Re: [iwar] [fc:The.Intrusion.Explosion]

From: e.r. (fastflyer28@yahoo.com)
Date: 2002-05-04 23:07:17


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4641-1020578838-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 04 May 2002 23:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10473 invoked by uid 510); 5 May 2002 06:07:39 -0000
Received: from n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.79) by all.net with SMTP; 5 May 2002 06:07:39 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4641-1020578838-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.67.199] by n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 May 2002 06:07:18 -0000
X-Sender: fastflyer28@yahoo.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 5 May 2002 06:07:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 80152 invoked from network); 5 May 2002 06:07:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 May 2002 06:07:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO web14507.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.224.70) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 May 2002 06:07:17 -0000
Message-ID: <20020505060717.71037.qmail@web14507.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [68.100.118.69] by web14507.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 04 May 2002 23:07:17 PDT
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <200205040509.g4459Bw05815@red.all.net>
From: "e.r." <fastflyer28@yahoo.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fastflyer28
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 23:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [iwar] [fc:The.Intrusion.Explosion]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


 Greetings all:
 if you physical intrusion is nasty,try the net. You can order a free trial of Guard-IE, that tracks your cookies and  web surfing.It really gave me the frights to know that the MAJORITY of web sites I have gone to in the last 48 hours alone, leave you bugs with IE under the site, over or embedded.  While I knew it was bad and had tried to be a careful surfer, your net habits are clearly a matter of big money and even very academically oriented site keeps track of your every move.  No on every said the net was free of such menaces, but if -as fred and many other folks out there in the forensic end of this matter know- it has gotten to be a dangerous matter and your very privacy is at stake.  Anonomisers are not without fault for the right price. Any  entrapenure that wants to pop-up in your face will find a way.  It is turning the net into Dodge City. The really sad part of this is it is decreasing the net's value.
NOTE- I have met Bill Saphire of the NYTIMES andboth his and and limited net use fail to find the real story. 
Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> wrote: May 2, 2002
The Intrusion Explosion
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

E-mail: safire@nytimes.com

WASHINGTON ‹ Forget all about old-fashioned consumer surveys or even focus
groups. The hot new technique in exploring your buying decision is called
"observational research" or "retail ethnography." This buying-spying uses
hidden surveillance cameras, two-way mirrors and microphones concealed under
counters.

Stephanie Simon reports on the front page of The Los Angeles Times that
cutting-edge market researchers are now zooming in on faces and fingers as
customers ponder a decision to buy a product. Though a subtle sign at the
entrance says the experimental store is "in test mode" and "your opinion
counts," most people are unaware that their every facial tic is recorded and
analyzed.

All perfectly legal in today's Intrusion Explosion. Coming soon in a
bookstore, video store or newsstand near you: a close-up recording of your
examination of a girlie magazine or lusty movie, a left-wing weekly or a
right-wing book. Your reactions go in the marketers' dossier on you,
available for a fee to advertisers, telemarketers or political opposition
researchers.

Back in the presidential campaign of 2000, I asked candidate George W. Bush
a specific question: On the issue of consumer privacy, did he favor "opt-in"
or "opt-out"? He had been well briefed on the terminology: "Opt-in" places
the burden of obtaining the consumer's consent on the seller of goods and
services. "Opt-out" puts the onus on the customer, or medical patient or
borrower, to demand that no record of the purchase, prescription, mortgage
or academic record be sold or revealed.

Merchants and professional snoops much prefer "opt-out" because most people
don't understand the fine print or can't be bothered to defend their
privacy. To my delight, candidate Bush took a position that was foursquare
on the side of the customer and patient: "I'm for opt-in," he said firmly,
repeating the word "consent," promising all us libertarians help against the
intruders.

That was then. This year, with White House approval, his health and human
services secretary, Tommy Thompson, did exactly the opposite. He eliminated
the mild privacy rules put in place by Bill Clinton's Donna Shalala to
require hospitals to get the written consent of patients before disclosing
sensitive medical data to insurers, drug firms or others. The Boston Globe
reported Thompson's spokesman telling patients scornfully, "You never did
have federal privacy rights."

Bush's retreat was a triumph for the intrusion lobby. Hospital
administrators teamed up with the Financial Services Coordinating Council ‹
a pressure group put together by bankers, insurance agents and stockbrokers
‹ all of whom found the need to get consumer consent "cumbersome." When the
G.O.P. senator Bill Frist, M.D., went along with the lobby's
"modifications," Bush's man caved. (Who's on Frist?)

However, this stirred pro-privacy forces in Congress that had been quiescent
after last year's security scare. In the House, "Mr. Privacy," Georgia's
conservative Bob Barr, joined New York's liberal Jerry Nadler on a bill to
require regulators to include a "privacy impact statement" on all proposals.
Adam Clymer of The New York Times noted that bill would allow judicial
review of sweeping anti-privacy regulations.

What about Internet privacy? The Commerce chairman, Fritz Hollings, a
Democrat, backed by the Republican Ted Stevens, brought up a bill that
infuriates that part of the intrusion lobby: Hollings would require "opt-in"
consent of Web users before any disclosure of their intimate data about
health, finances and religious and political beliefs. To get the
presidential candidate John Kerry aboard, Hollings had to weaken his bill to
allow disclosure of all other internet purchasing data without affirmative
consumer consent.

Now that the issue is rejoined, privacy advocates should create a simple
"privacy index" so voters can see which politicians are on their side and
which don't care. This will reveal some surprises: for example, Senator John
McCain is an opt-outer, weak on the privacy issue.

We should also expose the intrusion lobby as it yells Yahoo! to the sale of
private data without consent. Who contributes to the intrusion lobby's fund
‹ and which legislators in Washington and in state capitals get its largess?

Finally, libertarians of left and right should hold President Bush to his
pledge to require merchants to ask the consumer's consent. How would he like
to have "observational research" in the Oval Office? 


------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 




---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tied to your PC? Cut Loose and
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mobile
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QBCcSD/o1CEAA/sXBHAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2003-08-24 02:46:32 PDT