[bestbits] Reform surveillance

[Gene Kimmelman]

Mike, I appreciate your intellectual clarity and segmentation of priorities.  However, as a political matter (particularly for non - US citizens), the companies are practically aiding and abetting the governments until THE COMPANIES reform their practices; I therefore think we need to address both problems, even if one is much more significant as a matter of principle.
On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:19 AM, "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" <mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG> wrote:

> 
> Gene and Mishi, I think it means this for some value of “insists,” but this takes us back to the old debate about “opt-in” versus “opt-out.” This does, in fact, remain a really good debate to have — whether, say, Google should require us to sign in for search, or what the default settings of internet services should be. And so on. But, to me, those remain nuanced discussions. Governments engaging in bulk collection of data is not a nuanced issue, in my view — it centers squarely on whether governments should be in the habit of engaging in such activities, especially without transparency and accountability.
> 
> My priorities are, in this order, (1) get governments out of the unaccountable bulk-collection business, if we can, and (2) have a thorough discussion of what we will allow commercial entities to do with regard to collection of private data. Without saying everyone should share my ordered priorities, I hope it’s clear why I think (1) is the more immediate and urgent problem.
> 
> Also, I think achievability of public policy relies on disentangling the issues rather than on assuming they’re hopelessly entangled. As I noted earlier, I think we could reduce commercial data-gathering a thousandfold and still not address the fundamental problem of what governments want to do. 
> 
> 
> —Mike
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project
> mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446
> Skype mnemonic1026
> Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA
>  
> INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change.
> www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews
> 
> From: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "genekimmelman at gmail.com" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM
> To: "mishi at softwarefreedom.org" <mishi at softwarefreedom.org>, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at internews.org>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance
> 
> If the supply side insists on personal information for targeted advertising,  isn't that entangled with the data governments seek? 
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Mishi Choudhary <mishi at softwarefreedom.org> 
> Date: 12/10/2013 10:52 AM (GMT-05:00) 
> To: "Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG)" <mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG>,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Reform surveillance 
> 
> 
> I agree with Mike that its crucial to reduce the "demand-side" by
> regulating government access but I think the suppliers of data are not
> as informed as they should and could be and the companies have more to
> do at their end.
> 
> 
> On 12/09/2013 07:10 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote:
> > Mishi quotes the Times:
> >
> >
> >> "While the Internet companies fight to maintain authority over their
> >> customers¹ data, their business models depend on collecting the same
> >> information that the spy agencies want, and they have long cooperated
> >> with the government to some extent by handing over data in response to
> >> legal requests.
> > This statement strikes me as disingenuously oversimplistic on the Times¹s
> > part ‹ specifically, in saying that the Internet companies are collecting
> > ³the same information that the spy agencies want.²  Yes, the agencies want
> > the data the companies have, but the companies are gathering data about
> > consumption and viewing patterns, primarily. What the agencies want is
> > traffic and association analysis, and they know they can draw inferences
> > if they have large datasets.
> >
> > This may seem like a subtle distinction, but really it¹s not. It¹s like
> > saying ³I listen to changes in the tone of your voice when you speak to
> > me, and so does the snooping spy who wiretaps your phone, and therefore,
> > implicitly, the spy and I are both culpable somehow.²
> >
> > What I perceive in all this is an attempt to muddy the issue and
> > delegitimize the internet companies¹ sincere efforts to build and/or
> > restore consumer trust. I¹m critical of the companies from time to time
> > (and there are times when I¹m mostly critical of what all the companies
> > are doing), but to me the real analysis here is that governments have
> > opportunistically taken advantage of what the companies have been
> > gathering, most of the time in good faith, from users.
> >
> >> The new principles outlined by the companies contain little information
> >> and few promises about their own practices, which privacy advocates say
> >> contribute to the government¹s desire to tap into the companies¹ data
> >> systems.
> >>
> >> ³The companies are placing their users at risk by collecting and
> >> retaining so much information,² said Marc Rotenberg, president and
> >> executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a
> >> nonprofit research and advocacy organization. ³As long as this much
> >> personal data is collected and kept by these companies, they are always
> >> going to be the target of government collection efforts.²
> > I take Marc at his word, as always, but the fact is that if the companies
> > cut their data gathering in half ‹ or even by a factor of 10 or 100 ‹
> > governments will want to engage in bulk collection and interception. The
> > key approach, in my view, is to try to reduce the demand-side (by
> > regulating what governments can do) rather conflate it with the supply
> > side (the fact that commercial enterprises gather data from actual and
> > potential customers (or for them).
> >
> >
> > ‹Mike, speaking only for myself
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Warm Regards
> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
> Legal Director
> Software Freedom Law Center
> 1995 Broadway Floor 17
> New York, NY-10023
> (tel) 212-461-1912
> (fax) 212-580-0898
> www.softwarefreedom.org
> 
> 
> Executive Director 
> SFLC.IN
> K-9, Second Floor
> Jangpura Extn.
> New Delhi-110014
> (tel) +91-11-43587126 
> (fax) +91-11-24323530
> www.sflc.in
> 
> 
> 
> Click here to report this email as spam.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131210/71017361/attachment.htm>