Opt Out - Political Sellout

Remember a few years back all of the squealing about Do Not Call lists? And you must have noticed how effectively our society has regulated "spam," those pesky, unsolicited email messages that offer prescription medications, better mortgage interest rates, or whatever your love life might be lacking. While spam legislation and federal Do No Call lists are admirable pursuits, they do not address the real problem, but actually help sustain a precedent for violating Americans' right to privacy.

Solutions like spam legislation and Do Not Call lists are like using a sponge to fend off a fire hose spray. Don't get me wrong; I love the idea of curbing the deluge of unwanted solicitations, whether arriving via phone, email or snail mail. However, the answer is not more or bigger sponges. The solution is to turn off the hydrant. To do that, we must recover control of our private contact information, something we lost about the end of the millenium by virtue of two little words: "Opt Out."

The Problem with Opt Out

When I first heard about Opt Out, I immediately recognized the threat but didn't worry; I was certain that this ridiculous folly could never survive a court challenge. After all, this policy essentially says that any organization you do business with can share or trade your private information unless you follow steps A, B, and C. Furthermore, you must repeat steps A, B and C, every year, forever, or risk having your information sold to the highest-bidding mass-marketeer. Frequently, if you fail to Opt Out for just one year, your information gets released into the list trading commercial universe, and that's one tough bell to unring.

Consequently, the default has become that our Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects is now regularly subject to violation, unless we follow steps A, B and C, every year, forever, with every merchant whom we trust with our data. It almost sounds comical that US citizens could passively waive their Constitutional right to privacy, but it is true. Thank you, former Senator Phil Gramm.

Yes, Phil Gramm, friend and paid-for patron of the financial industry and scourge of his constituency. We can trace the advent of Opt Out policies to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, commonly known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Don't feel too bad if you never heard of the origins of the Opt Out policy. The phrase, "Opt Out" appears only once in that legislation (two words out of more than 61,500), but it was a very powerful phrase, indeed. It lets your bank or another financial services vendor presume that you give your consent for them to share your private information with whomever they choose, unless you follow steps A, B, and C, with each and every vendor, each and every year, forever. Opt Out is a gift that keeps on giving, presented by a purportedly populist Senator to the financial industry, which gave so much to his political career, and all at the expense of your Constitutional right to privacy.

NOTE: In addtition to the 4th Amendment, which declares that citizens shall be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, the US Supreme Court has found that the Constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion. See also "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights," article 12.

Today Opt Out is usually concealed in the latter paragraphs of a "Privacy Policy" statement that few people read. This Orwellian double-speak has seeped into the record of every relationship one can imagine between a consumer and an organization of any kind. You probably have been offered an opportunity to opt out of allowing your electric power utility to share your name, contact information, and electricity consumption rates. And, if you wonder where all those spam emails come from, check for an Opt Out provision in the Privacy Policy statement of any Web site that asks for your email address.

Unfortunately, that is not the worst of it. Parents of students may be familiar with junk mail addressed to "The Parents of (Your Child's Name)." Can it be true that a child's contact information and scholastic records are now up for grabs? Can it be true that pedophile predators can now obtain a student child's name, address, physical description, and a list of his or her elective classes, without ever lurking near a schoolyard?

If all this is possible, what other Constitutional rights might Congressional treachery cause us to passively surrender?

My Edict on Opt Out

This insidious practice must be stopped and reversed. Any Opt Out practice should be abolished and replaced with an Opt In policy, so that a client's personal data is strictly protected unless the client signs a waiver. Any information or records obtained by a citizen's failure to follow any Opt Out procedure's steps A, B, and C should be destroyed.

The default should be to protect people's privacy - except in the cases of former Senators Phil Gramm and his cronies, Leach and Bliley. For them I decree that their curriculum vitae shall be shared free of charge with every junk mail and spam maven from New York to Nigeria for twice as many years into the future as the shameful Opt Out policy has been allowed to thrive.