'Do Not Track' Bill Aims To Let Consumers Reject Online Tracking (consumerist.com) 75
kheldan writes: A newly introduced piece of federal legislation aims to give consumers more choices about when their browsing behavior is being tracked. Today, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Ed Markey (MA) are introducing the Do Not Track Online Act of 2015 (PDF), which would direct the Federal Trade Commission to create new regulations "regarding the collection and use of personal information obtained by tracking the online activity of an individual."
Meaningless campaign posturing (Score:1)
That's funny. perhaps they will add a bill to outlaw being a criminal, too.
No, it's actually bullshit. Meaningless campaign posturing. Their aides or supporters then mention it to media or in publications as if it were meaningful.
These are senators introducing a bill that everyone knows will be referred to a subcommittee where it will die. To top it off, they're Senators from the minority party so they *know* they have no chance of even getting the bill seriously on the agenda, much less of anything remotely resembling passage.
Which means they're spending taxpayer dollars on po
Re: (Score:2)
Meaningless campaign posturing....will be referred to a subcommittee where it will die. To top it off, they're Senators from the minority party so they *know* they have no chance of even getting the bill seriously on the agenda, much less of anything remotely resembling passage.
Which means they're spending taxpayer dollars on political posturing and time campaigning.
I agree it's dead on arrival, but I'm not sure it's campaign posturing, because I doubt the rest of the country really cares enough about this issue to take notice. If a politician's goal is to prop up a campaign, there are much better issues to use. I am more inclined to believe that someone thinks [possibly erroneously] that they can make some progress on this issue. Keep in mind that just because an idea flounders in sub-committee hell doesn't always mean that something useful isn't incorporated into a l
Re: (Score:1)
Dear Ledouche of the Retardation:
Nobody is talking about NSLs. The article isn't about NSLs. The bill isn't about NSLs. uBlock and Disconnect.me aren't about NSLs.
This is about stopping seedy advertising shitheads from doing what the NSA is already doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Do not call lists have worked perfect for myself for the past decade or so?
I just wish they would make it so political calls could be added to that list.
Re: (Score:3)
Do not call lists have worked perfect for myself for the past decade or so?
I just wish they would make it so political calls could be added to that list.
Having no land-line works perfectly for this. Unless you're really old, I can't understand why anyone still has a land-line
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do not call was pretty fail (Score:4, Insightful)
how are they going to enforce "do not track" if they can't even enforce do not call?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Do not call was pretty fail (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Do Not Call is a pretty stellar success...things are a lot better now than they were before, and very large penalties are handed out on a regular basis. It's almost guaranteed that every solicitor who ignores Do Not Call is a scammer; it stops legit companies (which were the majority of this stuff) dead in their tracks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I get about one call a DAY. How do YOU get the do not call to work???
(1) Try to get as much information as possible from the caller: name of company, type of business, reply phone number, etc. True scammers are likely to waffle, so try to feign interest long enough to get what you can. ... tell the caller that you are on the FCC do-not-call list. If the caller says something oblique, like "oh, I need to mark you not-to-call in my records" then tell them it's the FCC's records (not their own) that they should be checking before they call.
(2) Then
(3) Report the violation [donotcall.gov] to th
Re: (Score:2)
And, most importantly, the caller needs to be a legitimate business located in the US. I don't know about the GGP, but of the multiple calls I get every day, most are Canadian Pharmacy, Microsoft Support, and other criminals operating in other countries and using VoIP bridges to call the US. It's telephone spam, and the Do Not Call list is powerless to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
Report them anyway, even if they're outside the USA. They may be calling from outside the USA, but some are agents for US businesses.
I don't know whether the law can go after the providers of VoIP access-points in the USA, but with enough complaints to the FCC, maybe the law will be amended so that it does.
Also, these other countries surely have a reciprocal problem. Maybe the ultimate solution to junk calls will be treaties that enable prosecution across borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you put the correct number into the database? Do you update it every few years as the numbers expire?
You should not be getting any calls.
Remember: Political, donation, and not-for-profit calls are NOT blocked by the list. Those are still fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you update it every few years as the numbers expire?
Once a number is in the do-not-call list, the registration never expires [ftc.gov] unless the number becomes disconnected and assigned to someone else, or you ask for it to be removed.
Re: (Score:3)
I hired a couple of ex-Mossad freelancers and suddenly that company quit calling anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, this isn't 2005, there is no need for a land-line in 2015.
Re: (Score:2)
One call a day is it working pretty well. It used to happen a lot more frequently, and the cost is lower. But companies now also try pretty hard to get you to do some business with them, which grants them the rights to call you. Enter a sweepstakes? Call for a free trinket. Two years of calls. Which at least is a sweepstakes entry.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I agree. I haven't had a spam since it went into effect. The calls instantly stopped.
You have to renew it every few years, maybe people don't realize this?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to renew it every few years, maybe people don't realize this?
No, you don't. See my post above.
Re: (Score:2)
how are they going to enforce "do not track" if they can't even enforce do not call?
That's the question I was asking when I saw this story and decided to post it. So far as I know, some of the worst of the bad actors out there actually will use the 'Do Not Call' list as their calling list for their robodialers; others just roll the dice and hope there aren't enough complaints to get them busted, or find some way to obfuscate themselves enough to avoid calls getting traced back to them. Also, I'm not sure how a 'Do Not Track' law is going to be enforcable on a website that is hosted and ope
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they can just add federal penalties for ignoring the existing do-not-track settings of browsers.
I live in CT aand I hate this man. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. He's a fan of unenforceable, unworkable bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming my do not track preferences would not apply to the Feds though.
A better question is where would they apply? I'm sure there will be some rich-ass political BS merged in at the last moment that grants allowances and exclusions.
There will be a "Do Not Track" cookie (Score:5, Funny)
commentsubjecthere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should be pretty fucking obvious, this is the first push for anti-Windows anal probe 10 technology. Blocking browsers data mining without blocking operating system data mining will be impossible. So basically the first legal shot across M$'s extraordinarily hugely offensive privacy invasive bow, more sure to follow.
Cute (Score:2)
Ohhh, that's adorable. Politicians think their opinion matters to corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
..and politicians still think that people believe they care about their rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Ohhh, that's adorable. Politicians think their opinion^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlaws matters^H to corporations.
I tidied that up a hair. Add in "Now they have a new restriction to overcome without breaking a sweat, and actually, encouragement to be a little less detectable," and I think you're awesome-golden. :)
Ask the engineers (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not write these bills in collaboration with software engineers, who have a clue?
We don't want more ridiculous things like the mandatory "by visiting this site you agree with our website using cookies" messages.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "track cookies", which is why I said engineers should be part of the debate.
A unique identifier (session) stored in a cookie can be used to keep you logged in, to track you, or both. What they choose to do with
the cookie is decided on the server-side and not visible to you.
Unless you're suggesting disabling all cookies altogether, which would explain your posting as an anonymous coward.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Third-party cookies can be disabled in firefox from the settings, it's just not done by default.
Your browser contains enough uniquely identifying information that you can be separated from all other visitors without
using cookies anyway. If websites are not allowed by law to track you, they probably won't. If you take away their third-party
cookies, they'll just use something else (see panopticlick or evercookie).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I think the cookie warning was worth a try. The hope was that it would encourage companies to either avoid cookies or at least be up front about what they do with them. It half worked.
It was actually an opportunity for companies, but they wasted it. Now AdBlock and some privacy blocking software are almost mandatory, and harsher legislation is likely to appear.
Symbolic vote getter (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another "law" that is completely unenforceable and unworkable being paraded in front of us for one reason only, the get gullible people who don't understand the tech in play to vote for someone.
The only rule is you have to make sure there are a set of at least two major business investigations and/or seizures that have taken place after your law goes into effect. That's a lot of work and lost gov't revenue, but hey.. after a few, it can just fall by the proverbial wayside and it was still a success. The world is a better place now, and [I] am an awesome politician for MAKING that happen. Go Team America!
*gag*
Will there be teeth? (Score:2)
One of the problems they have with the health care privacy law is that there is no legal punishment. That is, if you get caught giving or selling away healthcare information, you don't do jail time. Usually they get off with a warning - even if it was your ex-employer who gave a private detective health care information and tried to hire them to look for incriminating evidence.
At best, the people get sued - which is often an expensive proposition.
Put in a real fi
Doesn't work Internationally? (Score:2)
Even if you could pass a law like this and get people in the US or Canada to agree with it, exactly how are you suppose to stop companies that are located in other countries. This isn't really going to work.
Wake up. (Score:2)
PHB: ...so I, a small online marketing firm, am not allowed to TELL anyone that I'm harvesting this data anymore? I have to say that I'm following the law and not? Ah, shucks. Well, that's fine. I'll just sell a "unique" data set product with "cutting-edge" sources. No big deal. Hey, Jen, tell the guys to start working on that.
Jen: Already did. They said it'll be done in a few hours.
PHB: Better idea than I originally thought!
*faceplant*
Ain't gonna work... (Score:1)
You think websites will give a damn?
We have a law against unwanted newsletter in Canada. Hasn't stopped ANYTHING other than from Canadian companies... and even there, some still send them because their TOS says you are agreeing to it just by using their service.
I can't wait to see what they attach (Score:2)
to this and what the loop holes are.
While we're at it (Score:2)
Can I get a "do not steal my credit card number" bill, and a "pretty please don't assume my identity" bill, while they're at it?
Damn...our politicians are just so forward-thinking. If only they would have have had the foresight to pass a "do not blow up skyscrapers" bill before 9/11. Just think how different the world would be today!!
Re: (Score:3)
But we'll still be able to buy homeopathic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You would prefer it if the government made it a crime to buy something that they didn't approve?
This is a bad idea (Score:2)
People are already empowered to prevent websites from remembering what they told those websites: don't talk to that website. We have neglected to use that power, and instead, we've chosen to use shitty web browsers for the last 20 years, where those web browsers' policy seems to be "meh, load whatever anyone suggests." I suppose some people would say since our browsers suck and most of us aren't programmers who can make their own browser, we're not really empowered, but I think we simply rejected the power.
What about government itself? (Score:2)
Can we get "do not track" bill that applies to NSA/CIA/etc. first, please?