NEGATIVE – DISADVANTAGE – FREE SPEECH 180

NEGATIVE — DISADVANTAGE — FREE SPEECH 180

JUST BECAUSE IT IS COMMERCIAL DATA DOESN’T MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF FREE SPEECH

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION IN A COMMERCIAL CONTEXT DOES NOT MAKE IT DIFFERENT FROM HOW WE COLLECT INFORMATION EVERY DAY -- AND WE WOULD NOT REGULATE THAT

Solveig Singleton, director of information studies at the Cato Institute, January 22, 1998 Cato Policy Analysis No. 295 PRIVACY AS CENSORSHIP: A Skeptical View of Proposals to Regulate Privacy in the Private Sector http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-295.html // acs-EE2001

One might argue that collection of information in a commercial context is different from collection of information in casual encounters, because the commercial information involves something valuable and the casual exchange of information in everyday encounters does not.

That argument also fails. First, the casual exchange of information about people we encounter on the street and in meetings certainly has value to us, although we might not normally place a dollar value on it.

Second, although commercial information does have monetary value (sellers of mailing lists, for example, typically charge from $.10 to $1.00 per name), the value does not somehow inhere in a person's name. Rather, the activities of marketers and list compilers create the value of the name. The name alone, without the economic activities of others, has little or no commercial value. The individual to whom the name refers has no more right than anyone else to claim that value, and in many cases less.

CONTENT OF DATABASES IS NOT COMMERCIAL SPEECH, SO IT CANNOT BE CONTROLLED ON THOSE GROUNDS

And one cannot argue that the compilation of information in lists for commercial purposes is different just because it serves a commercial purpose. The content of databases is not "commercial speech," because the lists themselves are not advertising--they are data. And the lists are used for political purposes or for nonprofit solicitations as well as for commercial advertising.

MARKETS THEMSELVES ARE INFORMATION PROCESSING MECHANISMS FOR FREE SPEECH

Solveig Singleton, director of information studies at the Cato Institute, 1999, " Self-Regulation: Real Markets Versus Regulatory Manias" http://www.cfp99.org/program/papers/singleton.htm // acs-EE2001

Markets Are Information Processing Devices

What is a market? A market is a device for processing information. The economist Bastiat once commented that it is a miracle that Paris got fed every morning. In order for that to happen, Parisians' diverse tastes in breakfast foods must somehow become known to myriad bakers, café's, butchers, and grocers. Parisian consumers must obtain the knowledge that bread is available at the bakery, not at the tailors. The local needs of bakers and grocers must somehow be known to farmers and middlemen scattered around the countryside. Through the price system and other mechanisms, markets harness local knowledge and subjective tastes, setting in motion a process that results in the populace of Paris' being fed--all without any central planning or direction. This is utterly extraordinary. Indeed, as we learn from our experience with communist economies and as economist Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek predicted decades ago, central planning cannot even begin to coordinate the distribution of resources as effectively as the chaotic, decentralized market.

THE CUSTOMER CAN TALK TO FRIENDS ABOUT THE PURCHASE, THEN WHY CAN'T THE BUSINESS DO THE SAME? PRIVACY LOGIC IS STILTED

Solveig Singleton, director of information studies at the Cato Institute, October 18, 1999 http://www.cdt.org/privacy/FTC/profiling/singleton.htm// acs-EE2001

We would not grant the company the right to prohibit the customer from talking about the transaction with his friends or other businesses. There is no reason that the consumer should expect to control facts or opinions that the company learns from the transaction. The claim that an individual in a sense "owns" data about himself turns the default rule in favor of the free flow of information on its head. It is like giving him the right to copyright information about himself. But it is far broader than any copyright. Copyright has never extended to facts or to ideas.

BUSINESSES MUST REMAIN FREE TO SHARE INFORMAION ABOUT THEIR TRANSACTIONS

Solveig Singleton, director of information studies at the Cato Institute, October 18, 1999 http://www.cdt.org/privacy/FTC/profiling/singleton.htm// acs-EE2001

But businesses ought to be free to collect and trade facts and analysis concerning about transactions in which they engage with other businesses--without asking anyone's consent or otherwise giving them veto power over the transaction. Sometimes, they will decide not to do this, in order to develop customer trust and loyalty. But this is a sophisticated matter of business ethics, not something we may demand of them as a matter of law.