In response to this missive, I agree. As a CWA local president involved in legislative matters, I know we have been hammering away at these issues. With our clout in various state legislatures, our elected officials are listening. However, it's not just a privacy issue. We're sending data overseas that includes credit numbers, social security numbers, etc., that make identity theft not only an opportunity, but a temptation. There's also the buzzwords that the current administration always employ: issues of "national security," "unpatriotic" movement of American work and jobs to foreign shores... Make no mistake - these actions are gutting the middle class and undermining the infrastructure of our country. How soon before we're a third world nation? Bruce Hartford <bruceh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 05:06 AM 7/7/04 -0700, Nancy Mulvany wrote: > > >However, we no longer feel that this particular > issue deserves to > >standalone with a white paper, FAQ, etc. Personally > I am very concerned, > >alarmed, and discouraged by the amount of personal > information that is sent > >outside the United States to countries that are > beyond the legal reach of > >our privacy protection laws. However, I do not see > this as a "writer's issue." > > I agree it is a citizen's issue rather than a > writer-specific issue. For > that matter, government support and usage of > offshoring is also a "general" > rather than a writer-specific issue. It seems to me > that offshoring as an > issue is so broad, and the writer-specific > comonponent of it is so tiny in > economic terms (though, of course, not in its affect > on our members), that > *any* effective campaign is going to have to be on > the general rather than > the specific. And it will have to be fought in > alliance and cooperation > with other unions and organizations, rather than > independently by us on > writer-specific grounds. > > I believe that right now we (the broad general "we") > are all caught up in > an economic-ideologic offshoring tidal wave. The > "offshoring is good for > you" mantra has been accepted and is being repeated > everywhere, even by > people who are losing their jobs. It's like a form > of mass hysteria, a > mental stampede as it were. But in order to rein in > offshoring (to say > nothing of stopping it), we first have to build a > broad popular consensus > that offshoring is NOT good for everyone, and is NOT > the greatest thing > since sliced bread (which I also don't like). So > before we can do anything > else, we *first* have to get our members, and our > target constituency, and > the public at large to begin questioning the > so-called benefits of > offshoring. The way to do that is to attack > offshoring at its two most > vulnerable points--government using our tax dollars > to offshore jobs and > data security. > > Once folks begin to question those two limited > aspects of offshoring it > then become possible to raise other less obvious > problems with offshoring. > > In terms of reining in this mad rush to offshore > everything, I believe that > our only hope is to *first* win legislation > restricting offshoring of > personal data and limiting offshoring of government > work paid for with our > tax dollars, and *then* expand that legislation to > other areas. > > So, I do believe that focusing on these two spearate > issues, and developing > materials on them, it needed. I think it would be > much better to keep these > two issues separate as a kind of one-two punch than > to try merging them > together. > > > --bruce > > > > > >I think it may make more sense to fold some of the > material I have gathered > >in Bruce Hartford's drafts for the "Stop Government > Support for Offshoring > >Our Jobs" campaign. > > > >What do you think about this? Have we lost our > focus? Or, would it best to > >work with Bruce? > > > >-nancy > > > >Nancy Mulvany > > >