Chris Hoofnagle Quotations

There are no laws that stop the government from looking at that info.

There are established legal procedures for obtaining phone records that provide checks against improper access. These legal procedures allow fast access to phone record for law enforcement and provide accountability. That's what missing here, the accountability.

We're arguing that it is creating a national ID system.

The problem with privacy cases is that most privacy plaintiffs have to give up their privacy. In order to sue you have to show up in court and show that they used your phone records.

One of the problems of the advertising-supported system is it's built for advertising, not people.

I am kind of perplexed by their argument, ... You have a federally mandated program, created with federal dollars, but the states are issuing it. The states are not deciding anything, so I am not really sure how it is not a federal ID when the federal government makes all the decisions.

There is huge pressure from industry to get Congress to preempt state data breach notice laws. It's quite a mess now.

It clearly can be dangerous for some people to have this information. Imagine how costly exposure of these records could be for a business executive whose list of calls is obtained by a competitor. There can be real harm.

I think this could be a very interesting way to deal with the telemarketing issue for consumers.

I think companies may find the data used against them in lawsuits. Plaintiffs' attorneys might be able to prove a taxi or delivery van was speeding.

I think companies may find the data used against them in lawsuits, ... Plaintiffs' attorneys might be able to prove a taxi or delivery van was speeding.

Retailers and banks are trying to pass a law that's much weaker.

The practice will never completely disappear, but we think as it gets more attention, the number of sites doing it will be on the decline.

There has been a creeping spread of location technology in the workplace.

What often is missed with social irritants like spam and telemarketing is that they are a product of privacy violations, ... You can try to marginalize spam, but it is inextricably linked to fraudulent practices. Addressing spam will get at the other issues that they claim to be important.

We tend to think of security issues as being computer-based. But many scam artists use the telephone and simple false pretenses to trick people out of data.

Through the mining of public records and the purchase of credit reporting data, private-sector companies are amassing troves of personal information on citizens for the government. Serious questions exist involving citizen access to profiles, their accuracy and the potential for misuse of personal information.

The privacy risk is that these codes may be later used for other law enforcement efforts outside counterfeiting, or to identify people who try to participate in political debates anonymously.

Credit monitoring can't prevent ID theft. The thing that is worth paying for is the security freeze.

No one wants to send out a security breach notice. You instantly become a pariah, and the fear is that you'll start to lose customers.

There will be legislation to tighten up privacy. And if not legislation, there will be more regulation.

A technology that can analyze content at that level invites secondary uses, whether it's law enforcement or national security.

It's just a lot easier to fool someone into giving you this information than to actually crack into a computer system.

It's the first step to federal recognition of credit freezes.

No system is totally secure. If you want privacy, see a doctor who keeps his records in his office.

Existing carrier practices and regulations are inadequate to stop this trade in personal information.

If you have a legitimate need you can get these records, the problem is these companies are offering an illegal shortcut that is unfair to the consumer.

In the political field, candidates and parties have gotten away with a lot of practices that would clearly be illegal if a business did them. Both parties are using detailed databases of personal information that are completely unregulated. And they're not likely to be regulated, because the politicians themselves would have to limit their activities in order to do so.

Because you have to sign in to use it, they can attach your identity to anything you send through that pipe.

The Do Not Call registry is a great success, but a couple of problems exist. The main loophole is the 'established business' clause. If you go to Starbucks for coffee, technically Starbucks can call you for 18 months.

The Do Not Call registry is a great success, but a couple of problems exist, ... The main loophole is the 'established business' clause. If you go to Starbucks for coffee, technically Starbucks can call you for 18 months.

The lawsuits are great. But a related difficulty here is that it's too easy to get telephone records.