wseltzer:	Welcome to the Privacy in Cyberspace realtime chat.
	This week, we are joined by David Sobel,
	Welcome, again.
anabhan:	Professor Miller is sick today, so you get, well, me (Antoun Nabhan), and the rest of the cast of Teaching Fellows.
wseltzer:	As I was saying before our software gave out on us,\
anabhan:	Hope that's okay. :-)
wseltzer:	we are joined this evening by David Sobel, Legal Counsel to EPIC,
	the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
DSobel:	Good evening. Nice to be here.
anabhan:	David, can you explain to the group what EPIC's mission is?
DSobel:	We look at emerging privacy and civil liberties ...
	on the Internet. It's a busy area lately!
anabhan:	Look at them how?
	What stance do you usually take? And what kinds of activities do you personally engage in?
DSobel:	We are interested in the activities of both gov't ...
	dustry. I guess you could call us a "citizen and ...
	mer watchdog group".
	That was "consumer".
	As for our stance, we believe that the user ...
	needs to be better represented in the policy process. ...
	We are very strongly in favor of user control of ...
	his or her personal info. And also very strongly in favor ...
	of free speech online. We were plaintiffs and counsel ...
DSobel:	in the CDA litigation and now in the challenge to COPA.
anabhan:	This week's topic was the intersection of free speech issues and privacy issues. You sound like a privacy "absolutist" ...
	...but also a civil libertarian. Am I characterizing that right?
DSobel:	Yes. I wear several hats, all of which I think are compatible. ...
anabhan:	So how would you have come out (or did come out - I think EPIC submitted a brief?)...
DSobel:	Privacy advocate, First Amend. absolutist and proponent of ...
anabhan:	on the abortion-doctor hitlist case?
DSobel:	freedom of information. There's really no contradiction there.
	THe abortion case ...
	it raised some difficult issues, of course. ...
anabhan:	That presents at least the *appearance* of tension between the values, yes?
DSobel:	I was not convinced that there were "true threats" involved ...
	but I can accept that a jury might find otherwise. ...
	I think such cases are very fact-specific.
	Appearance ...
anabhan:	You mean you aren't sure that the type of speech in which that web site engaged was truly threatening to the doctors?
DSobel:	of tensions, yes. But they can be resolved ...
	Correct. ...
	Or I should say, "intended to threaten."
anabhan:	But that site did disseminate information about the doctors that they would not the public to have.
	Which would seem to invade their privacy. Are you saying that such an invasion is not problematic?
DSobel:	Yes, but that can be said of "respectable" newspapers. ...
	I think you need more than info that someone might find "threatening."
anabhan:	Okay, we have some questions from the participants...
Dennis asks:	Doesn't that case come close to saying that if someone feels threatened, then a threat existed?
DSobel:	Well, the "atmosphere" of clinic violence played a big part ...
	in creating the "threat," which is why I say the cases are fact-specific.
anabhan:	But at least one "threat" was borne out by that site - the threat of invasion of privacy.
	What claim would you say the doctors had, or should have, on that score?
DSobel:	Well, there's not a great deal of legal protection on that front ...
anabhan:	That's the "is" - what about the "ought"?
DSobel:	I would like to see more, consistent with 1st Amendment rights, ...
	but it's a very delicate balance. By the way, there ...
	are other contexts where these interests are balanced. In FOIA cases, for instance.
Dennis asks:	David, how would you characterize the Nuremberg site? Was it a newspaper? An ad? A newsletter perhaps?
Dennis asks:	Isn't there a long tradition of permitting newspapers to state the addresses of figures mentioned in news stories here? Hence the question, what was the Nuremberg site?
anabhan:	I think we're struggling with the question of *how* to strike that delicate balance.
DSobel:	That's the difficulty. There can be legitimate reasons for publishing addresses ...
	I mentioned the FOIA context, and there was a lot of ...
	controversy over the release of addresses held by gov't agencies ...
	The resolution is basically that the addresses need to say something ...
	significant about the functions of the agency. If not, no release.
anabhan:	So how does that work in a purely private context?
	Where the information about an individual doesn't shed light on the function of public agency, but on the workings of a private entity.
	for instance, an abortion clinic?
DSobel:	I think you still need to balance. Is the info merely gratuitous, ...
	or does it further some 1st Amend. interest? ...
aldon asks:	It seems as if one of the issues being danced around is what is a 'public figure'? This was part of this weeks hypothetical. I am not sure I know what this means. Are Doctors who perform abortions by the nature of what they do in this political climate 'public figures'? What really is a 'public figure'?
DSobel:	But there's no easy answer. How do you distinguish between addresses ...
	released to encourage pickets at Doctors' homes ...
	and those released to facilitate violent attacks???
anabhan:	Well, whose information is it?
DSobel:	Public figure ...
anabhan:	As Aldon has pointed out, the law recognizes an exception, a different balancing, when the subject is a public servant.
DSobel:	is a relative term. I can see the argument for finding ...
	a women's clinic doctor to be a "public figure" for purposes of the abortion debate.
	Yes, the balance is different.
anabhan:	So are you a "public figure" for the purposes of the privacy debate
	?
DSobel:	Probably :-(.
anabhan:	And would you be comfortable if someone, say the Save The Children from Porn site, put
	your name up on a list of "those who obstruct child protection laws"?
aldon asks:	So are you saying the publicness of privateness of information is a function of why it is released, or being sought?
DSobel:	I saw that coming! I wouldn't like it, but it's probably the price of engaging in the debate.
anabhan:	Doesn't that discourage people from engaging in the debate?
Dennis asks:	In my New England town, the local paper prints the weekly police log -- which frequently embarrasses people. Perhaps one is a public figure by virtue of being mentioned in a call too?
anabhan:	Whatever debbate that is? It seems counter to the value implicit in the First Amendment.
DSobel:	Possibly, but look at political candidates these days!
anabhan:	Hmmm...that observation could go either way. What *about* political candidates?
DSobel:	The New England paper ...
	probably would argue that those names reflect what the gov't is doing ...
	You as a citizen have a right to know that.
aldon asks:	From here, we can get off to the Meghan's law issues. Does (or should) being a convicted sex offender make you a 'public figure'?
DSobel:	No, I don't think so. I have a real problem with such laws. ...
anabhan:	So how are such laws different from the police blotter or the hypothetical "threat to children" list?
DSobel:	I think it's a civil liberties issue -- shouldn't completion of a sentence mean that ...
	the state can not take further punitive actions?
	Police blotter ...
	that raises the issue of whether a disclosure takes on a new character ...
	when it's no longer on micrfiche ...
Dennis asks:	But David, Meghan's law acts on convicted felons, while the police blotter may involve innocent or uninvolved citizens.
aldon asks:	So, can you help us come up with ideas of the appropriate boundaries of who should or shouldn't be considered a public figure? How do you balance the legitimate need to know what the gov't is doing, or experts in certain fields are doing with the needs of privacy?
DSobel:	I would draw the line at purely commercial uses of personal info ...
	The worst problem is not newspapers, or websites, ...
	but info brokers who sell data like a commodity. ...
	I think the law can address those activities w/o ist Amend. problems.
anabhan:	So you don't see a problem with, say, the recent government practice of linking driving records with alimony payments?
	And you don't see a problem with Matt Drudge saying that Sidney Blumenthal beats his wife?
DSobel:	I do! Okay, here's my basic take: The individual should have access ...
	to lots of info on gov't activities, but the gov't should be ...
	strictly limited in info it can collect on individuals.
	So I generally oppose gov't database expansion.
anabhan:	And then private individuals can gather as much information as they want about each other, so long as nobody does it for money?
DSobel:	Unfortunately, it's been that way for centuries!
	Drudge ...
anabhan:	I can tap your phone to find out what EPIC's next amicus brief is going to say, so long as no client is paying me!
DSobel:	I believe Blumenthal should have recourse ...
	depending upon what Drudge knew or should have known.
	Phone-tapping is illegal!
Dennis asks:	The Direct Marketing Assn lately is more upset with government agencies seeking commercial data for a government purpose.
DSobel:	"Expectation of privacy."
	Yes ...
anabhan:	Dennis poses an interesting issue. You can resist expansion of gov't DBs, but the government can
	still subpoena private records, as Starr did with Monica's Barnes & Nobles records.
DSobel:	The issues are starting to converge when gov't becomes ...
	a consumer of private DBs.
	We need to watch private DBs, among other reasons, because they are available to gov't.
anabhan:	How does that statement square with your earlier one...
	that private citizens have always been able to "spy" on one another with impunity...
	; you seemed to not want legislation against that, at least blanket legislation.
	(as an aside, we have about 10 minutes left here....)
DSobel:	You asked about non-commercial "spying." The DB vendors have a significant $$ interest in the info they collect!
Dennis asks:	David, do you feel that the ECPA could use some modification to extend protection to more private data sources?
DSobel:	We have many laws that prohibit an act if it's commercial, but not otherwise. ...
	Consensual sex, for instance!
anabhan:	And you find non-commercial activity non-problematic?
	Even if it intrudes upon individuals in the same way as an equivalent commerical or governmental data-gathering activity?
DSobel:	It can be problemmatic, but I'm not sure how I'd write that law.
anabhan:	If you're okay with laws against consensual sex, you must live in VA and not MD!
DSobel:	Actually, I live in DC, where Congress runs things!
anabhan:	Even worse! :-)
	Seriously, let's wrap up with this question....
Donna asks:	ask/Mr. Sobel, do you find yourself having to evangalize the importance of online privacy? Does the general public get how much easier it is to gather information in this space?
anabhan:	I think that's a nice, broad "what is this internet thing, anyway" kind of question...
	Or stated in another way, why do work for EPIC and not simply the ACLU?
DSobel:	I think most people "get it," which is why online privacy is such a big issue ...
	The average user is way ahead of most industry & gov't people on this.
	I like the ACLU a lot. :-)
wseltzer:	So do we!
DSobel:	Card-carrying???!
anabhan:	I don't know that Wendy speaks for all of us...I've seen Anne Beeson waffling lately. :-)
	Well, that about wraps it up...
	David, thank you for coming. I'm sure we'll see you again, in person.
DSobel:	Ah, I was just getting the hang of this.
Dennis asks:	Thanks, David. EPIC is terrific!
anabhan:	Yeah, it's not the easiest medium to work with. You're welcome to participate next week, as well!
DSobel:	Thanks, so is the Berkman Center! The audience is now groaning ...
anabhan:	Ah...I'ts "Love-in in Cyberspace" with no professor at all!
DSobel:	What the topic next week?
jbernike asks:	moan...groan
anabhan:	Workplace privacy - can you spy on your employees, etc.
DSobel:	That's not a strong suit of mine -- the ACLU is better!
	But let's talk porn and filters sometime!
anabhan:	Hmmm...maybe we can get Anne to chat on that.
	We already covered that topic with Joe Reagle, but I'd love to have you speak on that for the next iteration of "Privacy in Cyberspace."
DSobel:	Goodnight, thanks for having me.
anabhan:	Goodnight! Thanks again.
wseltzer:	Thanks again!
DSobel:	Anytime.
anabhan:	I'm going to sign off now; the other TFs will be lingering in Privacy1 for those who are interested in after-chat chat.
	G'night.
	exit