Obama's Privacy Bill of Rights: Just a Beginning 222
jfruh writes "Last night the White House hastily arranged a phone conference at which a 'Privacy Bill of Rights' was announced. It's an important document, not least because it affirms the idea that our data belongs to us, not to companies that happen to collect it. But it has a number of shortcomings, not least among them the companies aren't required to respect the rules laid out."
Need more teeth (Score:5, Interesting)
It needs to apply to government as well as the private sector.
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (Score:5, Interesting)
Privacy Bill of Suggestions
In this country, that's progress. However, we are still woefully lacking compared to the EU, where privacy is taken very seriously and most industries are required to disclose any and all personal data held and delete it upon request. And I'm not talking the "We just hid it from our homepage" delete either, but a bona fide "We don't have it anymore, anywhere, and if we do we could be sued for a very large amount of money."
It's stuff like this that has firmly convinced me that while the US might have been the origination point of the internet, it is no longer a leader, or even in the race, when it comes to either innovation or culture. My country's only political agenda is its GDP. It will do so even if it means feeding its own citizens to the wolves in the process... Anything to make a buck.
You can't just "keep it secret" (Score:5, Interesting)
The era of massive data mining is beginning. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/ [forbes.com] And that's just your groceries, not your online behavior, which likely contains a lot more hidden clues.
When companies can decide to track and analyze your behavior in any way they want to, reasonably accurately predict things such as pregnancies, marriages, divorces, etc., and use it to their advantage, intentionally disguising all this from you... it's borderline absurd to say "people should just keep their secrets secret".
It's true that it's arguable whether this sort of behavior should be regulated (It's not "evil" that they just look what you've bought and try to predict your interests based on that) and if we decide to regulate it, we'll face a lot of problems... But it's quite odd to say that there shouldn't be a lot of public discourse around this subject (It's relevant to a lot of people and we already have some laws about ethical advertising and for a good reason) and just silly to say that people should take personal responsibility about how data miners figure out things they've never told anyone.
What a joke. (Score:4, Interesting)
Everything listed in the "Privacy Bill of Rights" is common-sense, caveat emptor-type stuff, or is easily handled by a standard contract. But by making it part of a "Privacy Bill of Rights" enforced by some government agency, it implies that these "rights" are bestowed by the government, which means that they can be repealed in the future, which would actually harm privacy.
Maybe Barry should start small. Say with the whole indefinite detention thing, or maybe just something simple, like taking it easy with the drone strikes on American citizens abroad.
Re:Data ownership (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd vote that they MUST tell us what they keep, so we can decide if that price is fair for the service received.
I'd vote against mandatory restrictions on what they can keep. I am willing to pay some level of privacy intrusion, just like I am willing to pay some amount of my attention by accepting advertisements in TV and web pages, so that I can avoid paying actual currency for many services these 'free' vendors provide.
Re:Data ownership (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, but now assume we're not talking about some observation Alice (I like Alice as my A name better) made about Bob while Bob was out walking, but some personal information Bob specifically gave to Alice because Alice was doing something for Bob where she needed that information.
Nobody else needs that information. Bob has not agreed to let it be shared with anyone else. He gave it to her because it was necessary, not because he wanted to have everyone know it. You can say "tough shit" and then forced everyone to choose between having every fact of their life known or not getting anything done. I think a reasonable society can find a better middle ground.
Alice doesn't need to be lobotomized. She just needs to respect Bob's wishes that she not share the information with anyone else without his permission.
Why's that so much to ask?
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (Score:5, Interesting)
I shouldn't have to tell an american this, because I'm an australian and you are an american and you should know this. But show your damn constitution and founding principles some bloody respect.
Your own forefathers told your people that they should chose liberty over security. The attack you talk of, September 11, was sad, but could a single, albeit well executed, attack really justify the abandonment of centuries of american struggle?
George bush instituted the patriot act, invaded sovereign countries , drove away numerous liberty oriented allies including the very people, the french, who gifted you with the statue of liberty to symbolise your struggle, and put in place a chain of events that lead to catastrophic decline in the international respect America once yielded, because of a paranoic belief that the world was out to get you, and finally ruined a once vibrant economy by placing the interests of a wealthy elite over the interests of the citizenry and its liberties.
Barack Obama has been a deep disapointment, but by arguing that by deifying the most destructive president the united states has endured in living history you invalidate the very measures that one should judge a president.
Do not forgive Mr Obama, but god damn it, Don't forgive george bush. America is better than that. And if me, a man who has never visited your country can believe that, for fuck sake so can you.