[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       politech
Subject:    FC: New York attorney general will review ACLU's bulk email
From:       Declan McCullagh <declan () well ! com>
Date:       2003-02-26 15:04:41
[Download RAW message or body]

Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/p-04498.html

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2355-2003Feb25.html

    By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, February 26, 2003; Page E02

    [...] The gaffe, on Monday afternoon, came just
    weeks after the group was chided by New York State Attorney General
    Eliot L. Spitzer for exposing the names, phone numbers and other
    details of about 91 people who bought merchandise in 2001 from an ACLU
    site online. The group apologized, paid a $10,000 fine and agreed to
    implement changes to prevent similar mishaps....
    Spitzer's office said it will review the new case. "This incident is
    disturbing in light of the recent enforcement action," spokesman Paul
    Larrabee said yesterday.

    [...]

---

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:34:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Shane Ham <alvernon90@yahoo.com>
Subject: ACLU spam
To: declan@well.com

You should also mention that the ACLU privacy policy
notes their (indirect) affiliation with CAUCE.  And as
a recipient/victim, I can tell you that the list
included some prominent anti-spam crusaders were also
recipients.

Why don't they come out and admit their guilt, offer
restitution to the victims (most of whom would
probably decline) and promise to upgrade their
procedures?  Is it because weasel words are the first
refuge of a lawyer-heavy organization?

--Shane Ham
Progressive Policy Institute
sham@dlcppi.org

---

From: "Meredith Dixon" <dixonm@pobox.com>
To: ewhitfield@aclu.org
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:50:29 -0500
Subject: Re: FC: ACLU replies to Politech, says exposed email was not to 
members
CC: declan@well.org

 >We created the database from scratch, and we got the emails by calling 
around
 >to these organizations and asking for them, as anyone could do.

In other words, the ACLU was spamming.  Wonderful.  An excuse that is worse
than the crime.

 >We hope that those who share our concerns about the government's assault on
 >our liberties will continue to subscribe to Safe and Free News and will
 >continue their own advocacy on these important issues.

I share your concerns about the government's assault on our liberties.  I also
have significant concerns, which you apparently do not share, about the 
sending
of unsolicited e-mail.  If you had sent me a copy of Safe and Free News,
I would have trashed it unread on principle, and most probably flamed you into
the bargain.  I neither associate with spammers, nor tolerate those who spam.

-- 
Meredith Dixon <dixonm@pobox.com>
Check out *Raven Days*: http://www.ravendays.org
For victims and survivors of bullying.
And for those who want to help.

---

Subject: Re: FC: Politech members reply: ACLU's bulk mail was spam
To: declan@well.com
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.10  March 22, 2002
Message-ID: 
<OF40D61E37.4D2F654E-ON85256CD8.004DBE62-85256CD8.004E2048@corp.checkfree.com>
From: JTomaszewski@checkfree.com
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:14:06 -0500


Declan,

Along with the spam issue, and the Eli Lily-type mistake of the ACLU, I
wonder if anyone remembers that the ACLU recently settled a privacy
complaint with New York State for actions taken last year. One of the
elements of the settlement is:

  "The settlement agreement requires the New York City-based ACLU to 
strengthen its internal standards relating to
  privacy protection, training, and monitoring. The organization will 
undergo annual, independent compliance reviews
  over the next five years and make the findings of those reviews available 
to the Attorney General's office."
                                                                               I 
wonder what the effect of this latest e-mail gaffe is going to be on the
settlement?

John P. Tomaszewski, Esq.
Chief Privacy Officer
JTomaszewski@checkfree.com
Phone: 678-375-1265
Cell: 678-360-0916
Pager: 888-478-4408
Fax: 678-375-1430

The #1 Way to Pay Online
http://www.checkfree.com/paybillsonline

---

From: "Jim Harper - Privacilla.org" <jim.harper@privacilla.org>
To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan@well.com>
Cc: <EWHITFIELD@aclu.org>
Subject: RE: ACLU replies to Politech, says exposed email was not to members
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:44:05 -0500

Declan:

I did assume that I was sent the e-mail because I have subscribed to other
ACLU lists.  My assumption was inaccurate.  However the list was generated,
though, it easily could, and did, create the impression that recipients were
ACLU-friendly.  I am . . . much of the time.

This converts it from a privacy tempest-in-a-teapot to a spam
tempest-in-a-teapot.  To be clear, no one asked me to be on such a list.  I
like to be informed, so I don't mind ACLU folks assuming I would want the
e-mail.  (That kind of assumption is dangerous given the terrain in the spam
debate, no?  I may be unable to sleep grappling with the idea that an
organization could compile a list of people that overlaps with subscribers
to its lists, then spam the 'offline'/scraped/address-book list and not
subject it to the organization's privacy policy.)

I'm satisfied with the apology/explanation. Putting all the recipients in
the "To:" line was an ordinary mistake, and not that big a deal, but for the
ACLU's imperiousness when Eli Lilly did the same thing (from the perspective
of recipients).

I'm happy to hear about the ACLU's "Safe and Free" effort and encourage
people to support it (in general). Government encroachments are the most
significant threat to both civil liberties and privacy.  This is the ACLU's
strength, not commercial privacy issues such as those raised in Eli Lilly.

Jim Harper
Editor
Privacilla.org

---

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:48:55 -0800
From: Brad Templeton <brad@templetons.com>
To: "Jim Harper - Privacilla.org" <jim.harper@privacilla.org>
Cc: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan@well.com>, EWHITFIELD@aclu.org
Subject: Re: ACLU replies to Politech, says exposed email was not to members
Message-ID: <20030225014855.GR2858@main.templetons.com>

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 08:44:05PM -0500, Jim Harper - Privacilla.org wrote:
 > Declan:
 >
 > e-mail.  (That kind of assumption is dangerous given the terrain in the spam
 > debate, no?  I may be unable to sleep grappling with the idea that an
 > organization could compile a list of people that overlaps with subscribers
 > to its lists, then spam the 'offline'/scraped/address-book list and not
 > subject it to the organization's privacy policy.)
 >

Alas, that's the trouble.  There's no way to let the other party
decide if you "might be interested" that doesn't open a floodgate
when you force yourself to apply it consistently.

Aren't all the people who post to the newsgroup comp.sys.ibm.pc
interested in new PC related products?  Sure seems like they might
be.

I've worked long and hard on my definition of spam, tried to make it
as narrow as I could (in fact most of the anti-spam community seems
to think it's too narrow) but it's hard to see how you can include
implied transitive permission and make it work.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]