"Privacy" is not a matter about which I can claim any special expertise or, for that matter, very much knowledge at all. It is one of the many issues spawned by the information revolution of recent years. Personally, I became aware of it when, late in the debates over financial modernization, privacy issues surfaced quite unexpectedly, and then became attached to the legislative process that produced the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act on November 12, 1999. I saw no natural relationship between privacy and the basic financial modernization issues, but there was certainly a political explanation. For many, the information revolution held forth the prospect of glittering opportunities, while others saw only a threatened loss of privacy. As so often happens in Washington, the modernization legislation provided the "Christmas Tree" on which a privacy issues bulb could be hung.

Consumer issues, possibly because of the fervency with which conflicting positions are held, tend to produce battlefields that are quickly overrun by trade groups, lobbyists, and real (or self-proclaimed) experts, many of whom seem to be most interested in keeping the game alive as long as possible. According to recent reports in the financial press such a possibility now looms for privacy. It is a familiar but depressing prospect.

Several months ago I received a paper on privacy from a long-time friend, Carl Felsenfeld, Professor of Law and Director of the Institute on Law and Financial Services at the Fordham University Law School in New York City. The paper was intended to form the basis for a talk at a future academic conference, and my comments were solicited. I thought the paper was fascinating and immediately asked if he would consider serving as a guest author on the same subject. He agreed.

This paper does not take a "position" on any of the sides in the current debate, nor does it call for the end of privacy or for a new government program to protect privacy. Professor Felsenfeld asks only that we adopt a much more reasonable vantage point for viewing the subject, before venturing into the briar-patch of useless and unending argumentation. Most importantly, he seasons his argument with subtle humor, and just a dash of irreverence, a combination I found most appealing. I think readers will also.