I'll admit here that Bailey has a point that the proposed law could apply to more than just the biggest data brokers, depending on how the Federal Trade Commission writes the rules (the proposed legislation transfers much of the rule making authority to the FTC).

But I'd be highly surprised if the number came anywhere near a thousand, let alone the thousands he says will be affected.

He also tries to attack me by arguing that it is likely that civil liberties groups use direct mailing lists.

In fact, it wasn't too hard to find a company that claims the ACLU has used one of their lists, but I fail to see how that's relevant to the argument at hand, especially since the issue isn't about the existence of direct marketing lists and I don't work for the ACLU.

I don't have a position on what the appropriate remedy for the power imbalance that has grown up between citizens, data brokers and their government/corporate clients - in fact, I think its such a thorny problem that any single remedy will not solve the problem and have unintended consequences.

But it is pretty clear to almost everyone except Bailey that there's a problem.

Still, Bailey goes on to take another few off-the-topic whacks.

One, he accuses Wired News of being part of a bad acronym (MSM) and implying its one of those old stodgy media giants that loathes the blogosphere. This made me laugh. It should make you laugh too, if you have ever read Wired News.

Now, I don't exactly know what the Mainstream Media is, but if I'm a part of it, no one has ever sent me a membership card.

Personally, I'm pretty sure the term has no meaning and no definition since it tends to mostly get rolled out whenever a self-important blogger needs an easy target (reminds me a bit of the now-dated term "politically correct").

Two, Bailey accuses Wired News of deciding who to publish based on recommendations from privacy and civil liberty's groups.

I won't speak for Wired News -- since I'm a freelancer, not an employee - but I'm pretty sure that's not how they make hiring or publishing decisions.

What Bailey really seems to be implying is that some Wired News writers are highly skeptical of power and listen to and publish the criticisms of civil liberties group.

Since I cover privacy, anti-terrorism and technology, and these groups follow the same issues closely, I'd be a fool not to talk with them and quote them when their criticisms seem vaild.

He seems to be implying - though doesn't quite come out and say it -- that I simply rewrite their press releases and ignore or exclude other sides of an issue.

Now, if Bailey thinks that, I'd love to see him use his blog to take apart one of my pieces.

He's never done that, though he did criticize an article by Wired News staffer Kim Zetter (whose name, in the first rule of journalism, he misspelled) for an article she wrote on RFID badges for school children.

What I think Bailey is trying to criticize is Wired News writers' tendency of not simply swallowing and regurgitating the feel-good assurances of corporations and the government, of being skeptical of claims that there are terrorists lurking under every bed and pedophiliac child molesters drooling at the door of every school, and of questioning the wisdom of a background check society, where a person can't get a job manning a register at a box store because as a 19 year old they got busted trying to finagle their way to cheap cocktails and meaningless sex in a college bar using a fake I.D.

Indeed, I think what Bailey might actually be accusing Wired News of is the sin of journalism.

To that, I happily attempt to plead guilty.

I'll leave the role of sycophant, apologist and scaremonger to him for when he steps up to his microphone in the blogosphere to stick it to the man in the MSM by toadying up to power.
PA