[wordup] ralph nader a hypocrite?
Adam Shand
larry at spack.org
Tue Jul 3 21:23:05 EDT 2001
i voted for nader (to many of your disgust i'm sure), not so much because
i believed he was perfect but because i wanted him to win his 5% so he'd
be leverage to keep the democratic party honest next time around (ha!).
anyway this is long, but it's interesting if you care to wade through it.
adam.
From: politech at politechbot.com
To: declan at well.com
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:15:06 -0400
From: Bruce Chesley <excalibur25 at juno.com>
FYI.
Bruce Chesley
Truth is a terrible cross to bear.
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.". Thomas Paine
Treason for $$$: ALL "pro 2A" orgs.
--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
Source: PrivacyRightsNow!
http://www.privacyrightsnow.com/
Opt-Out for Your Privacy
By Ralph Nader
June 21, 2001
The Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution spells out the
right of citizens to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers
and effects against unreasonable searches..." by their government.
When that amendment was ratified in 1791, no one imagined that
it would be corporations, not governments, which would use their
vast power to invade the privacy of citizens and, in effect, carry
out unreasonable searches of the most intimate personal data.
But, that is exactly what is happening, particularly among newly
formed giant financial conglomerates which have access to a mass
of data collected about millions of individuals by their far-flung
insurance, bank, credit card and securities affiliates.
Today, these giant corporations can assemble information to
build a head to toe profile of most citizens and their buying and
personal habits including what prescription and non-prescription
health products they use as well as their investments, income,
employment histories and entertainment preferences.
For this, consumers can thank the Clinton Administration and a
bi-partisan group of Senators and Congressmen who lacked the
courage to really defend citizens' right to privacy when the so called
Financial Modernization legislation moved through the Congress in 1999.
This law is the vehicle which allows banks, securities firms and
insurance companies to merge as parts of financial conglomerates.
People like Democratic Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts
and Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama fought hard to give
citizens the right to control where and when their personal information
was sold or used in any manner not authorized in writing in advance by
you, the consumer-owner of the information.
In short, under the Markey-Shelby approach consumers would have
to "opt-in" in writing specifically authorizing the use of the
information.
Without this written affirmative permission from the consumer, the
corporations could not sell, share or use the data for any purpose
beyond that specifically agreed to by the consumer.
The industry, however, believed (correctly) that few consumers
would give permission to have their information shared with unknown
persons and corporations. They lobbied, successfully, for an opt-out
system which would require consumers to send in a form indicating
that they were opposed. The burden was on the consumer to "opt out."
If they forgot the form or failed to send it in or could not understand
the
legal jargon, the company would be free to distribute the personal
information anywhere or to anyone it chose.
The industry lobbyists threatened to walk away from the legislation
if the Shelby-Markey opt-in was adopted. The Clinton Administration
and a bi-partisan majority in the Congress surrendered to the threats
and left privacy protections to the financial industry's demand for a
weak ineffectual opt-out approach.
The industry has sent out more than a billion of the opt-out notices
as required by law. Most of them have been stuffed in the envelopes
with a variety of miscellaneous promotional brochures accompanying
monthly billing statements.
Financial consultants who are following the issue estimate that
only about five percent of the opt-out notices are being returned --
the remainder tossed in the trash unnoticed and unread.
Further rendering the opt-out approach nearly useless is the fact
that many of the notices are written clumsily with little attempt to
explain the consumers' rights in clear understandable language.
Some appear to have been copied verbatim from technical federal
regulations without translation into language that would help
consumers take proper action to protect their privacy.
"People don't read them, and they don't understand them," Karen
Petrou, a leading financial consultant told a banking conference in
Washington recently. That was exactly what the financial lobbyists
were betting on when they pushed the opt-out language on a willing
Congress.
Despite the shortcomings of the opt-out approach, consumer
organizations and the media should do everything possible to
publicize the existence of the opt-out possibilities and to encourage
consumers to protect their privacy by sending in the opt-out forms
immediately.
But the only truly effective means of controlling the wholesale
invasion of privacy is for Congress to flatly prohibit the distribution
of personal information unless the consumer has specifically
authorized it in writing in advance.
Your personal information belongs to you. You do not authorize
its wholesale distribution just because you have provided information
to a bank for a specific limited purpose such as a home mortgage.
The bank should not have the right to sell or share that information for
any other purpose unless you authorize it in writing and know
specifically what information is being released and to whom.
Your personal information is your personal property.
You should demand that the financial institutions you deal with so
treat it. And you should demand to know how your Congressman
voted when the Financial Modernization Act was adopted in November,
1999 with a weak industry-supported opt-out provision attached.
For Further Information on Privacy Contact: U. S. PIRG, 218 D Street, SE
Washington, D. C. 20003
--------- End forwarded message ----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 09:12:53 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com>
To: politech at politechbot.com
Subject: FC: Why Ralph Nader is a privacy hypocrite, by Aaron Lucas and Lizard
***********
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:01:28 -0400
From: "Aaron Lukas" <aaronl at cato.org>
To: <declan at well.com>
Subject: Nader's double standard on privacy
Declan:
Ralph Nader declares that "Your personal information is your personal
property." If that's true, his own organizations are engaging in "theft"
and he doesn't seem to mind. For more on Nader's hypocrisy, See my article
from yesterday's National Review Online:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lukas062701.shtml
I wish I'd had his latest privacy screed when I worte it!
Cheers,
Aaron
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lukas062701.shtml
Respect Us! (Or Else)
The anti-trade left will stoop to anything.
By Aaron Lukas, an analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy
Studies
June 27, 2001 11:20 a.m.
The trouble with anti-trade activism is, as you may have noticed, the
anti-trade activists. They just can't seem to shake the image of
window-smashing radicalism that has dominated television coverage from
Seattle to Quebec City. Such pictures have led to a general public
perception that the activists will go to any length to advance their
menagerie of retrograde causes. No tactic — with the possible exception of
careful analysis and reasoned discourse — is out-of-bounds. "Doing whatever
it takes," as one prominent protester in Quebec City said, means that
vandalism, violence, and harassment are acceptable behavior for the Black
Blockheads and Ruckus-Societarians of the world.
But such nastiness, we're inevitably told, is limited to small groups of
rascally anarchists. (By the way, am I the only one who thinks that people
who embrace tariffs and an industrial policy haven't fully grasped what the
word "anarchist" means?) The "vast majority" of globalization's critics are
respectable, thoughtful, peace-loving pillars of society. They may
understand the "frustration" that drives the actions of the fringe, but
they certainly don't condone their antics. "Kids will be kids," they say,
"We'd like to stop them, but there's nothing we can do!"
Well, here's a thought: The "respectable" groups might start by not
actively encouraging criminal behavior. For example, an e-mail from
Margrete Strand Rangnes, the field director for Public Citizen's Global
Trade Watch, recently appeared in my in box. Trade Watch is another fine
organization brought to us by the Left's patron saint, Ralph Nader, and its
goal is basically to dismantle the international economy. In furtherance of
that goal, Ms. Rangnes decided to distribute the personal contact
information for the steering committee members of USTrade, a business
coalition that supports open trade and the passage of trade promotion
authority for the president.
The names and contact information were collected by a member of the Sierra
Student Coalition, the student-run arm of the Sierra Club — another
supposedly reputable operation. A Sierra operative "disguising himself as
an elite," the e-mail reports, "infiltrated the [USTrade] meeting and
emerged with important documents."
Public Citizen clearly has no qualm with embracing a "diversity of tactics"
in its war against the freedom to trade. While the personal information in
its e-mail is offered "only as a public service," the purpose of
distributing it is spelled out for those who don't take the hint: "A little
birdie has told us that this list could be used to send large numbers of
e-mails, faxes, and phone calls to these corporate free-traders." The
message concludes with a plea not to "let those wealthy white men from
USTrade win this fight!" (Of course, over a third of the names appear to be
women, and likely no one on the list is as wealthy as Nader himself.)
So, Public Citizen thinks it's acceptable to distribute material
encouraging the harassment of specific private individuals. Bravo. Very
grown-up, very respectable.
Remember, we're not talking about elected representatives here. There
wouldn't be anything wrong with Public Citizen and the Sierra Club
exhorting their minions — uh, members — to harass congressmen with phone
calls and faxes. Listening to complaints is a politician's job. We pay them
to take that kind of flak.
But prank-calling private citizens to punish them for their political views
is another matter entirely. Not that prank-calling isn't fun. I got a huge
kick out of dialing random numbers from the phone book … when I was ten.
("Ima Hogg? You've just won a year's supply of pork rinds!") Obviously the
anti-globalization folks have some maturing to do.
"We could tell who they were at the meeting," jokes Caterpillar's Bill
Lane, a member of USTrade and one of the targets of the harassment
campaign. "They were drinking Starbucks coffee and brought in their own
McDonalds."
Lane isn't surprised by the e-mail, and sees it as a desperation tactic. "I
think they were a little overwhelmed at the number of people that were
there," he told me.
Desperation or not, the spectacle of supposedly responsible adults
encouraging juvenile behavior is just downright sad. But it's to be
expected, really, from people who think tearing down traffic signs or
chaining yourself to an oil tanker, as activists did during President
Bush's recent trip to Europe, is acceptable behavior. Speaking of Europe,
it's interesting to note that the Public Citizen e-mail is illegal under
the European Union's Data Privacy Directive. That law forbids the
dissemination of personal information over the Internet without the
subject's consent. I wonder if the European recipients of this list realize
that they're trafficking in forbidden data?
The anti-globalization left demands that people take it seriously, but
that's hard to do when confronted by a PR strategy that vacillates between
tantrums and pranks. I suppose with no facts on their side, that's the best
the activists can do.
***********
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:57:38 -0700
From: lizard <lizard at mrlizard.com>
To: declan at well.com
CC: politech at politechbot.com, excalibur25 at juno.com
Subject: Re: FC: Ralph Nader demands more privacy regulations: Opt-out
notenough
> Source: PrivacyRightsNow!
> http://www.privacyrightsnow.com/
>
> Opt-Out for Your Privacy
>
> By Ralph Nader
> June 21, 2001
> Your personal information is your personal property.
But since Nader is a socialist, and socialists believe that 'property is
theft', he should be applauding the actions of the corporations! After
all, as he himself as noted, corporations are de facto governments, and,
under socialism, all personal property is seized by the government.
Thus, the current corporate data collection schemes are simply socialism
in action -- property taken by the government.
So why does he object?
(It always amazes me how the leftist of the lefties become ardent
defenders of private property and individualism once it's their own ox
being gored -- or socialized.)
***********
From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavitt at hotmail.com>
To: declan at well.com
Subject: Re: FC: Ralph Nader demands more privacy regulations: Opt-out not
enough
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:10:53 -0700
Well, I'm certainly going to be sending in *my* opt-out notice ... I was
wondering why I suddenly got this, guess now I know.
My immediate reaction was, "How nice. I wish they were required to do an
'opt-in', like all of us in the on-line world." (and I mean, all of us) ...
off-line companies an unfair advantage over their on-line competitors when
it comes to gathering and marketing customer information.
Off-line corporate America could easily do something similar to the little
checkboxes on each form that most on-line companies include - of course,
this would result in a significant decrease in the amount of postal spam we
all receive, and the level of information they can assemble on us without
our consent - so it won't happen.
In a sense, if you think about it, we owe the pioneering spammers a huge
debt: their obnoxious behavior forced the "opt-in" standard upon the
on-line world - without it, we'd probably still have the same pathetically
weak information distribution regulations that off-line companies have.
Of course, of the dozens and dozens of companies who have my information in
one form or another, an insurance company I use is the only one who has
sent me anything so far, thus it would seem that compliance and/or the
number of companies affected, is pretty weak.
I'll give my insurance company this: the notice was clear, and sent
separately from my bill. I intended to send it in, even before I saw this
note... reading the fine print, the opt-out option is as full of holes as
Swiss-cheese, so I don't regard it as counting for much, but anything to
stem the flow of crap into my mailbox is welcome.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
***********
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 23:15:39 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com>
To: politech at politechbot.com
Subject: FC: More on Nader, privacy hypocrisy, globalization, and Cato
[Jamie Love, who works for Ralph Nader, wrote to me to stress that Public
Citizen does not necessarily speak for Nader. This came up in Aaron's
article. Jamie says that Nader started Public Citizen in 1970 and is
considered close to it and has long relationships with the top people
there, but has no official connection. Apparently Public Citizen resorted
to stressing this no-official-link in a letter to their Democratic
supporters who were upset over Nader's presidential bid in 2000. --Declan]
*********
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 17:30:07 -0400
From: Robert Sexton <robert at kudra.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com>
Cc: Aaron Lukas <aaronl at cato.org>
Subject: Re: FC: Why Ralph Nader is a privacy hypocrite, by Aaron Lucas and
Lizard
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010701090335.0258c840 at mail.well.com>; from
declan at well.com on Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 09:12:53AM -0400
Declan,
I found Aaron Lukas' commentary rather amusingly hypocritical,
perhaps it should have been, 'The only problem with republican party
these days is, well, republicans'. We're sure most of them are
pillars of society, and those young right wingers who stop poll
workers from counting votes, are just "Being Kids".
Mr Lukas paints a simplistic picture, decrying the lack of 'careful
analysis and reasoned discourse'. It hard to say if this is the
result of shoddy journalism or willful ignorance. There has been
plenty of both of these, available to anybody who will listen.
Like so many people in America, Aaron Lukas does not really understand
the anti-globalization movement. It is not an anti trade movement.
It is not about preventing commerce, but stopping the erosion of
environmental standards, labor laws, and human rights that have
come with the expansion of 'Free Trade Agreements'. Under the
existing system, when profits come up against environmental laws,
environmental laws lose. Its a race to the bottom.
The anti-globalization movement is without a doubt growing, and
there are a lot of angry people. As long as the architects of free
trade expansion continue to meet behind closed doors, without public
oversight or input, resistance to increased globalization will only
increase.
Whose needs will come first: Yours, or Exxons?
--
Robert Sexton - robert at kudra.com, Cincinnati OH, USA
There's safety in numbers... Large prime numbers. - John Gilmore
*********
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 11:16:41 -0400
From: Chuck0 <chuck at tao.ca>
Organization: Infoshop.org
To: declan at well.com
CC: politech at politechbot.com
Subject: Re: FC: Why Ralph Nader is a privacy hypocrite, by Aaron Lucas
andLizard
Cato's little insult of the black bloc means that we'll be paying Cato HQ a
visit this coming September. People who work in glass buildings shouldn't throw
the first rhetorical stones.
*********
From: "fablor" <rigby at fablor.com>
To: <declan at well.com>
Subject: On manners and results.
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 08:06:39 +1000
Hello Declan,
I've stopped lurking around the world to "follow my own rhetoric"
as a correspondent from a publication I write for pointed out to
me. :-)
May we look at the situation of something simple like "Global
Free Trade" (nee New World Order) and all pretend we are 19th
Century English Diplomats as we do so?
This means being very calm, polite and using wiles to replace the
Gunboat wherever possible. Look at how far the power of that
little group from a little island managed to get, in terms of
world power. It works.
Aaron Lukas actually prompted me to put electrons to air with:
"Nader's double standard on privacy" essay.
May I quote Kilneth (writing as a Chinese General)? "Bravery
wins many battles, but it is the Treasury that wins the war."
Unfortunately the majority who oppose the New World Order have no
real Treasury. In a normal conflict of today, two or more richer
powers, fight their economic moves on somebody else's ground.
The money made from the "Gulf War" by its proponents was
astonishing by any standards in todays terms of far more rapid
returns on investment than were possible in prior Wars. In older
times, Wars were simple. As soon as one power saw another as
weaker they assaulted them to take their wealth for themselves.
Or, to simply destroy the competition.
Aaron Lukas makes his personal political/economic position clear
in his summary paragraph:
The anti-globalization left demands that people take it
seriously, but that's hard to do when confronted by a PR strategy
that vacillates between tantrums and pranks. I suppose with no
facts on their side, that's the best the activists can do.
Mine can be declared as simply: I worked for Our Owners. I saw
and used their power as a Good Servant. I am not confident of
success for the anti-GTO/NWO "activists", they have no money,
only the fanaticism of youth, the belief that they CAN make a
difference.
I see that unless our Owners can come to understand that the
ballgame has changed and that their methods of generating
personal power and wealth are "old-hat" and that it is far easier
to do what say, Bill Gates has done and PROVE how good a "player"
they are in the Game, using new methods, that the whole Game may
be called off - like so many "Sporting" events today.
However as for the concluding propaganda sentence of Aaron
Lukas' essay, may I say that thanks to this awful problem for Our
Owners, the Internet, in less than an hour, even the most ardent
and necessarily Good Servant like Aaron can begin to terrify
himself with the overwhelming mountain of facts - produced by Our
Owners themselves - as to their next phase of "total world
homogenisation by 2012".
I would like to simply remind people that under the new regime,
the individual's value will be zeroed the moment they are not
"useful" any longer. That is good, sound Economics sense. That
"homogenisation" means to make all the same. In the Dairy
Industry of the West, it was a tactic invented to allow Our
(littler) Owners to sell us stale milk. It breaks up any globule
bigger than the pre-determined size and makes them all the same.
(It stops the cream rising and betraying things.)
Our fates are to be homogenised. Brought DOWN to the common
denominator, the others will not be brought UP. That would make
no Economic sense at all.
My regret is that the pen is mightier than the sword and the few
with the real talent to use it are quickly made an example of and
the rest of us fall back into line, after all, as Our Owners keep
conditioning into us, with their untold number of commercial
writers and pens: "You can't make a difference, why try".
Thank the God/s for the "Activists", for without them that great
Milling Machine would have already succeeded, instead of being
slowed as it has to date.
Just use a Search Engine. Look for "CODEX" and "New World Order."
Of course most of it is emotional. Anyone who studies the facts -
the facts, Mr Lukas, will get emotional about it.
Peace,
John Rigby.
*********
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 06:29:33 -0700
To: "Aaron Lukas" <aaronl at cato.org>, lizard <lizard at mrlizard.com>
From: George Mason <masong002 at hawaii.rr.com>
Subject: Ralph Nader, Agony Aunt and Hypocrite
Cc: <declan at well.com>
In an issue of Liberty Magazine during the recent campaign, one of the
frequent contributors reported how he had gotten fed up with Nader on a
Chicago talk show so called him up and asked him when he was going to call
for the nationalization of the legal profession along the lines of
medicine. With salary caps for certain procedures and the equvalent of
HMOs. The legal equivalent of Medicare and Medicaid. That kind of thing.
This caused a near apoplectic response and the admission that Nader was
indeed a lawyer. How many professions could get away with the blatant
multibillion $$ rip off of Big Tobacco? With class action liablilty suits
that bankrupt large corporations on no scientific evidence?
A hui hou--
GM
DSS/DH key id: 0xD60CE0F9
http://www.swell.com/sw/surflinehome
*********
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 09:44:26 -0700
To: George Mason <masong002 at hawaii.rr.com>, "Aaron Lukas" <aaronl at cato.org>
From: Lizard <lizard at mrlizard.com>
Subject: Re: Ralph Nader, Agony Aunt and Hypocrite
Cc: <declan at well.com>
At 06:29 AM 7/1/2001, George Mason wrote:
>In an issue of Liberty Magazine during the recent campaign, one of the
>frequent contributors reported how he had gotten fed up with Nader on a
>Chicago talk show so called him up and asked him when he was going to call
>for the nationalization of the legal profession along the lines of
>medicine.
I've suggested this many times. Consider -- lawyers exist solely due to
government actions -- it is governments which pass laws, after all! Thus,
they are, to a very large extent, public employees by default -- their
entire job depends on laws passed at taxpayer expense. And it is often the
case that many who need lawyers cannot afford the best. A good liberal
would be aghast at the suggestion that the poor who cannot afford, say, a
triple-bypass operation simply drop dead;thus, it seems that, just as
anyone is 'entitled' to the most expensive surgery performed by the finest
surgeons, we should all be entitled to have ourselves defended by Johnny
Cochrane when we have a parking ticket. Socialization of lawyers is clearly
the only just, fair, and equitable solution.
*********
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the wordup
mailing list