Privacy Policy

Your Privacy:

Privacy Policies (as well as End User License Agreements [EULA's] and Terms of Service [TOS]) are important things to look for whenever you visit a web site or install new software. I'm a believer in clear, succinct, straightforward Privacy Policies.

To that end, you should know that I do not and will never...

Bottom line: your identity as well as your activities on this web site (including the locations from which you arrive and the places to which you link at this web site) are your business, not mine.

If you contact me via email with questions or issues regarding either this site or the information you find on it, there is always the chance that I will need to get advice from a third party (e.g., on a newsgroup) in order to address your questions and concerns. In such cases I will not disclose any identifying information about you (though I may quote or summarize parts of your email).

Obviously, I cannot speak for The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) on whose servers this web site is located (nor does The University of Illinois speak for me). Although I am an employee of UIUC, this web site is independently administered by me. Consequently, I do not have access to any routine connection and usage statistics or information that may be gleaned by UIUC servers and will not ever seek to acquire such information from UIUC. UIUC keeps a copy of its "Computing and Networking Policies" online:

http://www.uiuc.edu/unit/ccnc/uiucnet.html.

If do you experience or detect any unseemly activity that you can verifiably attribute to your visit to this web site, I would be most interested in hearing about it. You can email me at:

eburger68@yahoo.com

That Having Been Said...

I must tell you that I am of the opinion that the use of Privacy Policies can only go so far in protecting your privacy online. I am equally skeptical of the "seal" programs that have been erected around the use of Privacy Policies (e.g., TRUSTe, or BBBOnline , or NetTrust, or WebTrust). Privacy Polices and "seal" programs are not, as some would have you believe, the be-all-and-end-all of online privacy. Nor can the use of Privacy Policies and "seals" by private companies and organizations serve as evidence that the "free market" is capable of protecting the privacy of "netizens" independent of sound national legislation.

Privacy Policies and "seal" programs are at the heart of the case that opponents of privacy legislation make for industry "self-regulation." The problem with "self-regulation." is, of course, the very basic conflict of interest which lies at the heart of such arrangements: there is simply too much money to be made from the exploitation of personal data for the industry to be entrusted with the protection of the privacy of online users. Personal data translates quite directly into revenue.

It should come as no surprise, then, to learn that, despite several years worth of efforts on the part of private industry to cobble together a regime of "self-regulation," the effort has been a massive failure. Not only does the corporate appetite for personal data appear to be increasing, but the few (and weak) self-regulatory policies which have been propagated by and within the industry are not even widely or consistently followed (see EPIC and Junkbusters for more information on the outright failure of "self-regulation").

Those companies and organizations which maintain that your privacy is safe in private hands are manifestly NOT interested at all in protecting your privacy (see this "rogues gallery" or "web of shame" for a list of names, which are often gallingly deceptive). And their "Privacy Policies" ought to tell you as much. What most of them boil down to is this:

Whatever else such policies might be, they cannot be called, properly speaking, "Privacy Policies"; they would be more accurately labeled "Exploitation Policies." Such policies, even when accompanied by third party "seals," are next to worthless as privacy guarantees. And they certainly aren't adequate substitutes for substantive privacy protections written into law and enforced by strong civil and criminal sanctions.

Excuses, Excuses...

Opponents of sound privacy legislation offer any number of excuses and reasons for the unnecessity and inadequacy of privacy regulations. These excuses simply do not stand up to critical scrutiny.

You can find a succinct summary of the reasons that their excuses don't hold up at Junkbusters in an article by Jason Catlett (founder and President of Junkbusters) titled, "Six Silly Excuses for Postponing Privacy Rights". I excerpt here the most relevant parts of this prescient piece:

Excuse: "The federal government is a prime violator of privacy, therefore the federal government shouldn't legislate on privacy."

As silly as saying: "The Department of Defense (or the IRS or the FBI) have done a lot of bad things, therefore the government shouldn't be involved in laws about murder or property rights."

Privacy legislation should create rights for individuals, not huge governmental agencies. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 took exactly this approach: give individuals the right to sue for $500 any marketer who calls them at 3am.
Excuse: "Market forces and media scrutiny are enough to force companies to respect privacy. Privacy will become a competitive weapon."

As silly as saying: "Market forces will stop companies polluting. Vigilant reporters will expose and stop abuses by the telemarketing industry. Class action suits and 'seals of approval' make consumer product safety laws unnecessary. Safety will become a competitive weapon in the airline industry. The FAA isn't needed because passengers won't fly on airlines that frequently crash their planes."

Economists use the name "negative externality" for a downside that isn't accounted for in the market, and know it can't fix them alone.
Excuse: "Privacy legislation would be bad for the economy."

As silly as: "The emancipation of slaves would be bad for the economy" or: "Regulation would ruin the consumer credit business."

The credit bureaus tried this line 30 years ago, were overruled, and were proved 100% wrong. It's also as silly as saying that creating an Environmental Protection Agency would ruin the chemical business or the oil business.

On the contrary, surveys now routinely show that the number one factor limiting growth in ecommerce is that people fear they have no recourse if their personal information is misused. Consumer confidence from legally guaranteed rights will grow the market, not shrink it. The $50 limit on credit card liability didn't destroy the industry, it enabled it.
Excuse: "The Internet is international, so there's no point having privacy laws."

As silly as: "The Internet is international, so there's no point having copyright laws (or patent laws or taxation laws)."

Wrong. Companies have sought and obtained strong protection against copyright infringement. Consumers should have strong protection against privacy violation.
Excuse: "Technology is too difficult for the government to understand. They can't get it right."

As silly as: "Technology is too complex to be understood by the US Patent Office, or the Pentagon, or the President, or the people of the United States."

Such technocratic arrogance is deeply offensive to the democratic values of this country. It's also directly contradicted by recent experience: the Federal Trade Commission's 100-page rule for the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 was widely praised by privacy advocates and trade groups alike.
Excuse: "It's already too late to save privacy. There's already so much data about us we have lost all hope of control forever."

As silly as: "The environment is already too damaged by pollution."

The Great Lakes got cleaner this decade. We can get privacy back within a decade or two.

But because of technology, privacy no longer happens as an accidental byproduct of the obscurity of manual records. In the next century we're not going to get much privacy unless we have privacy rights, and that requires a law. We've got to get this right, or we will have let a fundamental liberty lapse. Who says we can't afford privacy? That's like saying we can't afford freedom.

I think we can add yet another excuse that simply cannot withstand critical scrutiny:

Excuse: "Governmental protection of the integrity of consumers' privacy by regulating the collection, use, sale, and exchange of data about individuals would be a violation of free speech."

As silly as saying: "Governmental protection of the integrity of companies' 'intellectual property' by regulating the collection, use, sale, and exchange of their inventions, expressions, brand names, and logos through the granting of patents, copyrights, and trademarks would be a violation of free speech."

We have long recognized the propriety of regulating speech for commercial purposes, and the regulation of the collection, use, sale, and exchange of private consumer data by companies would be little different. Still further, we must wonder at those who would go to the wall to defend the intrusion of governmental regulation into the marketplace when it serves the interests of corporate intellectual property but who somehow bristle at the prospect of the government's intervening to protect the private data of consumers.

Sad to say, when most "free market" advocates say they are strictly opposed to governmental interventions into the marketplace, they are being less than honest. In fact, what they really mean is that they oppose governmental intervention when it doesn't protect the interests of corporations; in those cases in which governmental action does serve to protect corporate interests, they are only too happy to entertain governmental intervention into the marketplace, and they will beat a path to the PTO (Patent & Trade Office) and the United States Congress to secure it.

One Last Excuse...

Lately, hired mouthpieces for Corporate America have been offering one last excuse for scuttling privacy legislation: the existence of applications (such as the ones listed on this web site) that consumers can use to protect their privacy. Lest anyone assume that I, the author of a web site with links to many privacy & security programs, think that the existence of such programs offers sound reasons for avoiding governmental privacy protections, I can assure you that such an assumption would be false.

Let me offer several reasons for rejecting the idea that privacy software can provide an excuse not to establish privacy protections through legislation:

So, please do use this web site to check out and acquire the software and information that you need in order to protect your privacy and security on the Internet. But don't be deceived into thinking that any of the applications you find here represent permanent privacy solutions.

More importantly, though, be conscious of the fact that while you may have had the good fortune to enjoy the time, attention, technological savvy, and (perhaps) money to install and use these software applications, the majority of your friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, relatives, and fellow citizens have not.

Still With Me?

If you are interested in doing more reading about your privacy in an online world, I can offer you several places to start:

Home [frames]        Home [no frames]

© 2000, 2001 Eric L. Howes (eburger68@yahoo.com)