Data Miners Moving to Offshore Data Havens

schwit1 writes "Washington Post has an article about former TIA personnel moving their data mining operations offshore (Bahamas) to escape U.S. privacy rules, and to make a buck. I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data (financial, medical, legal) of federal officials and their families on an open internet web server out of the Bahamas. Is this what it will take for the US to enact stringent privacy rules?"

Escape US jursidction != stronger US privacy laws

okay the poster here is saying that if a foreign country hosts information that violates US laws, we are going to enact more laws???

I think if they did something like that, we'd be more likely to invade, though I'd prefer the stronger laws...

Think about what Europe does

The US could do the same as the EU, and prohibit export of personal data to jurisdictions which do not have equal or better privacy protections as ours. That would stop a lot of outsourcing in general, and probably be a vote-winner among unemployed geeks.

Re:Think about what Europe does

that makes sense, but how do you find someone who exports personal data? and how do you setup a system that tracks the sale of the illegally exported information? it sounds great, just not very enforceable

Re:Think about what Europe does

British Columbia just established safeguards to protect personal data against the United States. The province gave a contract to a US-owned firm, and many people were worried that the company would hand the data over to the US government. Rather than give the contract to a Canadian firm, the provincial government effectively banned the company from exporting the data to the US.

Re:Think about what Europe does

The contracts are for the Medical Services Plan, which covers all residents of BC, and Pharmacare, which covers drugs. The provincial government has amended the privacy laws in an effort to satisfy critics, but a lot of people aren't convinced that this will do the job. I can't find an article on the privacy law amendments right off, but here's a link [bcgeu.ca] to a statement by the BC Government Employees Union (which admittedly has other concerns about outsourcing), and here [gov.bc.ca] is a BC government page with relevant information.

Similar stunt in portland

Reminds me of a publicity stunt a newspaper in portland pulled after the local government ruled that trash on the curbside was fair game for the police to seize without a warrant. They went dumpster diving at several high profile government officials curbsides and posted the results of their findings in the paper. I thought it was a very effective piece of journalism.

link to the story

http://www.willametteweek.com/story.php?story=3507 [willametteweek.com]

Ummmm...

Washington Post has an article about former TIA personnel moving their data mining operations offshore (Bahamas) to escape U.S. privacy rules, and to make a buck. I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data (financial, medical, legal) of federal officials and their families on an open internet web server out of the Bahamas. Is this what it will take for the US to enact stringent privacy rules?

Does this make any sense to anyone?

These companies are moving offshore to escape US privacy laws. So the solution is for the US to enact tougher privacy laws? Wouldn't that just encourage even more companies to move offshore?

I would think the solution would be one of those worldwide initiatives that people around here seem so fond of. (That's sarcasm, if you couldn't detect it.) If a company's moving offshore to escape one country's laws, the only real solution is for that other country and all the other countries around it to enact the same laws. Right?

Re:Ummmm...

No, the answer is to prohibit exporting personal data to these countries that dont have strong laws.

Re:Ummmm...

Sure. As a matter of fact, that policy has worked so well for copyright that they are extending it to patents as well. This is called "harmonization".

Won't happen

At this point, companies enforce the idea that anything that they can get their hands on is theirs.

Until we recognize that just because I gave you my information it does not mean that it is no longer mine, privacy will always take a second place to corporate interests. And, since corporate interests run America, it follows that it will not change.

What is more important is not what corporate America is doing, but how to get the Federal government back into the hands of and for its citizens; although, I really do not think that is possible. Whether you agree with the politics or not, it is suggestive to say that about 50% of the populace believes that Bush's policies are acceptable, which basically includes allowing businesses to ignore any ethical concerns (Halliburton, Microsoft, etc). You can't change corporate America with only 50% of the vote.

Re:Won't happen

You are not alone. When an intellectual property right holder has something or sells something, they want to treat it as a property. But, they want to treat the generator or the consumer as a licenser who is subject to a contract. It's been a very devastating road in U.S. that has been very well used to raise the barrier of entry to competition.

As one person noted, it is interesting that I.P. is the only thing that can be of someone else (generated from common activities), be treated as a loss of property even though it was never produced (piracy), kept as private property (trademarked in a sense), patented to prevent people from reproducing something that they are not allowed to see, and sold as a license to which you must agree without opening the product.

I have a very, very hard time believing that the founding fathers had in any shape for form intended this nightmare.

U.S. Customs for data

We control the property that leaves and enters these shores. Shouldn't we also do this with personal data? I'm not talking about a big firewall like China has, but I am required to give out personal information all the time in the course of living my daily life. I would like assurances that when I entrust personal info with, say, my insurance company that the data will stay where the laws protect me. What good are privacy laws otherwise?

There it goes

Ah, that's where all my private data is going... to the Bermuda Triangle.

Won't make a difference

After the tricare hard drive theft [dod.gov], which contained information on half a million beneficiaries, one would think some action would be taken. No such luck--Tricare and the DoD still uses social security numbers as unique identifiers and I still have to keep putting fraud alert on my credit report.

The really idiotic part was that the class action lawsuite [bizjournals.com] was dismissed because "the class had suffered no damages." One law firm's reaction [wrf.com] was the potential value of this ruling as a defense for future privacy theft instances.

already a precedence

I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data (financial, medical, legal) of federal officials and their families on an open internet web server out of the Bahamas. Is this what it will take for the US to enact stringent privacy rules?

There's already a precedence. I don't remember that exact circumstances, but it went something like this: A local newpaper got hold of a list of people who were renting porn from the adult video store. Come to find out, the list included the names of some prominent policitians and judges in washington. The newspaper published the list which caused great embarassment to said politicians. Congress immediately passed an emergency measure which made publishing such embarassing info about politicians illegal.

If these offshore companies try to do the same, you can bet your bottom dollar that Congress will take immediate action to cover their asses. Of course, Joe Citizen will not enjoy the same protection because it's not in the national/corporate interest that his privacy be respected.

Presidne'ts Details

Address:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
202-456-1111
[e-mail]

Salary: $400,000 [c-span.org]

Health Data [google.com]

And here's his attourney [usdoj.gov]

Translation: For those living "in the public life," there is no expectation of privacy, so to expect those in public life to understand the motivation of those of us who appreciate privacy to keep it is like talking about being poor to someone who has been rich all their life: They just can't understand. Heck, the news media mentiones when the President has a physical. Some congressional districts probably do this for their representatives too. This is probably only one of the reasons privacy advocates have a hard time pleading their cause in the US.

Often, The Info Is Already In The Public Domain

An important fact that's seldom discussed is that any information about me that might be available via the Internet has already been made public. The act of digitizing that information and making it available in a database increases its potential access, but it does not impact my privacy. The data were already in the public domain.

If some piece of information about me is not legally available to the public, and still appears on the Internet, then someone has broken the law.

So, those who argue for new privacy legislation to curb what they see as violations of their privacy on the Internet are really asking to reclassify as private many types of personal information that have long been accessible to the public.

Suppose, then, that former employees could not verify or deny that we used to work for them. Suppose a bank was not allowed to access the credit history of the guy who wants to buy your house. Suppose your daycare center could not check the criminal record of the kid who wants to be their new driver.

Technology and the Internet certainly ease access to information -- that was the point, after all -- but it is almost always info that was already available to the public.

Legislation that broadens government access to private information is, of course, a different issue.

Re:Vote!

"why not privatize all of government?"

Have you heard of something called "the presidents management agenda [whitehouse.gov]" that the Bush administration has been touting since it came into office. This president has been seeking to outsource all "non inherently governmental" jobs in the US executive branch for quite some time now. The thinking for this is that private corporations will save the taxpayers money by finding efficiencies in doing business that government cannot. But yes, beware of where your personal information may end up!

Re:Vote!

For the lazy, the full text of the "presidents management agenda" can be found here [whitehouse.gov]. The outsorcing of jobs in government starts on page 17. Here is a quote... "Nearly half of all federal employees perform tasks that are readily available in the commercial marketplace - tasks like data collection, administrative support, and payroll services." Another good quote is "Government should be market-based -- we should not be afraid of competition, innovation, and choice. I will open government to the dicipline of competition. GWB". And if you are interested, here are "scorecards [results.gov]" of how things are going. India, here we come! See, its not only programming [slashdot.org], its our entire government. They must all go to the same conferences.

Re:Vote!

Privatization isn't inherently bad. The reasoning behind it is many companies will have to compete for government contracts. This goes along with capitalism that the best business will come out on top. I worked for the US government in an internship over the summer. I've worked for small businesses. Believe me, there is a difference! If you can't get fired for being lazy, why work?

However, like anything, privatization can be corrupted by people unwilling to play by the rules. That is bad and that should be fixed. However, saying that all privatization is evil Bush facsism, etc, means you are blaming all companies for the problems of one company and one administration.

Yeah, Halliburton getting billions for the Iraq reconstruction is bullshit. But I think the government taking over healthcare costing the taxpayers "more" billions would be just as bad. You have to take each example and judge it on it's own merits. Big government is bad and small government supporting big evil business is just as bad.

Re:Vote!

Yeah, Halliburton getting billions for the Iraq reconstruction is bullshit. But I think the government taking over healthcare costing the taxpayers "more" billions would be just as bad.

Now here is true bullshit.

You have to take each example and judge it on it's own merits.

Indeed, let's take each example and judge it on it's own merits.

Case: the canadian universal health-care system:

• In Canada, health-care costs the same per-capita as in the US.
• In Canada, 100% of the population is covered (compared to 60% of the US population).
• In Canada, if you need heart bypass surgery, it is FREE.
• In Canada, nobody is prevented from getting employment because he would be too expensive for the employer's insurer.
• In Canada, nobody loses his job because he suddenly has an expensive debilitating medical condition.
• In Canada, if you need a new hip or a new knww, it is FREE.
• In Canada, administrative overhead is 3% compared to 35% in the US. That's because in Canada, everyone has the same coverage, and you don't have to check the patient's credit record.
• In Canada, there is no money WASTED on insurance companies PROFITS.
• In Canada, professionals don't have to pay $400 per month for medical insurance.
• In Canada, if you get whiplashed by a drunk driver, you don't have to hunt for the fucker's insurance because the needed medical treatment is FREE.
• In Canada, employers aren't struggling to cover their employees [modbee.com].
• In Canada, nobody will lose his life savings and his house to an hospital.
• In Canada, drug prices are controlled and pharmaceutical companies do not spend twice as much on marketing as they spend on R&D.
• In Canada, if you need a new heart and new lungs, it is FREE.

If you yankees would get rid of your tired government is bad mantra, you would see that there are many things that just cannot be done by the private sector at all.

Re:Vote!

While we're at it, mabye we should privatise legislature, and the presidency, as well as the courts, to the eXtreme!!!1

Realistically, there are too many marbles in play right now that are big and money driven. JFK tried screwing around with them, remember the actual money he minted rather than the toy money we use today? 3 guesses why he got killed. Ahh, I'll give it to you; the american government can print off money and spend it, and banks can to (when they give a loan, they only have to have 1/9 of the amount on hand). Additionally, our money is worthless, the only reason it has value is becuase oil countries will only trade in it. Literally, we're getting a free ride. Now, you begin passing around hard currency like silver dollars or something backed up, in contract, by gold, guess what happens to the banks? Banks invest, and indirectly control corporations by forcing them to be greedy tyranical organizations. They also have lots of power considering they have money, and money, entertainingly enough, is power, especially in dire times.

Voting will do jack shit in this situation. They own all the media; airwaves, newspapers, ect. Why is the blackout of other canidates so total? Oh wait, that's right, the CEO gets a call from investors, saying they don't like bush being badmouthed on their media station. The CEO then fires anyone who talks bad about bush, or kerry, or they say "no talking about other canidates" and then kerry and bush are told if they focus on X topics, there'll be no other coverage.

So really, voting will do a whole lot of jack shit in our current situation. Lets just say nader won next election, how quickly do you think he'd dissapear, or be assassinated, or blackmailed into doing bad things?

Frankly, I see this as another way to get the government into the "save us, take away our rights". Seriously, we want them to keep our privacy secure? Ok, we'll make laws that'll effect the little guy (people moving from country to country to evade the law) but decide not to touch the big guy (sony, MS, ect) with a 10 foot pole, and if we do, it'll either be a slap on the cheek or something else. I'v been seeing a lot of that lately, and it's sad that people on slashdot don't quite get it, and even sadder that I'v talked to people who think we should cut the heads off of virus writers infront of their families (for some reason, that seems to be a popular thing).

Re:What?

I am pretty sure the regulations would restrict the EXPORT of personal information.

Re:Forgive my potential shortsightedness but....

Medical data includes psyc problems, social disease and other things that make you a target for blackmail, job denial, etc. Employer will find reasons to can you if they want. Not having the problem in 20 years does not matter, you had it once, you are a risk. Insurance companies spend more time writing up reasons to deny coverage or claims than they do taking care of the premium payers.