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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.