ACLU makes email mistake it criticized others for

[Guest MD2020]

   

ACLU in Hot Water for Potential Privacy Violation

 

Wednesday, March 05, 2003

By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

 

 

NEW YORK — The American Civil Liberties Union is under fire for making the very same privacy gaffe it has lambasted other groups and companies for: Revealing personal e-mail addresses to everyone on a mailing list.

 

 

 

 

 

The advocacy organization that crusades for the protection of privacy rights sent its online "Safe and Free Newsletter" out to about 860 people last week but mistakenly made every recipient’s e-mail address available to everyone else.

 

The ACLU sharply criticized pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly for making a similar error two years ago. Last May, Eli Lilly agreed with the Federal Trade Commission to submit to audits and upgrade its privacy and security practices, among other orders, after sending out a mass e-mail with the  personal information of every subscriber to its Prozac information service.

 

"To the extent that [ACLU leaders] are pointing fingers at private companies, they really are throwing stones at glass houses," said Jim Harper, editor of Privacilla.org, a Web-based think tank devoted to privacy. "They took a holier-than-thou attitude and then turned around and did the same thing."

 

Complicating matters further, the ACLU just settled with the New York state attorney general’s office in January for another privacy violation involving contact information for people who bought products through their Web site. As part of the settlement, the ACLU agreed to pay $10,000, upgrade its Internet privacy and security systems and submit to audits.

 

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is investigating the current situation. At issue is whether the ACLU was in violation of its own privacy policy, which promises that e-mail addresses and other contact information will be kept confidential.

 

"We’re quite concerned in light of the recent enforcement action," said Paul Larrabee, a spokesman for Spitzer’s office. "We have reached out to the ACLU and are trying to assess what was the cause of this and why it was allowed to happen."

 

The ACLU did not return calls seeking comment. But spokeswoman Emily Whitfield e-mailed an apology to the technology Web site politechbot.com.

 

"We are truly sorry that the recipients of our debut Safe and Free Newsletter

received a communication that revealed the e-mails of other recipients," Whitfield wrote. 

 

Shane Ham, senior policy analyst at a technology think tank called the Progressive Policy Institute, said the organization tried to undo what it had done shortly after the first e-mail was sent out — but wound up revealing all the recipients’ addresses a second time.

 

"That’s two big privacy violations in 25 minutes," he said. "They compounded the error."

 

He thinks the ACLU dug an even deeper hole when it tried to explain what happened. The advocacy group said it had solicited the e-mail addresses on its own, rather than taking them out of the existing database. If true, the assertion would mean that their privacy policy doesn't apply.

 

"We created the database from scratch, and we got the e-mails by calling around to these organizations and asking for them, as anyone could do," Whitfield wrote on politechbot.com.

 

But Ham, who was on the list and didn't get a call asking for his e-mail address, doesn't buy the explanation.

 

"I believe it’s not true," said Ham. "This is going to be one of those situations where the cover-up is far worse than the crime."

 

For now, the attorney general’s office is reserving judgment on what happened.

 

"At this point, we have not reached any conclusions," said Larrabee. "We’re attempting to determine the facts."

 

Harper believes last week's incident is evidence that the ACLU should stick to what it does best — tackling civil rights violations at the hands of the government — rather than trying to regulate private businesses.

 

"Their real strength has been and always will be fighting privacy invasions by government," he said. "This episode shows they’re out of their league when dealing with commercial privacy issues."

 

 

That's all.

 

Any thoughts?

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

HAHAHAHAHA.

 

But who's going to police that police that police the police?...

[Guest MD2020]

I don't know. Coast guard?

[Guest Plushy Al Logan]

Fuck the ACLU!

[Guest Mad Dog]

Good.

 

I'm glad to see them get blasted by someone other than O'Reilly for once. Maybe now people will start seeing how inconsistent the ACLU is.

[Guest Plushy Al Logan]

Good.

 

I'm glad to see them get blasted by someone other than O'Reilly for once. Maybe now people will start seeing how inconsistent the ACLU is.

I live in an area where they are blasted all the time by local nuts who sound like Bill O'Reilly.

[Guest hardyz1]

I'm on their mailing list, but apparently this is a different one. A shame this.

 

EDIT: I mean a shame that this happened, not a shame that I wasn't on that list.

 

I've been thinking about unsubscribing lately because I just don't read it anymore. This is good motivation to do so.

Edited March 5, 2003 by hardyz1

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Oops

 

Hehe, wanna know what ACLU really stands for?

 

All

Criminals

Love

Us

[Guest JMA]

Eh, I like the ACLU.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Naturally.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I think we need an organization like the ACLU, especially at this point in time.

 

Although, yeah, this is exceptionally stupid.

[Guest JMA]

Naturally.

Yep. It makes me feel safer knowing that I'm protected from religious nuts and political freaks. Robots bless the American Civil Liberties Union.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Naturally.

Yep. It makes me feel safer knowing that I'm protected from religious nuts and political freaks. Robots bless the American Civil Liberties Union.

Theoretically speaking, the ACLU should be interested in protecting the religious nuts and political freaks, as well.

 

I'll respect them the minute they protect a white, Christian, male.

 

BTW, where were they when the NY Times pulled those pro-Augusta editorials?

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I like the concept of the ACLU but the people running it scare the hell out of me. Just one socialist and Christophobe after another. Once they get the fact we have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion I think they might be able to win me over.

[Guest JMA]

I like the concept of the ACLU but the people running it scare the hell out of me. Just one socialist and Christophobe after another. Once they get the fact we have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion I think they might be able to win me over.

To his credit, Bill O'Reilly disagrees with you. We DO have freedom from religion. As in you can't be forced to listen to the religious. I don't see how they're socialists either. That's just BS. Christianity is the biggest religion in America, nothing is going to stop it (at least not for a long time). And I'd like to say that not all conservatives are fundamentalist Christians, either. That's a stereotype.

 

Just like not all liberals are atheists. I'm an atheist and have no problem with Christ. He was a great guy. I don't think he was God incarnate but I have no problem with him. He was a great philosopher who helped both his people and those who weren't his people. I have the utmost respect for Joshua bin Mariam. So I'm not a Christophobe or anything. And those of the Christian should have equal rights.

 

They shouldn't, however, have special rights. Despite the opinion the ACLU is not out to secularize America. It's only interest is protecting the individual liberties of others. It's a fine capitalist organization. As you were.

[Guest JMA]

I'll respect them the minute they protect a white, Christian, male.

Why not a white, Christian, female? Anyways, to say that the ACLU have NEVER helped a "white," Christian, male is unrealistic. The ACLU has helped thousands of people. And some of those people were so-called "white" and Christian and male.

[Guest JMA]

Breakthrough Religious Freedom Bill Hailed By Religious and Civil Rights Groups

 

 

July 13, 2000

 

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

 

WASHINGTON -- Landmark bipartisan legislation to protect religious freedom from unfair government restrictions introduced today in the Senate was applauded by an unusual collection of religious and advocacy groups - including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Family Research Council and the Baptist Joint Committee - that are often ideological foes.

 

"This legislation is a victory for all who cherish the basic American values of fairness and religious freedom," said Christopher T. Anders, a legislative counsel for the ACLU. "Soon religious communities will no longer be subject to arbitrary or discriminatory government regulations that unfairly restrict their ability to worship."

 

Introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA), the bill has such broad support that it will likely be voted on by the full Senate by the end of the month. Companion legislation will be introduced today in the House by Representatives Charles Canady (R-FL), Chet Edwards (D-TX) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY).

 

Named the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act," the bill is the result of months of negotiation not only across party lines, but between groups that are traditionally pitted against one another in battles over the relationship between the government and religion. It is actively supported by a coalition of more than 60 groups, including the ACLU, the Baptist Joint Committee, the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, and groups representing Christian denominations from Mormons to Seventh Day Adventists.

 

The ACLU said the consensus legislation will provide important new protections for religious freedom without the potential for harmful civil rights problems raised by previous legislative efforts. The Hatch-Kennedy religious freedom bill focuses on land use for religious groups and religious freedom for people institutionalized in state facilities such as hospitals, group homes or prisons, the two areas in which the majority of conflicts between religious exercise and government arise. The ACLU led opposition to last year's passage of a religious liberty bill in the House because of concerns that it would undermine state and local civil rights laws.

 

"Religion has been unfairly targeted by government regulation across the country," said Terri Schroeder, an ACLU legislative representative. "The balance between the needs of religion and the larger community's concerns has been off kilter for far too long. This bill will restore the equilibrium."

 

From ACLU.org. I thought it was relevent to the topic.

[Guest Silence]

The ACLU needs to go away.

[Guest JMA]

The ACLU needs to go away.

I have to disagree there.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I like the concept of the ACLU but the people running it scare the hell out of me.  Just one socialist and Christophobe after another.  Once they get the fact we have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion I think they might be able to win me over.

To his credit, Bill O'Reilly disagrees with you. We DO have freedom from religion. As in you can't be forced to listen to the religious. I don't see how they're socialists either. That's just BS. Christianity is the biggest religion in America, nothing is going to stop it (at least not for a long time). And I'd like to say that not all conservatives are fundamentalist Christians, either. That's a stereotype.

 

Just like not all liberals are atheists. I'm an atheist and have no problem with Christ. He was a great guy. I don't think he was God incarnate but I have no problem with him. He was a great philosopher who helped both his people and those who weren't his people. I have the utmost respect for Joshua bin Mariam. So I'm not a Christophobe or anything. And those of the Christian should have equal rights.

 

They shouldn't, however, have special rights. Despite the opinion the ACLU is not out to secularize America. It's only interest is protecting the individual liberties of others. It's a fine capitalist organization. As you were.

I'm not even religious and it just infuriates me when they petition to have crosses removed from war memorials and other places to honor people who died. Its like they're obsessed with hating Christians.

[Guest JMA]

I'm not even religious and it just infuriates me when they petition to have crosses removed from war memorials and other places to honor people who died. Its like they're obsessed with hating Christians.

What if the deceased soldiers weren't all Christians? It makes sense. Whatever. I'm tired of trying.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I'm not even religious and it just infuriates me when they petition to have crosses removed from war memorials and other places to honor people who died.  Its like they're obsessed with hating Christians.

What if the deceased soldiers weren't all Christians? It makes sense. Whatever. I'm tired of trying.

I meant on individual memorials. But yeah whatever, this isn't worth arguing. Bleh, we need another Iraq thread so we have something worthwhile to debate.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Personally I don't blame someone for getting mad their e-mail address was revealed in an ACLU newsletter.

 

I wouldn't want people knowing I associate with them either.

 

I wonder if the ACLU will sue itself over this?...