|  | <<  
             ^ 
              >> 
            
              | Date: 2002-05-04 
 
 US: Safire ueber die Intruders-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.-
 
 William Safire, Starkolumnist der New York Times ist seit Jahrzehnten für
 stock/reaktionäre Thesen und Posen bekannt: hervorragend verfasste
 Haudrauf/prosa zu Zeiten des kalten Kriegs und dem Feldzug gegen den Irak
 an prominenter Stelle in der NYT, Attacken gegen die Europäer und die EU
 per se samt Lob & Hudel für die "American Virtues" - die Tugenden
 Amerikas. Zu denen gehört  nun einmal auch das Recht des
 In/ruhe/gelassen/werdens weshalb Safire gegen die "Privacy Intruders" aus
 dem Bereich, wo Marketing am aggressivsten ist, zu Felde zieht: polemisch
 und parteiisch wie immer, schneidig & mit Stil.
 
 -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-  -.-. --.-
 The Intrusion Explosion
 WILLIAM SAFIRE
 
 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?
 
 
 -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.-
 q/depesche is powered by
 http://www.ewave.at
 
 subscribe/unsubscribe
 http://www.quintessenz.at/q/depesche/
 - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.-
 edited by
 published on: 2002-05-04
 comments to office@quintessenz.at
 subscribe Newsletter
 - -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.-
 <<  
                   ^ 
                    >>
 |  |  |  |