Transparent and Opaque

While working at XMission, I received a call from someone who purported to be a marketer. He asked me if I would sell him my customer information. I told him no and that it was against our policy to give out any customer information without a court order. He pressed me further saying, “Come on, there has to be a price.” I refused again, stating that customer privacy was a very important part of XMission. He asked me a third time, “You’re sure?” I told him positively. He then lifted the ruse and said, “Good job, you’ve earned a new customer.”

Part of my business philosophy is to run the company as if I were a customer. I am frequently annoyed to find my personal information sold down the river by companies I do business with, so I decided never to do that to my own customers. In speaking before a Utah state committee on ISPs sharing customer information, I related this policy and asked why they were considering this in relation to only ISPs. Why aren’t other companies, by law, required to notify customers that their personal information is being rented out to the highest bidder?

If only our federal government treated privacy of the individual with the same concern. Instead of following clear constitutional rules, the attitude for some is, “Whatever we can get away with.” How would the officials responsible for these violations feel if their own private conversations were monitored? Why is transparency of the people more important to some officials than transparency in government?

Certainly national security is a concern that should not be diminished. However, our constitution does not deny warranted investigation. What it sets down are the rules for how that is to take place. When wiretaps, emails, or other communications are spied upon without proper court order, then we as Americans are losing a significant portion of our freedom. The constitution puts restraint on government for good reason, it rarely restrains itself.

I continue to advocate for the preservation and expansion of Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Conversely, if elected, my office will be as transparent as possible without violating others’ individual privacy.

Privacy is a fundamental right and value of America.

Cuban, Hatch, and Copyright

In Sunday’s Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram, Mark Cuban weighs in on copyright law, while Makan Delrahim takes the counterpoint. Unfortunately, Mr. Delrahim’s response was lacking in research. What follows is my response to the editors of the Star Telegram.

Makan Delrahim’s op-ed of December 11th was short on truth. First, my Democratic campaign for U.S. Senate has not received one red cent from Mark Cuban.

Second, Mr. Cuban has not contributed any policy assistance to this campaign. Third, and most importantly, I have never personally met Mr. Cuban and my total correspondence has been limited to three emails which consisted of a total of 42 words from him.

Portraying me as a political foe of Hatch running with Cuban’s money is not only false, but insulting. Mr. Delrahim should at least pick up an FEC report before spewing such accusations.

Senator Hatch’s stands on copyright have been repeatedly one-sided; protect the recording and motion picture industries. In doing so, he has caused immeasurable harm to technology. My own Internet Service Provider business, XMission, has had to deal with being the media companies’ unpaid copyright police since Digital Millennium Copyright Act became law. Every week, we handle hundreds of spurious complaints with no compensation from these entities for doing so. We’ve also seen the DMCA levied by third parties attempting to thwart the business of their competitors.

Crediting Senator Hatch with the creation of iTunes is laughable when you consider his comments introducing the INDUCE legislation. What the Supreme Court upheld was existing copyright law, not preventing any technology able to infringe on copyright. Peer-to-peer networks and the iPod have legitimate legal uses, but to the recording and film industry lobbyists pushing Senator Hatch, they have none.

In addition, the DMCA criminalizes such sensible “Fair Use” actions as parents making copies of childrens’ DVDs so originals are not damaged. This favoritism towards the industry is not because Senator Hatch has an agenda against the Internet and technology, its because he listens to one side of the argument. As a constituent who attempted to write Senator Hatch to represent the technology side, I found that the only way to make my voice heard was to run against him.

Mr. Delrahim should realize there are people in the technology industry who feel the problematic effects of Senator Hatch’s legislation every day.

Mathematics

One of my childhood memories is the legend behind the creation of chess. The creator presented his finished game to the king and the king was so pleased that he told the creator to name any price for his work. In response, the creator stated that he wanted one grain of rice on the first square of the chessboard, then have it subsequently doubled for each square thereafter. The king laughed and said, “Is that all?”

The king didn’t realize the power of exponents. Considering the first square had one grain of rice, the remaining squares had 2 to the 63rd power of rice. My calculator tells me this is 9.22e18, which is a 9 followed by 18 digits, or over 9 quintillion (a billion billion) grains of rice. Most likely the king could not pay off.

Marketers believe “word of mouth” is the most powerful form of advertising. Indeed, more customers have come to my business XMission based on recommendations of friends and family than any other method. Political campaigns want to use this but it is not anything you can purchase, so they mainly rely on traditional methods of advertising through broadcast and print media.

Traditional media is still part of this campaign’s strategy, but it hinges on significant funds being raised. When I encounter a willing volunteer, instead of shaking them down, I tell them to sign up for the mailing list and spread the word. The numbers are pretty simple in this race. In 2004, just over 940,000 voters participated. This was a presidential and a gubernatorial year in Utah where turnout is high. In the “mid-term”, 2002, about 570,000 voters cast their vote. So lets say 700,000 show up in 2006. This means a winner would need a maximum of 350,001 votes. A stark figure until you think of the chess board.

Tell two people a day about this campaign, and have them do the same. In 19 days, 524,288 people will have heard about it. Of course we realize that people are busy, so expecting this to happen is not realistic. However, make up the gaps by increasing the number of people you tell, and the potential is vast.

Some prominent technology websites have refused to greenlight articles about this campaign. National technologists have not responded to my emails. Cracking national media from the top is futile. The word needs to rise from the bottom. Politicians talk about the “grass roots” ad nauseam, but this is what the Internet does best. In order for this campaign to succeed, we not only need votes from inside Utah, we need funds from across the country. Send an email to your friends. Put a button on your web page. Spread the word.