FTC Abandons Call for Stronger Privacy Laws 188
Anonymous Coward writes: "Found this article on CNN explaining that the FTC has decided to not seek stronger consumer privacy laws in the wake of the events of last month. The article also details how several companies broke their own privacy policies by voluntarily giving customer data to federal authorities." The NY Times has an article about this as well, with a couple of good comments from interested parties.
Privacy laws don't work. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy laws don't work. (Score:2)
1) The government hates competition? ;-)
2) Actually, this makes sense. The government can now outsource the invasive datacollection to the private sector. And send regular "requests" to data aggregators like Doublefuck to provide them with profiles.
("Hello, this Mr. Smith, from Fowl and Bees, Incorporated. We're in, uh, an industry, and we'd very much like to target a series of, uh, advertisements, to persons whom you believe likely to be daily readers of any of the following middle-eastern news web sites, and who have entered search keywords on certain forms of agricultural equipment. Could you please give us some information, that, when aggregated with information in another marketing company's database, could provide us with their real identities and geographic locations? We'd really appreciate it.")
3) ...and in that sense - since private-sector data miners (i.e. privacy invaders) aren't subject to the rules that govern the sorts of information the Government is allowed to collect on its own citizens, odds are that the Government will be able to buy far more data on us than it would ever have been able to collect on its own.
Whether this is a Bug or a Feature depends on how much you trust J. Edgar Hoover, I suppose.
Identity Theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Poor pricay does not equal greater security. Poor privacy means that authentication becomes more difficult.
Re:Identity Theft (Score:3, Funny)
NO NO NO NO NO! You see terrorists use login nicks like "IMA_TERRORIST" and they like to have English conversations saying terms like "blow-up" and "assassinate", and they're just looking forward to the day that the US releases backdoored encryption protocols so they can dump all those stupid ultra-secure foreign ones like Rijendael to install the return-of-clipper.
curious.... (Score:1)
Registration free link (Score:2)
Enjoy!
Before some karma whore does it... (Score:2, Informative)
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
The Federal Trade Commission will abandon efforts, begun during the Clinton administration, to get new laws to enhance online consumer privacy and will concentrate its efforts instead on enforcing existing laws, according to sources close to the commission.
Timothy J. Muris, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, is scheduled to present his views at a conference on privacy in Cleveland on Thursday.
In that speech, Mr. Muris will announce plans to increase funds for enforcement by 50 percent in the next year. The commission would focus efforts on getting companies to abide by their published privacy statements, on fighting identity theft and on prosecuting violators of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Mr. Muris's privacy interests also include cracking down on what private investigators call pretexting, the practice of gathering private information under false pretenses, and finding ways to cut down on unwanted e-mail advertisements, or spam, by creating a national "do not call" list of people who do not want to be contacted by online marketers. He also wants to build on earlier initiatives to educate consumers on the ways that they can safeguard their privacy.
According to those close to the situation, Mr. Muris plans to leave the door open for future legislation, saying he does not plan to seek new laws "at this time."
Elements of Mr. Muris's speech were first published yesterday in The Los Angeles Times. The head of the office of public affairs at the commission, Cathy MacFarlane, said that Mr. Muris would not comment before his talk on Thursday. "We have a commitment to Cleveland," Ms. MacFarlane said.
Mr. Muris, a senior trade commission official for five years during the Reagan administration, had criticized the agency under his predecessor, Robert Pitofsky, as being too tough on corporate mergers and on issues of antitrust.
Mr. Pitofsky had proposed that Congress grant the trade commission new legal authority to protect consumer privacy when the industry's efforts at self-regulation failed. The commission official who spearheaded privacy efforts under Mr. Pitofsky, David Medine, said that the proposal came only after five years of working with online companies on self-regulation initiatives.
"The F.T.C. proceeded very incrementally and cautiously, based on data" that suggested "self-regulation needed a boost," Mr. Medine said. "So far as I know, there's no new data" that would indicate the situation has changed, he said.
Mr. Medine said that because of a lack of new legislation requiring companies to post policies that outline their privacy practices, the easiest way for a company to avoid trouble with its privacy policy is not to have one in the first place. "Those who are silent about their privacy practices won't be subject to enforcement," he said.
Privacy advocates said that they were disappointed to hear that Mr. Muris would be reversing the course on privacy set under Mr. Pitofsky. "We're surprised," said Sarah Andrews, research director for the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. "It kind of smacks of ideology."
A lawmaker who has encouraged the government to refrain from regulating the private sector on privacy issues said he was pleased with the new direction on commission policy. "I'm impressed by the effort Chairman Muris has put into understanding the nuances of the privacy issue," Dick Armey, Republican of Texas, the House majority leader, said in a statement. "The chairman rightly recognizes Congress is often unable to keep up with the fast- changing online world."
The head of an industry trade group agreed that the move was justified. "This is a victory for the economy and privacy," said Jonathan V. Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology in Washington. "We want to protect consumers from choices they can't make, rather than the ones they can."
Without the trade commission's support for legislation, several bills that are awaiting Congressional action are likely to lose momentum -- although, in fact, all legislation not related to the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington is getting little attention. That could open the door for stepped-up regulatory efforts in the states, many of which have moved aggressively on consumer privacy issues. That could create the very situation that some companies supporting regulation had hoped to avoid: a patchwork of conflicting state legislation.
Re:Before some karma whore does it... (Score:2)
There's at least one silver lining here - at least the truth is out.
After all, since when did any company (especially those with TRUSTe logos slapped on 'em - a surefire indicator of a privacy-violator ;) ever abide by its published policy
in the first place?
And since when did any company in violation of its own privacy policy ever get anything more than a "Yeah, they reworded the policy to make it OK" in response.
Since 1995, it's never made a wet slap of difference whether or not a company had a privacy policy, let alone whether it adhered to it.
So at least now the truth is out.
Re:Registration free link (Score:1)
Like this: http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/10/03/technology
The format is like this:
<a href="put the url here">put highlighted text here</a> continue text...
Another kneejerk reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Never a more true statement than that one. It really is a shame that the end result of the terrorist attacks will be not only loss of life and property but also the loss of some important freedom. Dubya said it best himself when he said the terrorist attack was "an attack on freedom itself," and it seems as if the September 11 tragedy is only going to be used as a weapon in continued attacks.
Re:Another kneejerk reaction (Score:3, Interesting)
In a round about way that could be a good thing. A maze of conflicting local legislation, while a pain in the rear for business, could actually benefit the consumer. If businesses are unsure of what state's privacy laws apply in a particular case, they may have to adhere to the strictest ones by default in order to protect themselves. Thus resulting in better privacy for the public.
Or maybe it's just the evil side of me that enjoys seeing life made difficult for companies that want to share my personal information with the world. ;)
Re:Another kneejerk reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Their goal? Bring America to its knees.
Now, how do you best accomplish that? Well, a good start would be to lead the US Government into recanting on the values that it has always proclaimed are the heart and soul of its nation.
Is America really America when personal privacy and personal freedoms are obliterated?
[and at the same time, one can easily argue that this all plays nicely into the hands of 'big business,' and only serves to further the push towards globalization, which is surely the last thing any mid-East terrorist could want!]
****SIGH**** (Score:2, Interesting)
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
Re:Another kneejerk reaction (Score:2, Insightful)
[and at the same time, one can easily argue that this all plays nicely into the hands of 'big business,' and only serves to further the push towards globalization, which is surely the last thing any mid-East terrorist could want!]
I would remind everyone that these guys, while very smart in how to accomplish a particular task, have definitely forgotten to think about the consequences of their actions, both in the here and now and in the afterlife. Chaos only begets chaos (or someone to take advantage of the chaos and bring those in chaos into 'order' - even if that means strict rule by one person, no matter how flawed that 'order' may be). The shear stupidity of what Islamic fundamentalists are trying to promote as 'orderly' just makes me cringe. They're bringing about their own destruction, (and the world's) by destroying.
And in a world where everyone believes there are no absolutes, and all religions, beliefs, etc. can be 'right' for an individual, nothing but chaos can ensue when absolutely no one can agree on anything.
Re:Another kneejerk reaction (Score:1)
Re:Another kneejerk reaction (Score:1, Interesting)
It physically makes me sick as if I were standing on a ledge a thousand feet above the ground in a strong wind, every time I hear some idiot (and they are the majority here) say that we shouldn't be so selfish as to worry about our rights when there are people dead or, worse, people who say "I don't mind giving up my civil rights right now - it's the least i can do. and if it turns out to be a bad thing, we can revisit it in a few years and see if we should get our rights back".
Sure... And maybe after a dictator usurps power (even though he was only an elected official), I'm sure he'll eventually say "you know.. this dictator thing isn't working out as well as we thought... her eyou go - take your rights back... have fun"... sure...
Re:Another kneejerk reaction (Score:2)
I was originally going to counter-post to your seemingly paranoid and certainly morbid outlook on the government. But I decided not to.
Several hours later, I'm more or less randomly browsing the web, and what do I stumble across? Confirmation of your view:
"SCOTT SHANE & TOM BOWMAN, BALTIMORE SUN, April 24, 2001:
U.S. military leaders proposed in 1962 a secret plan to commit terrorist acts against Americans and blame Cuba to create a pretext for invasion and the ouster of Communist leader Fidel Castro, according to a new book about the National Security Agency.
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," said one document reportedly prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," the document says. "Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of indignation." The plan is laid out in documents signed by the five Joint Chiefs but never carried out, according to writer James Bamford in "Body of Secrets."
A previously secret document obtained by Bamford offers further suggestions for mayhem to be blamed on Cuba. "We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated).
Good god. Maybe you aren't so paranoid after all.
Re:Another kneejerk reaction (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you are a middle-east terrorist with a net value of 100's of millions of dollars and corporate holdings world-wide. Then this might be exactly what you want.
Re:Another kneejerk reaction (Score:2)
Re:Another kneejerk reaction (Score:1, Interesting)
A decision to not seek furthur legislation protecting privacy does not represent the erosion of existing freedoms, but rather an decision to maintain statis quo. In this political environment, this seems a sound decision.
In politics, running your agenda against stream can tarnish it for many years to come or kill it completly. It makes sense to wait until a more opportune political atmosphere exists before going on the grab.
Re:Another kneejerk reaction (Score:1, Interesting)
It's funny how no-one is talking about "citizens" anymore. We are all "consumers" now.
"we've lost federal government support" (Score:2)
We never had it! Certainly not from the Bush administration. They were just looking for an excuse to give their donors what they wanted, and now they have found such an excuse.
Re:Another kneejerk reaction (Score:2)
The terrorists are "only" guilty of mass murder and destruction. The politicians are the ones guilty of working to tear down what makes America a great country.
I'm betting we aren't going to see any international coalitions hunting down John Ashcroft when he topples the fourth amendment.
Who you give the info to... (Score:5, Interesting)
In many cases, Ponemon said, the companies sent the information on their own initiative in order to assist the terrorism investigation. Some firms, such as airlines and car rental agencies, are breaking their privacy policies by sharing data to analyze suspicious activity.
I'm no expert on corporate privacy policies, but isn't there some sort of force majuere clause about giving information to law-enforcement authorities under extraordinary circumstances? Unlike info sharing between companies, law enforcement will not sell the data, spam or make marketing calls during dinnertime.
Sharing data between corporations though should be a violation of privacy, since they are not proper law-enforcement authorities.
And what will they do with those lists when the companies are done investigating?
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:1)
No, but they will leak the data for free to the media, harass your friends/family/associates and seize your assets. If you are really unlucky, they will just break down your door at 4:00am and shoot you when you reach for the phone to call for help.
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:1)
Maybe what you say may happen, if you did something wrong. Otherwise, it's "Move along, nothing to see here".
I understand the concern about privacy, but lets face it, this was an unprecedented event in our country's history.
Let's just see what happens before we get all panicky.
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:1)
This is just a re-wording of the old "If you haven't done something wrong, you have nothing to hide."
The fact is that ALL of these things HAVE been done to people who did nothing wrong.
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:1)
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:1)
What he says may happen if it appears he may have done something wrong. Whether he actually did or did not do anything wrong is irrelevant; it is the appearance that counts.
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe what you say may happen, if you did something wrong. Otherwise, it's "Move along, nothing to see here".
Perhaps you've heard of McCarthyism? If not check it out. Simply because one was suspected of associating with someone who exercised their free speech rights to support communism led to real consequences in one's life. Like loss of their job and inability to find work. Civil rights trampled to fight the red menance.
Perhaps you are aware of the practise during world war two of rounding up American citizens of Japanese decent and putting them in interment camps. If not you should brush up on your history. Civil rights trampled because of a knee jerk reaction.
Perhaps you've heard of J. Edgar Hoover, former director of the FBI? If not you may want to look him up. Kept files on politicians, celebraties, civil rights leaders, and more. Apparently wasn't afraid to use this info to get what he wanted. Civil rights trampled for personal power.
Perhaps you've heard of Richard M. Nixon? If not, do a little research on something called 'Watergate'. Seens Tricky Dicky had no qualms about using any info he good get to further his political ambitions. Civil rights trampled for political power.
Have you noticed a theme here? People who did nothing wrong suffering real consequences of those in power.
Government is made up of humans. Humans tend to focus on their own self interest. The writers of the US constitution recognized this and did tried to build safeguards against governmental abuse of power. Because they knew power would be abused. So they built in the checks and balances of three branches of government. And they penned the bill of rights to limit what government could do to individuals.
Now we again have calls for restrictions on civil liberties. I'm sure that the people asking for them believe that they are doing the right thing. They have a job to do and they want to do it well. They, like you, feel that those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear.
As the examples above show, they are wrong.
I believe it was Ben Franklin who once said, "Those who trade liberty for security wind up with neither."
I'm not willing to trade.
And yes, I know people directly impacted by the events of 9/11/02001.
Steve M
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:2)
It also protected the Japanese-Americans from Americans. Their civil liberty rights were not trampled because of a knee jerk reaction, but for their own safety. I'm not saying what happened was a-ok, but there was definite good motivation behind it. The conditions could have definitely been a lot better from what I have heard though.
There is a huge difference between a knee-jerk reaction and careful planning to situate oneself in a higher position of power or more stable existence.
As for your Franklin quote, here's a modified version: Those who trade security for liberty wind up with neither.
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:3, Informative)
Wrongo! They were forcibly removed from their homes and businesses, and forced to sell or abandon that property. Most returned to their old neighbourhoods and found their homes and businesses occupied by others who had bought them. That, my friend, is the crux of the argument.
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:2)
Choice: Die because of a few angry hicks who are pissed that your great granddaddy was from an island in the pacific.
or
Chill in a funded camp and stay alive, while maybe not the best conditions but probably better as you were living in a migrant society.. Japantown can be pretty ghetto.
Hmm.. yeah, I can see how it was an absolutely horrid and wrong thing to do
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:2)
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:2)
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:2)
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:2)
I still wonder if you read my post ...
I never mentioned AOL, nor did I write on whether or not it was right for AOL or anyone else to provide such info. I will do so now.
If anyone had information relavent to the crimes committed then that info should be handed over to the proper authorities.
But that doesn't mean we should abandon strong privacy laws. Nor should info irrelevant to the investigation be made available in a blanket manner.
I can always ignore unjust laws.
No you can't. I don't dispute that you can ignore many, but not always. Nor can everyone ignore unjust laws.
Just one example from my post, if you were of Japanese desent it would have been pretty hard to ignore that fact that guys with guns were herding you to an internment camp.
Nor can you ignore that lack of laws. Take privacy for example. If there are no laws protecting privacy you will find it very hard to keep your medical records from being shared. Or your buying habits. Or your tax returns. I suppose you could become a hermit.
Yes governments abuse power. That was one of the main points of my post. But the second point, that we need laws to limit that power you seemed to have missed. McCarthyism ended because people began to stand up against him. Nixon was forced to resign because he was found to have broken laws. And today Muslims are not being herded up, because we recognize the abuses of the past. Clinton was hounded over a blowjob because we know that abuse of power is not acceptable.
My main point though, it that government will do what it wants, whether it's legal or not, and Constitutional or not.
Yes, but having laws on the books that specify what is legal and what is not allows for the reigning in of those abuses. Despite your defeatist attitude government is often forced to 'play by the rules'.
Politicians will pass laws that are unconstitutional, just so they can say their actions weren't illegal.
Except in the long run that doesn't work. Those laws are often challenged and eventually struck down.
Most people don't care, because they are idiots.
No, most people don't care because it doesn't directly affect them. They have other issues in their lives that are more important to them. It has nothing to do with their intelligence level. But that comment does perhaps give some insight into yours.
As does your claim, "The Libertarians have the best idea ...". It is just another claim, and it is only your opinion that it is the best. What the libertarians want are no different from any other political group, they want what they think is best, where that often means what is best for them (ignoring, like most, that what is best for me may not be best for you). Personnaly I find them rather naive. But it is your claim that you know the best form of government that provides the insight into your intelligence level, mistaking opinion for fact.
Have you heard of The Sedition Act of 1798? Some of the "Founding Fathers" voted for it or supported it.
Yes. But I didn't think that most /. readers would be familiar with it. So I didn't mention it. It is an example of an failed attempt to take rights away.
Which is worse, one large group of selfish idiots or 50 smaller groups?
By your logic having one individual in charge would seem to be ideal. Of course, over history we've seen where that leads. And by claiming that everyone but you (or who disagrees with you) is an idiot just shows how lame your arguments are. You don't really understand how human societies work do you?
I'd go on, but I've got to go catch a plane.
Steve M
Re:Who you give the info to... (Score:3, Insightful)
It can also happen to you if you've done nothing wrong. Or even illegal. (The two are not synonymous, you know.)
You need to pay more attention to history. The Fugitive Slave Act. The Palmer raids. Concentration camps for Americans of Japanese ancestry. COINTELPRO. Blitzkrieg-style "no-knock" anti-drug raids. Waco.
Innocence is no protection when governments go bad.
He's gonna stop SPAM!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
advertisements, or spam, by creating a national "do not call" list of people who do not want to be contacted by online marketers.
Ok this guy's credibility is now shot.
Move along to the next article.
Re:He's gonna stop SPAM!!! (Score:1)
I'm unaware of how any of these things destroy his credibility - note that the national list is opt-in, and participation in it is totally voluntary on the part of the consumer.
Privacy advocates don't want to hide thier personal info from everyone (well, some of them...), they want to be able to make informed decisions about what personal info they share, and who they share it with. The ability to make this decisions is very lacking in the US today.
Re:He's gonna stop SPAM!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Against telemarketing, it might work.
Against spam, do a keyword search for "Global Remove List".
It's been tried before - run by the spammers, who used it to find valid email addresses and subject them to more spam.
SafeEPS, by Al Joffee, a DMA guy, but otherwise reputable anti-spammer, who figured out how to do it in a way that was privacy-friendly. But nobody else in the DMA wanted that, because it allowed domain-level opt-out.
The DMA was offered SafeEPS for $1.00, but the DMA decided no, better to do it the DMA's way. Which begat the current One True Remove List for spam, namely e-MPS.
(The full SafeEPS/e-MPS story here [mail-abuse.org])
A "global remove list" won't work against spammers for the same reason that government backdoors in crypto won't work against terrorists - because the terrorists won't use backdoored crypto, and the spammers don't give a rat's ass about a government-required opt-out list. (When was the last time you got spammed for anything that wasn't a fraud, con game, quack medicine, or pyramid scheme? That didn't involve "relay rape", or the unauthorized use of third-party open relays? These people are already breaking laws, one more won't stop them.)
Global Remove Lists have been tried since 1997. Every one has been a spec-fucking-tacular failure.
Anyone who believes that a "national opt out" list for spam" is a viable solution in 2001 - has about as much credibility on the issue as Osama Bin Laden would if applying for the Nobel Peace Prize.
No kidding. (Score:1)
Anyone interested in retaining their rights (Score:4, Informative)
Stand up for your rights!
I have been trying to submit this article for the last few days and it's been rejected every time. Please take the time to read it. It is an important piece.
Re:Anyone interested in retaining their rights (Score:1)
Re:Anyone interested in retaining their rights (Score:2)
Respect my privacy. Delete all information pertaining to me and do not transmit it to any one. Inform all of your business partners, associates, affiliates, competitors, and customers to do the same.
Ensure that they have a copy of this letter in its entirety, and are instructed to retain it in perpetuity, in order that they may follow the orders presented here.
Thank you
Bob Smith 1223 Everglades Lane
Kalamazoo, MI 80606
(806)555-4334
Social Security numer: 334-99-6658
Discover Card Number: 5556-3356-9986-4457 exp 10/05
MC number 5548 8336 6265 5532
Visa Number 4465 9985 2265 3354
MI DL number 998-99442-33155
Easy Answer (Score:3, Funny)
In the case of the supermarket chain it's pretty simple: "Hi. You know that personal information you were stupid enough to give us? Well, now the feds know how many ho-hos you ate last month. Fatty."
Freedom? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush constantly describes the terrorist attacks as being "attacks on freedom". Apparently, what he envisions as a free state is a 1984-esque totalitarian society, except that one can vote between two candidates who barely waver on the issues, and carry a gun. Is this really the only freedom we should be fighting for, and should we be prepared to give up all our other freedoms to try to kill bin Laden?
Have you ever read 1984? The restrictions on freedom that have been proposed don't come close to that. "Totalitarian" is completely the wrong word to use here, America isn't about to become anything like a totalitarian state.
Overstating the case like this does a huge dis-service to those who are making a serious effort to limit any loss of freedom. People out there aren't stupid - they know that the changes that are being proposed aren't leading to a totalitarian state. If you make these kind of obviously false and hysterical statements then it is easy for people to dismiss everything you say as nonsense.
If you want to have a serious voice and to influence the argument, then tone down the rhetoric and focus on the specifics of the proposals. Fight against those that are unneccessary and over-restrictive. Support a few, well-targeted changes to the law that will actually help fight against terrorism (if there are any). Make sure that any changes made have a suitably short time limit built into them, to guarantee that any loss of freedom is a temporary setback not a permanent change to America. That way you will have a real impact.
Flailing madly at windmills is only going make people dismiss all of your views, even the legitimate ones...
Re:Freedom? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Glass Houses (Score:2, Flamebait)
Never mind that some people are ugly naked.
It isn't a public safety issue. People would learn to deal.
Re:Glass Houses (Score:1)
Re:Glass Houses (Score:1)
Although I guess they'll be easy to spot by the awkward walk..
Re:Glass Houses (Score:1)
Re:Glass Houses (Score:2, Funny)
Public safety? Are you kidding? Do you know how many automotive accidents that would cause?
That's great (Score:2, Funny)
Re:That's great (Score:1)
I bet that would grab a few of 'em. FBI? You listening?
Privacy? Who needs it? (Score:1)
Thank you for your cooperation. Now go buy something and watch TV.
Re:Privacy? Who needs it? (Score:1)
You don't sound very patriotic to me...
Re:Privacy? Who needs it? (Score:1)
Although I do think that "you aren't patriotic," is only a few steps away from "you are a terrorist." Group think at its finest.
Re:Privacy? Who needs it? (Score:1)
Believe me, if it was Clinton or Gore you would see far more intrusion than you see now.
Democrats were and still are the force behind continuous growth of the governmental powers.
Re:Privacy? Who needs it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Democrats were and still are the force behind continuous growth of the governmental powers.
Used to be the Dems were the party of Big Government, and the Repubs were the party of Big Business. But both together are the party of Multinational Corporatism.
Do not call lists (Score:2, Interesting)
Effectively the list would be a form of voting against spam and telemarketing.
Obviously just about everyone would put their names on such a list, if it is convenient and effective to do so - effectively a majority vote against unsolicited bulk emailing and calling. So why do we even need the list? Just make bulk email/phone solicitation over "personal communications media" illegal.
Re:Do not call lists (Score:1, Insightful)
Thats what I used to think, but look at it from the other side.
I own a business, is it illegal to call people that have bought from me before to see if they are interested in a new deal I got for them? Technically it's an unsolicited call.
What about email... is single opt-in solicited? Double opt-in? What about email forgeries? Could I be liable if someone forges a subscription request?
It's a complex matter, think about it for a while.
Re:Do not call lists (Score:2)
However, giving people who recieve email the chanse to say no is an individual, personal issue.
I wanted to get a database of people who wanted spam, junk mail, and phone calls. Plus they could have the option of putting there persional ID if they want that concience.
It would be mucheasier to maintain a database of people who want the stuff then vise-versa
Adaptive Policies (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, here's what I'm wondering:
I think a web privacy policy is no more binding than any other claim a company might have, from "tastes better" to "less filling". IANAL, but about the only thing you can do if you don't like the execution of the privacy policy is....don't buy the product or go to the web site.
Re:Adaptive Policies (Score:2)
Counterpoint (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that when i enter my personal information on a website, i'm entering into an agreement to provide them with personal information on contingency that they use it in the stated manner. If they state that they can retroactively change the licence at any time, then anything's fair game, as long as they include it in the licence, but if they don't, then they have no right to use the information for any other purpose.
The reason there are any laws governing commerce is because of situations like this, where "buyer beware" doesn't apply.
ben.c
Summary of events, in C (Score:4, Interesting)
#define PRIVACY(information) HANDOVER(information)
Seriously, this isn't going to solve any problems. The only reason the September 11th stuff plays into this at all is that it allows sales departments to pressure the US Government into abandoning any attempt to protect privacy.
(There is nothing better than an exploitable tragedy to persuade people that the unacceptable is not only acceptable, but actually desirable.)
Potential consequences: Isolation of the US, which would be in violation of EU privacy law. Decreased trust in the political system, even though this kind of move really only benefits commercial organizations. Security forces have no means of handling the information flow they DO have, already. Nor is that likely to change for the forseeable future.
Long-term results: The US will be ruled by spammers, the RIAA, the MPAA, AOL, Microsoft and other corporate entities with the money to blow on trading other people's private lives. The Federal Government can't exist in such a space, and given that the voting is so abysmal, it might well fade to black within the next 10-20 years. All trade will be internal US or with Japan. All ties to Europe will be cut, over time, as the little privacy that exists in the US vanishes.
Eventual results: The US, having essentially destroyed itself, will become largely wasteland. Ironically, the people most likely to survive such a catastrophic collapse are members of the Taliban in the US. In short, in 3001, America may well become Talibania, all through short-sighted money-grabbing (but unquestionably skilled) manipulation of public opinion, in a purported effort to defeat the very people we're handing the country over to by going with it.
Need a new mod level:Scary (Score:2)
Ongoing concerns (Score:3, Informative)
While steps need to be taken to ensure terrorism does not occur in the United States, to do so at the expense of our civil liberties is unacceptable.
Just to play the devils advocate (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the provisions of the terrorism bill certainly expand the federal governments powers of surviellance but that surveillance still requires a warrant and probable cause. It seems primarily a move towards more efficiency rather than a jettisoning of constitutional protections (admittadly inefficiency may be a practical protection from abuse of our rights by government but it is also a loss of protection by government from the abuse of our rights by agents other than government - like criminals, terrorists & foreign governments). I'm not sure what you mean by the use of secret evidence. Could you clarify? I looked over the bill but IANAL and legalesse makes my brain hurt.
I'm much more concerned about indefinite detention of foreign nationals. Our government does not have the same obligation to foreigners as it has to citizens but foreigners still have human rights we are should respect one of which is liberty. There is however no basic human right to reside in the U.S. - perhaps a suspect who is a non-citizen should be given the choice of continued detention during the investigation or deportation.
In a related note... (Score:1)
sad...
Re:In a related note... (Score:1)
End of civil liberties ?
Where did you read that ?
if only.. (Score:2, Insightful)
If eliminating privacy would have prevented all those deaths and brought world peace, is it worth it? Maybe, maybe not...but in lieu of that:
If cameras and biometrics would save us, should we use them?
If sticking feathers up our asses and dancing to Cumbaya would stop terrorism, should we do it?
If goatse.cx would stop terrorism, should we look?
If separating white laundry from dark laundry would stop terrorism, should we do it?
They really need to stop asking "if/would/should", and start concentraing on _could_ this do anything to prevent mass-murder. The "what-if"s generally get everyone in agreement, but noone stops to ask if the new law du'jour could realistically do anything to help anyone. I really don't see a guy willing to smash a 2ton tube of jet-fuel into a giant building full of people at 455mph worried about crypto laws, or a criminal mastermind buying C-4 on Shop@AOL with his personal credit card. Consumer privacy protects consumers, not terrorists and global menaces...this doesn't even dent terrorism, unless you count people who buy stupid crap on eBay as terrorists..
the real reason nobody likes this (Score:2, Insightful)
i'll be the first to admit that i break laws occasionally, and if you think about it, you probably do too. now, who wants the government to be able to spot you every time you speed, or forget to include something on your income taxes, or pay that auto mechanic cash to avoid the sales tax, or the warez you've got, or the mp3's of copyrighted music you didn't pay for, or whatever...
i don't see how the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide" argument can hold weight with anyone, possibly excluding some of the clergy, because 99.99% of the population is probably doing something illegal fairly regularly.
NB - this semi-rant is my opinion only. i have absolutely no facts or information from any kind of recognized source to back this up. :)
Re:the real reason nobody likes this (Score:4, Insightful)
i don't see how the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide" argument can hold weight with anyone, possibly excluding some of the clergy, because 99.99% of the population is probably doing something illegal fairly regularly.
I agree with this sentement. The problem is that our laws were written with the assumption that they couldn't be enforced 100% of the time, so better to make them too broad. There are far too many laws on the books that simply aren't enforced; it is inevitable that someone is going to break one without even knowing about it.
The scary bit is that we're entering a time when technology will make 100% enforcement of certain laws feasible. Photo radar is a good example of this, many cities are on their way towards detecting every time someone runs a red light or accelates beyond the speed limit.
The point is, we can't be applying modern technology to broad laws or we really will be in trouble. I think technology can provide some nice improvements in how laws are enforced, but the laws themselves will have to rewritten first.
Re:the real reason nobody likes this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:the real reason nobody likes this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the real reason nobody likes this (Score:3, Insightful)
Here are some things that are legal (in the USA), but many people wouldn't want generally known about them:
Having an abortion.
Viewing pornographic videos.
Being an athiest.
Being a homosexual.
Seeing a psychiatrist.
Being a member of the communist party.
Needing Viagra.
I'm sure you can find other examples.
There are other things you might not want generally known. Again, I'm sure this is an incomplete list.
Being arrested for drunk driving.
Being a recovering alcoholic.
Having served time in jail.
Having AIDS.
Not being able to read.
Having had a sex change.
Having been bankrupt.
Most people don't like this because they believe, as do I, that as long as they don't break any laws it is (with few exceptions) nobody's damm business how they live their lives.
Steve M
Ahem, did we just skip this part? (Score:4, Interesting)
Muris will instead increase the staff working on privacy issues by 50 percent, according to sources familiar with the chairman's plan. The extra people is to enable the commission to police more Web sites and bring lawsuits against violators.
He also plans to target mass e-mail, also known as spam, sources said. The FTC will create a national list of companies that are bothering consumers by sending excessive amounts of unwanted commercial e-mail.
Sounds like he's more interested in taking action than messing with bureaucratic legislation that will get thumped apart by lobbying forces. It may not be the best course, but it's better than doing nothing. It's also most assuredly better than saying he's laxing up on privacy issues at all. I know we're all eager to scream and yell about privacy laws or the lack thereof, but I interpreted the article in a different light. Sometimes it's best to analyze a statement before going off half-cocked on how the world's going to hell.
Does this make the FTC a terrorist organization? (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds Like Old Times (Score:2, Funny)
the FBI and FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem it seems most of us have with all this anti-privacy legislations and initiatives, is that we are all dubious as to how these new laws would/could be applied to protecting this nation from harm. Moreover we are conditioned by our history and by our civics education that all invasive legislation is by default, suspect.
So what our lawmakers need to remember is our Ben Franklin. Benjamin Franklin was of the opinion that the public would not scoff at higher taxation as long as the government demonstrated where and how the money was spent. (i.e., better roads, lighted streets, etc... etc...)
Honestly, if I were presented with data that clearly and comprehensively demonstrated how new electronic surveillance/internet snooping laws would protect and save thousands of American women and children. Well I would have no recourse as a good citizen not to support it fully.
Show us how this legislation will protect our liberties instead of supplanting them. And it better be a fine presentation. Assure us that like, wire tapping of phone, the Constitution and the Supreme Court will be intrinsic to the exercise, constantly monitoring for abuse.
Then demonstrate boldly and inarguably how without these laws we are vulnerable.
Only then will the specter of George Orwell and Joe McCarthy be dispelled.
My guess is that they can't do it. They cannot demonstrate clearly how the lack of these new laws imperils our citizens. It is momentum that is driving this train. I resent as well as we all do that the fed are using FUD to ram these laws under-inspected and under-debated.
Re:the FBI and FUD (Score:2)
I don't like seeing George Orwell (good) twinned with Joe McCarthy (evil) like that. "The spectre of Big Brother and Joe McCarthy" would have been an unobjectionable way to put it. Just my $0.02.
Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
No one should believe a word Bush says, considering that he has lied about when he quit drinking [thesmokinggun.com], lied about his favorite book [littlegeorgebush.com], and told numerous other lies--all that just to get elected. His inheritance will continue to grow as long as there is plenty of cheap oil to keep Americans' SUVs full of cheap gas.
Most Afghanis are extremely poor and have no idea what the hell this United States of America is. Shall their introduction be a bombing campaign?
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
The latter first: all politicians lie to get votes. It is a fact. Deplorable and reprehansible yet a fact. So until we fix it, we must then decide who lies the least and who lies about insignifigant drival because the media and sensationalist populace requires them to; ie not focusing on real issues rather than what the candidates favorite book is.
The idea that because someone lies about one thing means they will lie about another is a horrible slippery slope argument however no one would ever consider supporting a known liar. No one has that good a public opinion to handle the fall out. But the fact remains that just because a political candidate lies to avoid pointless media drama doesn't mean they can't get the job done. Hell i think the ability to lie
The second point is really the important one. If I understand the crux of your statement you want to know why we can't divulge the information, that it looks fishy if we don't, and that there is no reason you can think of as to why not to divulge the information.
NEWS FLASH: Telling people what you know can/usually tells them HOW you know. Right now the last thing we need is to compromise the prescious few informational sources we have on Usama (not Osama like the news reports) bin Laden and his network. That is why and it is a very good legitimate reason.
Alex
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Maybe the loss of the few sources of information we have that let us know what's going on inside Al Qaeda / Taliban circles? Death of informants, change in compromised methods of communication, etc.? Perhaps leading to subsequent successful atrocities? How robust is your conscience feeling?
I doubt you've thought this through. Quit the personal attacks on Dubya (justified though they may well be), and look at what's going on. You've just suggested throwing away a major intelligence asset -- and for what?
Because you don't trust George Bush? Don't worry so much -- there are grown-ups holding his hand through this crisis. They will try to keep him sane and rational, whatever the provocation. Look: Afghanistan doesn't yet glow in the dark!
At least the Bush administration is consistent.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Alaska environment vs. ability of companies to make more money? No contest. Arsenic in drinking water vs. ability of companies to make more money? No contest. Anti-competitive practices of Microsoft vs. their ability to make more money? No contest.
Has there been ANY decision that the Bush administration has made that hasn't come down on that corporate side of things? Individual rights and the environment are not only taking a back seat, but they're back there in the trunk, locked up tight. The next 3 years are going to seem like a really long time, people....
slightly OT:Arsenic and profit... (Score:2)
If you think about it, if GB was REALLY interested in windfalls for corporations, he'd have gone right ahead with the tighter regulations on arsenic in drinking water.
As I recall, most (all?) public water supplies are government run. Imposing harsher restrictions on the water quality means local governments having to PAY corporations to test the water, upgrade the water processing facilities, etc. etc. (You didn't think that there was a government facility somewhere injecting arsenic into the water intentionally, and the new regulation just commanded them to inject less, did you? I don't have a great deal of trust for the US Government, but I'm not THAT paranoid...)
How is it that you worry more about a company making money than about the fact mentioned that the companies, from the sound of it, handed over personal information to government agencies AND other corporations (no indication in the article that this was done in exchange for payment, either [from the article - "Since then, many companies have been sharing their consumer data with law enforcement agencies and each other" in a fishing expedition for suspicious activity]? Essentially - "We know we promised we wouldn't share your private information, but this is important, since you might be a terrorist, so we don't care WHAT our privacy policy said...")
Re:At least the Bush administration is consistent. (Score:2)
Has there been ANY decision that the Bush administration has made that hasn't come down on that corporate side of things?
Well, he's rejected a national ID card, which surely disappoints Larry Ellison. I disagree with your implication that things would be better under Gore. Clinton and Gore presided over the Clipper chip, Carnivore, Know Your Customer, CDA, DMCA, COPA, etc, etc. Anybody looking to Democrats for civil liberties is going to be disappointed, because they recognize no limits on government power. At least some Republicans grasp the concept of limited government, even if they don't always apply it.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:1, Insightful)
p.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:2)
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:2)
FTC Abandons Call for Stronger Privacy Laws
I always thought a military state had more laws, not fewer...
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:1)
Privacy gaining too much power in society is not a problem. The invasion of MY privacy is a violation of my Constitutional liberties, and I don't CARE if by violating my rights, there will be less terrorist attacks. If you do this, what happens when this whole thing is over? We've still given the government permission to invade our lives.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:2)
..and yes I'm quite familiar with the quote from Benjamin Frnaklin... which actually supports what my post was saying.
Re:Slippery Slope (Score:1)
Say "giving away rights" or something. Works better.
Now I wish there was an edit button.
Re:Ironic (Score:2)
You do have a choice, you know. Your local newsstand probably carries the New York Times. You could go there, put down your $0.50 (or whatever it costs) and read the article completely anonymously.
-S
Re:Ironic (Score:1)
Re:Ironic (Score:1)
Either way, thanks for the reply.
small vs long term/picture (Score:2, Insightful)
Often it is easy to take a short term look at things, like when driving and seeing a gap in the lane to the left. A wise and patient driver will make sure he/she has complete situational awareness at first before changing lanes. And of course would consider others, by looking and signaling FIRST and not forcing their way in. However, more important is to look up ahead and behind. A beginning driver could even tell when situations up ahead would present a much slower travel experience if you changed lanes, not to mention a seasoned driver that has learned from experience that indeed it is often the spontaneous lane changer that either ends up later than normal or causes an accident.
Here, we are ALL the seasoned drivers. We have plenty of history to learn from and should not foolishly reinvent the wheel every time a new implementation comes along that we arrogantly and illogically assess as being a new idea. Also, if you are an American that enjoys quoting the founding fathers as sources for your ethos and claim to be a 'Real American' then you had DAMNED BETTER MAKE SURE YOU ARE CORRECT IN YOUR DEFINITION OF REAL AMERICAN.
Our founding fathers knew that selective rights and freedoms where simply a burning fuse on the bomb of tyranny planted squarely in the middle of freedom. Stop picking 'sides' and proving how foolish you are. I am tired of the left and right, the up and the down that all compete to beat their chests and say they 'care'. If you care about results, then you will not love processes so much that you would refrain from eliminating or altering them in order to achieve better results. Plus, if you state you are for something like freedom or liberty, then be for it. Don't add little qualifiers on the end of it like, "I am open minded... except towards those I disagree with".... guess what? you are closed minded. Period!
The same goes here. Don't expect to be taken seriously if you make a statement about the good of America, freedom, liberty and peace if you then advocate a selective granting freedom, liberty, peace and the extension of what is 'American' only to those you agree with and/or like. There is absolutely no validity and truth behind the theory that certain rights and freedoms must be given up for the 'good of the state' That should sound familiar. Whether it is community, state, country, government or people's republic, it is still tyranny. Extend freedom and peace and it shall be in turn granted unto you. THAT is the American Way. THAT is what the REAL Founding Fathers wanted.
For those who see themselves as the displaced 'heroes' of the Cold War against communism, then Brace! Because your new enemy is not in front of you with a gun aimed at your head... he is behind you with a pen of law aimed at your spine. Question is, will you turn coat against the ultimate law, the Constitution? Will you get so wrapped up in rhetoric and hypocritical and emotional reactions that you become the very enemy of freedom you took arms up against? Will you 'Save us all' from ourselves by protecting us from ourselves through force?
To those who see themselves as the 'open minded' crowd... you know who you are. The limousine liberals that look upon society as both a pathetic child to be punished and destroyed, yet at the same time held back from true growth and enlightenment. You liberals are your own worst enemies. You liberals have done more to harm open mindedness and true enlightenment than any slave beater or censor mongering politician has EVER done. You have proven that you care nothing about peace and prosperity, but would rather encourage sloth and hate, bigotry and apathy, violence and self victimization, slavery and domination over others.
Stop the foolish and pointless semantic wars. Start reasoning in order to make decisions, and stop justifying after them in order to make your self feel and look better. "A wise man knows others, but an enlightened man knows himself"