Slashdot Mirror
Former DoubleClick Exec Named Privacy Czar
tsu doh nimh writes "A former executive for banner ad giant DoubleClick has been selected to be the first ever privacy czar for the Department of Homeland Security, says this Washingtonpost.com story." Just leaves you speechless ....
... or like hiring Kevin Mitnick as a security
consultant - ha ha. Oh wait that's not a joke.
I think the reason why she was chosen is because she knows how to tread the line between legal privacy and illegal privacy. However, this is not what I would want in my government. Because it means, yet again I cannot trust the government....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
My actual worry is that this will be nothing more than an "honorary" posting; something that Ashcroft can point to and say "See? We've got someone working on privacy issues," while carefully not pointing out that she's not allowed to actually do anything about privacy protection. Although, the mention that the "Total Information Awareness" program has been - at least temporarily - derailed has me breathing a little easier.
Of course, if it does come down to a worse-case scenario, I'm going to have to unblock DoubleClick's cookies, or I'll be in big trouble!
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
Yeah, and the exec from microsoft who cleaned up microsofts anti trust catastrophes should lead the departement of justice.
Please, the more data a company like doubleclick is can grab from/about people (legally), the more profitable they are. Do you really think the most important criterium she had to meet was being a privacy evangelist???
She just had to play one on TV.
OTOH, that probably make her a perfect fit for her new job.
>
> Someone anti-industry, like Ralph Nader
Or someone pro-industry like Bruce Schneier, Phil Zimmerman, Eben Moglen, or Lawrence Lessig. (My dream picks: Schneier first, Lessig second.)
I don't care if my Privacy Czar is pro-industry or not. I care if they're pro-privacy or not. Unless "Privacy Czar" one of those backwards honorifics like "Drug Czar", in which case, yeah, someone from Doubleclick is perfect. :-)
This is a perfect example of what's known as "the revolving door" between industry and government. Traditionally, the big problems have been in the defense and heavy construction industries, so many computer people probably don't understand it.
Here's how it goes -- an industry bigwig is selected for a regulatory post because of "expertise" in a certain area. After all, they have all this experience, and have risen to prominence, so they must be well-qualified, no? They work for the government for awhile. They make contacts. And if they "play ball" while in their government position, they get a great job offers from private industry when their term expires. Sometimes these offers are innocent and genuine, but sometimes they're outrageous, obvious, and blatant rewards for having done someone's bidding while in office. And there's every shade of gray in between.
As I mentioned, the most common industry for this is heavy construction. It's most common at the local level -- particularly with construction managers who work as city/county inspectors, and then construction managers, or consultants, again. This is actually illegal in many places, but there are many ways to get around the letter of the law -- shell companies, etc. Sometimes it's so bad that when an inspector gets fired for obvious, intentional lack of diligence, he shows up the very next day on the same jobsite, on the contractor's payroll, making three times what the position would normally pay -- thumbing his nose at his former bosses. Nice "reward," eh, without having to take an actual bribe!
Of course, construction is an extreme example, being a somwhat bare-knuckle industry anyway. But the same conflict of interest exists everywhere else. And no matter how subtle the conflict of interest may be, the effects of it are felt by us all, and our society suffers.
Other areas of our society which could be very easily ruined by such conflict of interest are adversarial by design. Our courts, for example -- lawyers don't flip-flop between representing one side then the other. Good journalists aren't supposed to get too chummy with the people they're reporting on. Economist Milton Friedman has often commented on staying out of industry, worrying that it might corrupt his science, or give the appearance of doing so. Likwise, regulators should maintain the same distance from the industries they're regulating.
Everyone remembers the Rockford Files, right? Ok, maybe not, but I digress...
This show appeared in the later 70's and it concerned a group of business men that wanted to create a "super database" of everyone in this computer system located next to an airport. Rockford busts the case and captures the "criminals" in the end, of course. The show ends with a quick blurb about the dangers of computers and privacy.
What I find absolutely astounding is something that was considered criminal a generation ago is now accepted as common practice. "Companies and governments keep databases, big deal", is the common attitude now, but in the 70's even the CONCEPT of maintaining a database of personal information was considered criminal, never mind how it was used.
of life....the correct answer is US, and our lack of awareness and general apathy. We've allowed idiots to take control, not because we don't see what's going on, but because it doesn't directly affect me....
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?