From Scan This News
Scan This News is a reputable outfit. You can believe what they say.
The following letter was copied in its entirety.
Forest
To: "ScanThisNews Recipients List" <scan@efga.org>
Subject: [FP] FW: Seeking help with DPPA law
======================================================================
SCAN THIS NEWS
2.19.2000
When it comes to the issue of "protecting privacy," no topic is more important than that of the law that grants to the federal government total control over our private driver's license and motor vehicle records, i.e. the mis-named DPPA.
Both the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the Free Congress Foundation expressed support for this anti-privacy measure, the DPPA. The DPPA allows government and other private "Big Brother" type entities (such as Experian) to develop huge databases of information about us. On Sunday, January 16, 2000 ScanThisNews sent the following message to both EPIC and FCF asking for some explanation as to why these claimed "privacy" groups supported the anti-privacy measure:
-----Original Message-----
[Please note: This message requests action on the part of your organization]
Recent articles quote representatives from your organization expressing support for the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and the recent Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Condon v Reno which was the culmination of a challenge to the constitutionality of the DPPA. I am host of the Fight the Fingerprint web site and editor of ScanThisNews email newsletter. I have closely followed the DPPA since the time it was first scheduled to go into effect.
After the Court ruled on Wednesday 12, 2000 to uphold the DPPA, I sent a number of posts to my email news list informing them that the ruling effectively eliminated any chance we may have otherwise had to regain any semblance of control over personal and private data collected by state departments of motor vehicles. You may read one of those posts here:
http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-dppa-two-models.html
The Court decision was the worst thing that could possibly have happened in the battle to "protect privacy," but more importantly it is an even greater defeat for the battle to regain lost rights. The DPPA surreptitiously transfers control over private information away from citizens and to the federal government. Additionally, the DPPA is an abominable violation of the Tenth Amendment, and a perverted abuse of the Commerce Clause. I'll not address all the reasons here why this law is so horrible, but I will be glad to fill you in if you would like more details.
I am aware of only two "privacy rights" organizations which came out in support of the DPPA and the subsequent Court ruling; they are the Free Congress Foundation (FCF), and Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). I have watched the gun battle wither away and be destroyed largely because the National Rifle Association (NRA), an organization which had the full respect and trust of tens of thousands of gun activists, effectively "sold out" to the anti-gun groups (for whatever reason which can only be speculated about). Many people believed that the NRA caused even more harm to the gun rights issue than did the true foes. This "inside attack" was accomplished in part because the NRA enjoyed the "on-the-same-team" status, which made them more difficult to confront (in a tactical sense), and also because they drew away resources and attention (hence credibility) from the "purists" in the battle.
It must be concluded that the NRA either (a) never truly understood the "anti-gun" groups' battle plan; (b) they never really understood the issue (i.e. "right of the people to keep and bear arms" v the privilege to own hunting and sporting guns); or, (c) the NRA actually supported the anti-gun effort.
I am deeply concerned over the similarities which seem to be developing in the privacy battle with that of the gun battle.
As a consequence of the Supreme Court ruling, the federal government now has total control over state motor vehicle records. Whereas the battle was previously over the issue of who holds absolute control over our private information -- i.e., individuals or government -- that question has now been answered, it is government, and now all we can do is waste time and energy arguing and debating over meaningless issues such as whether or not the government will "encrypt" our data when they exchange it amongst their inner circle of Big Brother agencies and businesses.
After I recently sent out a number of articles detailing just how horrible this DPPA law was, I received inquiries from a number of readers asking what we can do now to reverse this awful mess. I have no answers. My purpose in writing you is that, in my exasperation, the only option I have in responding to these inquiries is to send them to the "privacy" groups who support the DPPA law, hopefully for an explanation as to how it is "good" for privacy.
So that there can be no confusion, here are the areas where the DPPA addresses the issue of subsequent release of information for uses beyond the "original" intent and purpose:
"The DPPA requires disclosure of personal information 'for use in connection with matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft, motor vehicle emissions, motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, or advisories, performance monitoring of motor vehicles and dealers by motor vehicle manufacturers, and removal of non-owner records from the original owner records of motor vehicle manufacturers to carry out the purposes of titles I and IV of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992, the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, the Clean Air Act, and chapters 301, 305, and 321-331 of title 49.' 18 U. S. C. §2721(b) (1994 ed., Supp. III) (citations omitted). The DPPA permits DMVs to disclose personal information from motor vehicle records for a number of purposes."
The DPPA also provides that:
"Disclosure is permitted for use 'by any government agency' or by 'any private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State or local agency in carrying out its functions.' 18 U. S. C. §2721(b)(1) (1994 ed. and Supp. III). The Act also allows States to divulge drivers' personal information for any state-authorized purpose relating to the operation of a motor vehicle or public safety, §2721(b)(14); for use in connection with car safety, prevention of car theft, and promotion of driver safety, §2721(b)(2); for use by a business to verify the accuracy of personal information submitted to that business and to prevent fraud or pursue legal remedies if the information that the individual submitted to the business is revealed to have been inaccurate, §2721(b)(3); in connection with court, agency, or self-regulatory body proceedings, §2721(b)(4); for research purposes so long as the information is not further disclosed or used to contact the individuals to whom the data pertain, §2721(b)(5); for use by insurers in connection with claims investigations, antifraud activities, rating or underwriting, §2721(b)(6); to notify vehicle owners that their vehicle has been towed or impounded, §2721(b)(7); for use by licensed private investigative agencies or security services for any purpose permitted by the DPPA, 18 U. S. C. §2721(b)(8); and in connection with private toll transportation services, §2721(b)(10)."
Another problem I face is the deception and misinformation that circulates with regard to the DPPA itself and the subsequent Court decision. For example, as you know Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in the Court's DPPA Opinion: "The DPPA establishes a regulatory scheme that restricts the States' ability to disclose a driver's personal information without the driver's consent." This is, in essence, a lie. Justice Rehnquist does go on to "qualify" that grossly misleading statement by elsewhere acknowledging the many "permitted" and "required" instances where States "may" or "shall" disclose private motor vehicle records -- information coerced out of the citizenry under threats of fines and other penalties. Of course, it's never popular to call a United States Supreme Court Chief Justice a "liar," but what else can you say about his intentionally misleading statement? I have searched your web site and can find no writings explaining why you believe the DPPA is a good law.
I would like to either: (a) send people to your organization for explanation as to how this is a "good law" and on how to best put it to use to "protect privacy," or (b) obtain a written explanation from your organization so that I can provide it to those who inquire as to what to do now. Will you please explain, in detail, how the DPPA is good for privacy? Also, I would like to post to my web page (linked above) the names of privacy groups (such as yours) that support the DPPA and the Supreme Court decision. I will be glad to include a short statement expressing why you think the DPPA is good for privacy.
Sincerely,
Scott McDonald
scan@networkusa.org
When no response was received from either organization after several days, a follow-up message was sent to both, again requesting some explanation as to why they supported the DPPA. The message read as follows:
-----Original Message-----
Hello,
On Monday I sent to your organization a[n] inquiry regarding the recent DPPA ruling. I am engaged in the privacy battle as is your organization. I see the DPPA law and ruling as perhaps the most important event yet in the effort to secure control over private individual identification information. Prior to the DPPA, the federal government had no control over the motor vehicle records held by states. In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, the federal government has complete control, the states and individuals retain none.
This is the exact opposite of what I was working for. The DPPA law and ruling were the worst possible thing that could have happened from my perspective. And yet, your organization supported this law. If our organizations have diametrically opposing objectives, then this should be known. If we are working at odds with one another under the same banner, then the people who read our material should be aware that there are different agendas. This is not a small or simple differences in approaches, this is exact opposites in objective.
This message is to confirm that you received my first message.
Sincerely,
Scott McDonald
EPIC never responded at all (though I do know that they received my inquiry because of correspondence an EPIC representative sent to another group which was then forwarded to me).
Lisa Dean of the Free Congress Foundation sent the following message:
>-----Original Message-----
>
>Free Congress has not come out either way on DPPA. If you saw >something that indicated that we did, you were misinformed. -------End message--------
To which I responded:
-----Original Message-----
Lisa,
In the January 14 Weekly Update, Volume 3, Number 2, the following item is included:
: "Supreme Court Decision Protects Driver Data"
This sounds like an endorsement.
In the January 12 Wired article by Declan McCullaugh, Privacy and conservative groups applauded the ruling:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,33611,00.html
you are quoted as follows:
: "My initial reaction is that I'm surprised it was unanimous, given : that Rehnquist is so strong on states' rights. I would have : [anticipated] that he would have ruled in favor of the states. : But I'm pleasantly surprised that it was unanimous in favor of : the DPPA," said Lisa Dean, vice president of the Free Congress : Foundation.
This statement appears to indicate an opinion. Was Declan misinformed?
Scott
--------End of messages---------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Social security is the bane of individual liberty. - SAM
======================================================================
Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless:
1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or
2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true.
======================================================================
Reply to: <scan@networkusa.org>
======================================================================
This is a copy of ScanThisNews, sent to contributors. For information on contributing, please visit our contributions web page:
http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1b/fp-contributions.html
To subscribe to the free ScanInReview abreviated newsletter, send a message to <mailto:majordomo@efga.org> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message.
For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N.
Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page:
www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml
Read a related article or loss of private information Go to the uhuh Opening Title Page
** uhuh ** The President said he is reducing taxes.
uhuh.
Congress says they are balancing the budget.
uhuh. Sez who?
and Force Congress to
Kick the Debt & Taxes Habit with
$$ Money System Honesty for Us People. $$
We demand the whole truth with an honest viewpoint.
Don't send money. Call Jo(e) Congress and send letters.
Forest Glen Durland, CEO. 14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070-6081
Voice: (408) 867-4410; Fax: (408)868-9446; Click here for email.
Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com