July 20, 2005

Merck's New Math

Another entry for the Lysenkonomics file! The New York Times reports on Merck's new math:

In a 2001 letter to doctors, Merck seriously understated the heart risks faced by patients taking its painkiller Vioxx, according to evidence presented Tuesday in the first Vioxx lawsuit to reach trial.

In the letter, Merck reported that patients taking Vioxx in the largest clinical trial of the drug ever, only 0.5 percent had incurred "cardiovascular events," or heart and circulation problems. That would mean only about 20 patients among the more than 4,000 who took Vioxx during the study.

But in fact, 14.6 percent of the Vioxx patients - or 590 people - had cardiovascular troubles while taking the drug, according to Merck's own report on the study to federal regulators. And 2.5 percent, or 101 people, had serious problems, like heart attacks.

Merck sent the letter to thousands of doctors, including in April 2001 to Dr. Brent Wallace, who had prescribed Vioxx to Robert Ernst. Mr. Ernst, who was 59, died suddenly in May 2001 after taking Vioxx for eight months, and his family is suing Merck, claiming the drug caused his death.

May 08, 2005

Where Are the Women Libertarians?

This libertarian blog is run by an ugly man who was pretending to be a hot college graduate.

May 07, 2005

LP on Stopping Libertarians from Blowing People Up

This is a bit old--I grabbed it from Google cache. A press release from the Libertarian Party explaining how to prevent libertarians like Timothy McVeigh from blowing people up. You guessed it--it recommends that America should become more libertarian, just like McVeigh wanted it. But wouldn't that be giving in to the terrorists? I wonder if the Taliban has a press release called, "What now? Five suggestions to prevent the next OBL."

June 12, 2001

What now? Five suggestions to prevent the next Timothy McVeigh

[June 12] WASHINGTON, DC -- Now that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh has been executed, there are specific actions the government should immediately take to prevent such a horrific act of domestic terrorism from ever happening again, Libertarians say.

“Of course, no one can guarantee that another Timothy McVeigh-style psychopath won’t try to murder scores of innocent people,” said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party national director. “However, Libertarians have five concrete suggestions for the government, each of which would reduce the chance of such a crime being repeated.”

On Monday morning, McVeigh was executed by lethal injection at a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, for his role in the 1995 bombing that killed 168 people in a federal building in Oklahoma City.

Now, the government should act quickly to try to change the political climate that helped spawn a Timothy McVeigh, said Dasbach. Such reforms could include:

(1) Prosecute government officials who commit crimes.

“McVeigh said he blew up the building in Oklahoma City to protest the federal government’s actions in Waco -- and he was quickly apprehended, tried, and punished for his crime,” noted Dasbach. “That was proper, even if you might disagree with the morality of the death sentence.

“However, not a single FBI or BATF agent was arrested for their role in the fiery deaths of 86 people at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. There should not be one standard of justice for ordinary Americans, and another for government officials. Until that injustice is eliminated, many Americans will continue to view their government with suspicion, fear, and bitterness.”

(2) Embrace an open, vibrant political system.

“People tend to turn to violence only when they feel they have no other way to be heard,” said Dasbach. “It is the government’s responsibility, then, to make sure that political discussion is not restricted, regulated, or suppressed.

“When Americans feel they have a role in the political system, they will work through the political system to make productive changes. When that avenue is blocked -- either by restrictive ballot access laws, legal curbs on political speech, exclusion from debates, or by attempting to discredit unpopular political speech -- the Timothy McVeighs of the world turn to violence.

“That’s why robust political debate -- especially about the abuse of government power -- is a healthy way to change the system. And that’s why stifling such debate is downright dangerous.”

(3) Reject violence on principle.

“Over the past 20 years, the United States government has intervened militarily in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other nations,” said Dasbach. “In each case, these military actions resulted in innocent civilians being killed, and were done without the benefit of a formal declaration of war.

“The message of these actions is simple: It’s proper to use violence to achieve political goals. That’s a message the government should not send. Instead, a commitment to nonviolence should start at the top.

“Unless the security of the United States is directly threatened, the U.S. government should not bomb, invade, or drop missiles on people in other nations. Violence breeds violence, and it’s time for our government to lead by example and stop the bloodshed.”

(4) Repeal the Omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996.

“This legislation, rushed through Congress after the Oklahoma City bombing, grants the president arbitrary power to declare individuals ‘terrorists,’ authorizes the use of secret evidence, and reverses the presumption of innocence for suspects,” said Dasbach. “Repealing this law would expand freedom without hindering the ability to catch real criminals.

“The freedoms recognized under the Bill of Rights are our strongest bulwark against terrorism. Security measures that infringe on those freedoms will inevitably lead to abuse, ultimately making us less secure in our lives and property.”

(5) Reduce the size and power of the federal government.

“No, we’re not saying that the growing power of the federal government justifies what Timothy McVeigh did,” said Dasbach. “But the fact is, millions of Americans view their own government with suspicion and distrust.

“Americans see a government that can recklessly seize our property under asset forfeiture, eminent domain, or environmental laws; that can detain us at roadblocks for not wearing a seatbelt; that forces banks to spy on their own customers; that shoots innocent people dead in the name of the War on Drugs; that can secretly read our e-mail; that allows the IRS to seize our bank accounts; and that can violate our civil liberties in a thousand different ways.

“A government that was limited to its Constitutionally defined role would be smaller, less intrusive, and less threatening. It would be a government that honors fundamental American liberties, instead of undermining them. And it would be a government that gives Americans little reason to view it with apprehension.”

Those five suggestions have something in common, said Dasbach: They would all change the political climate in a positive way -- and make future Timothy McVeighs less likely.

“We can never bring back the men, women, and children who were killed in Oklahoma City,” he said. “But by using this tragedy to honor and reaffirm our nation’s fundamental liberties, we can help make sure that the 168 people who died in Oklahoma City did not die in vain. It would be America’s way of standing up and saying: ‘Never again.’ ”

May 05, 2005

Up-Update on Assholes

But before reading Bigelow's article, check out Rosenberg's Philosophy of Social Science. And the Leiter Reports.

Update on Assholes

I know that the post below may seem a little extreme. But I just finished reading Gordon Bigelow's "Let There Be Markets, The evangelical roots of economics," in the May Harper's. It's worth a trip to the newsstand.

A Big List of Assholes

Today I found a huge list of assholes on the Internet.

August 17, 2003

Academic PR: Hoofnagle Responds to AEI-Brookings

I've decided to start posting the correspondence I have with various people who produce either bad intentioned or aimless research on privacy. I've been writing to professors (mainly economists) for some time to debunk some of the claims in their research. Generally, I have a low opinion of economics. It is, after all, a social science. It relies upon assumptions that are often falsifiable. But, it's been elevated to the status of a religion in the US. In the extension below, I have the first salvo on a recent AEI-Brookings study performed by Professors Jamal, Maier, and Sunder. It concludes that the US system of privacy protection is superior to the UK's because US companies have privacy notices. In detail below, I explain why this is crap.

Reply-To: hoofnagle@epic.org
From: "hoofnagle@epic.org"
To: karim.jamal@ualberta.ca, michael-maier@uiowa.edu, shyam.sunder@yale.edu
Subject: Privacy Study / Comment
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:06:04 -0400

Greetings Professors Jamal, Maier, and Sunder,

I recently had the opportunity to read your paper (Enforced Standards
Versus Evolution by General Acceptance), and wanted to provide some
constructive criticism. I am Chris Hoofnagle of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center.

I think that your paper relies upon some false assumptions. In
reconsidering these assumptions, you may decide to change some of the
conclusions of the paper, or adjust research methods.

First, the US does not have privacy norms that have "evolved by general
acceptance." In fact, we have a common law of privacy that is constantly
expanding as a result of a series of Federal Trade Commission complaints.
As a result of cases dating back to In Re Geocities, the US has enforced
norms that include a prohibition on materially false or deceptive claims in
privacy policies, a prohibition on omitting material uses of personal
information on the privacy policy, making false security claims, etc.
There are also some specific privacy bans that have developed as a result
of AG enforcement, such as the problem of "pre-acquired account"
telemarketing. That practice is now highly regulated as a result of fraud.
We also have the COPPA.

Second, more fundamentally, there are serious problems in the assumption
that notice is a fair information practice that promotes privacy. Notice,
specifically, is not a fair information practice. If you visit the 1980 EU
Guidelines (which you incorrectly claim has only 5, rather than 8 fair
information practices--you have cited "FIPs Lite," the FTC guidelines),
you'll see that notice derives from the "openness" principle. That
principle stands for the premise that there should be no secret databases.
It is in fact derived from American studies (the 1973 HEW report and the
Privacy Act of 1974, which requires all agencies to disclose the presence
of all databases, even if classified).

In the US, and especially in the context of 4th Amendment rights, notice is
used to *eliminate privacy.* So, when you visit an airport, the sign says
"we may search your personal belongings." This is an attempt to relieve
individuals of expectations of privacy so that they do not have a 4th
Amendment claim against those who search them.

In the context of commercial privacy policies, you'll see that one may have
more privacy without them. Your study assumes that presence of a notice is
a good thing, where in reality the notice just serves as a disclaimer.
Take for instance, the privacy policy of ticketmaster.com, which does not
allow individuals to opt-out of anything. Saying that a privacy policy
protects privacy is just like saying that a food with a nutrition
disclosure is nutritious.

As far as fair information practices go, the OECD's first, collection
limitation, is far more important than any other practice. Many of the
privacy problems we experience would be eliminated if collection were
limited to what is necessary to administer a transaction, with the consent
and knowledge of the data subject.

So, your study highlights the least important aspect of privacy, while more
or less glossing over a much more important issue—use of 3rd party cookies.
The study could have just as easily concluded that websites in the UK are
better because they are less likely to use 3rd party cookies, and when they
do employ them, they are more likely to give notice of the fact.

Third, it is a generally accepted fact that so called "web seals" are
pointless. Truste is a joke. It's been known for some time that the group
has been captured, and even if it were not, business will always private
enforcement actions (ADR) rather than a public one that is more
accountable. Robert Gellman's work in this field is necessary for an
understanding of web seal weaknesses.

Much valuable research could be done in this field. I would suggest, if
you are interested in doing more privacy work, to address the issue of
*actual* privacy practices, especially in the arena of cross-selling and
CRM within the big banks. The banks are very secretive about these
practices. I suspect that they are objectionable practices. Additionally,
the problem of customer exclusion have not received enough attention. But,
it is clearly a new trend in this field—that is, excluding customers
because they are too troublesome, or because they aren't profitable to the
company.

I hope this is helpful, and please contact me with any concerns or
questions.

Regards,
Chris Hoofnagle