal information -- for how long? and for what
purpose. Its particularly important when
dealing with information that could be used against you in another context.
I would encourage you to question the need for the information and set a
limit on the period you grant access. done."
Stephen Frazier says, "That echoes what we kept
seeing in our research, that potential employers were asking for much more
information than was necessary. Why would they need your driving record
unless they were hiring you to drive?"
Stephen Frazier says, "Here's the crunch, Deirdre,
we get asked those questions at vulnerable moments -- when we need the job
for instance -- and if we look too resistant we kill our chances at the
job. It puts an unfair burden on us. DONE"
Deirdre Mulligan says, "Your driving record may contain
information beyond what is on your drivers license -- for example tickets.
What were they for? What might it reveal? done"
Moderator presents the speakers with question
#107 from Marcusbales:
How do you respond to the notion that honest and righteous people have
nothing to fear from an invasion of privacy?
Deirdre Mulligan says, "Privacy is a deeply held value --
one that each of us cherishes. It incorporates 2 important concepts -- the
right to be let alone -- and the right to step forward and participate
without giving up all control over the personal information we reveal. Privacy is not just about secrecy,
it is about creating an environment that encourages participation,
encourages people to interact, seek out important services and information
without losing the ability to develop their own independent identity.
done."
Stephen Frazier says, "They have harassment to
fear. Annoyance, pests. Before the TV show was over, people were calling me
at my home. That's inappropriate by my lights. DONE"
Moderator presents the speakers with question
#112 from Fortune_sysop:
Deirdre, it seems to me that we have more right to privacy now than we
once had. For example, it is now illegal for government agencies to tap
phone calls between two unwilling American citizens without a court order.
Deirdre Mulligan says, "The history of privacy has been
one of two steps back and one step forward. We have a federal statute that
limits law enforcement access to phone calls because the Supreme Court held
that people had no right to privacy in that information. Because technology creates records
-- whether it be your email, the swipe card you use to get in and out of
your building -- there is more and more information about each of us being collected and stored by
third-parties. The Supreme Court has had a very narrow view of your
privacy expectations in information held by third parties. This leaves a lot
of sensitive information about your activities, communications and thoughts
vulnerable, except in the instances where the
Congress has stepped in to create a statutory right to privacy."
Stephen Frazier says, "The example of wiretaps is
a good one. For how long were our phones tapped before we awakened to the
need for restrictions on law enforcement agencies? DONE"
Moderator presents the speakers with question
#114 from Taxmeless:
I am involved greatly in direct marketing and I see your story as being
slanted. What gives you the idea that information collected by direct
marketers is information that is dangerous to the general public as it
related to privacy and security?
Deirdre Mulligan says, "Traditionally information gathered
by the private sector has raised far less privacy concerns that information
collected by the government. However, that has begun to shift.
Partially due to the fact that the government is increasingly making use of
information collected by the private sector. In thinking about personal
information within the commercial realm, it is important that individuals
understand that individuals be able to make choices about the flow of
personal information -- for this to happen marketers and others who collect
information have to be up front about the data collection..."
Deirdre Mulligan says, "This is particularly so in an
online environment where much of the data being collected is navigational
information which the individual is not providing in an affirmative
fashion. Education is really important. done."
Stephen Frazier says, "I think it's vulnerable to
abuse. If someone asks me for information, I naturally presume he's going
to use that information for one purpose. If he as a direct marketer rents
his list of names, he may put it to some use I never imagined. You may say
you are serving me better, I say I'm uncomfortable with that data floating
out to people I don't know whose characters I can't judge."
Deirdre Mulligan says, "There are a number of
organizations working on privacy issues you can get to many of them from
our web page -- http://www.cdt.org -- visit them and educate yourselves and
others -- and make your voice heard."
Deirdre Mulligan says, "Thanks."
Stephen Frazier says, "There are Paul Reveres out
there -- organizations like Deirdre Mulligan's, newsletters like Evan Hendricks's
are another, it is Privacy Times and it's at 202.829.3660. Thanks to
everyone who joined us."
Moderator says, "We're close to finishing this
evening's chat about privacy and freedom of information. For a transcript
of this evening's chat, visit TIME.COM tomorrow. Thanks for coming."
