From: Matt Norwood <mrn2101@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:31:09 -0500

Re: [CPC] Paper2: Letting Go of the Rogue Box of Cheerios

I think you're right to be skeptical of my proposal. The most obvious
hurdle, as you say, is getting the device into the hands of enough
shoppers for it to make a difference. But remember that that argument
was also leveled against the Internet's potential for social change as
well: people kept chanting "digital divide" every time someone tried to
argue that the Internet would transform society, but Internet
penetration is now high enough that that counterargument doesn't hold
much weight. New technologies always look at first as though they will
always be restricted to the early adopters; then, one day, everyone you
know owns a cell phone.

But there are a dozen other objections you could raise to my scheme, not
the least of which is the possibility that people just can't be
bothered.

On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 03:36 -0500, Pamela Kellet wrote:
> I must admit that at first I was surprised to hear myself described as 
> pessimistic. However, upon reading Matt's paper from Law and the Internet 
> Society, I began to think that perhaps I am. I am skeptical about the 
> Norwood solution for several reasons (some of which may originate from my 
> ignorance/assumptions of the programming and hardware requirements) but let 
> me begin with this:
> 
> Doesn't the proposal assume that everyone (or at least a large enough 
> percentage to make a market difference) have access to a 
> cellphone/PDA/personal shopper? Assuming arguendo that most people have a 
> cell phone, would the hardware necessary for scanning be included in every 
> cell phone (even the cheapest ones) or would it be reserved for the most 
> expensive models? Even if it is just a matter of creating the software 
> which could be made easily available on the web through the generosity of 
> the techno-savvy community, don't we run into the same problem as with the 
> MSM v. blog argument; that only those with the means and the motivation 
> will find the info out in cyberspace? If there isn't an implicit equality 
> requirement in this system don't you run the risk of excluding economically 
> disadvantaged individuals (who arguably are the most vulnerable to the 
> invisible tracking problem)?
> 
> It seems to me that there has to be an equality principle involved if the 
> Norwood proposal is to "lower the barrier to entry into this clique of 
> socially responsible consumers." It isn't that I think people don't care as 
> "Open Bug #1" suggests. It is that I think that any system that is only 
> available to a select few will not have the necessary impact to make 
> corporate powerhouses like Wal-Mart feel the sting of consumer 
> enfranchisement.
> 
> At this point you may be able to anticipate my next step, what is the 
> likelihood of convincing corporate America, Congress and/or the courts that 
> we have a fundamental right to this type of technology?       
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list
> 
> 


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list