Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

FTC Abandons Call for Stronger Privacy Laws 188

Posted by michael from the laws-are-silent dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FTC Abandons Call for Stronger Privacy Laws More

FTC Abandons Call for Stronger Privacy Laws

Comments Filter:
  • How do they (the government, security agencies, etc) expect to spy on everyone to find terrorists, etc. While forcing businesses to not even share customer info between their own departments? Crazy... Just plain crazy!
    • > How do they (the government, security agencies, etc) expect to spy on everyone to find terrorists, etc. While forcing businesses to not even share customer info between their own departments? Crazy... Just plain crazy!

      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)

    by jiheison ( 468171 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @03:27PM (#2384972) Homepage
    Given that the majority of these terrorsts were able to take advantage of exsiting flaws in the protection of privacy to travel under stolen identites, this is complete idiocy.

    Poor pricay does not equal greater security. Poor privacy means that authentication becomes more difficult.

    • 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.

  • What kind of privacy isues were the FTC trying to push? I know right-to-know how personal data would be used was one, but what else?
  • http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/10/03/technology/ 03PRIV.html

    Enjoy!

    • Before some karma whore does it... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      F.T.C. Plans to Abandon New Bills on Privacy
      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.

      • > [...] 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.

        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.

  • Another kneejerk reaction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Uttles ( 324447 ) <uttles&gmail,com> on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @03:29PM (#2384987) Homepage Journal
    "If the speech was delivered on September 10, it would have been viewed as a negative event in the privacy community," Ponemon said. "Now that it's delivered after the 11th, it's a crisis. It looks like we've lost federal government support."

    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.
    • I don't think the outlook will be necessarily as bad as you think. Take, for example, what the New York Times article said:
      Without the trade commission's support for legislation, several bills that are awaiting Congressional action are likely to lose momentum... 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.

      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)

      by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @04:03PM (#2385190) Homepage
      One begins to suspect that the men who run Al-Qaeda -- Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri -- are far-seeing geniuses.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        There go some more of our rights.

        "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

        Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
      • That is a very good insight. And as to this statement:

        [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.

      • [sadness]I'm left with the image of a kid poking at an anthill and watching the ants scurry about.[/sadness]

      • Re:Another kneejerk reaction (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The government loves what happened on September 11th. They've been drooling and secretly wishing for an event just like that for decades. I wouldn't be surprised if they knew about the attack and decided not to interfere because the catastrophe would "show the public why we need them to give up their civil rights".

        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...
        • I'm sure you got moderated down as a troll or flamebait. Hardly surprising, but rather short-sighted of the moderators.

          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). ... We could foster attempts on lives of Cubans in the United States, even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized," the document says. Another idea was to shoot down a CIA plane designed to replicate a passenger flight and announce that Cuban forces shot it down."

          Good god. Maybe you aren't so paranoid after all.
      • 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!

        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:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "FTC has decided to not seek stronger consumer privacy"

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        FTC has decided to not seek stronger consumer privacy

        It's funny how no-one is talking about "citizens" anymore. We are all "consumers" now.

    • Lost?

      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.

    • No, the terrorists aren't the ones that have attacked our freedom. Its our elected officials that are doing that.

      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)

    by Red Aardvark House ( 523181 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @03:29PM (#2384989)
    From the article:

    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?
    • Unlike info sharing between companies, law enforcement will not sell the data, spam or make marketing calls during dinnertime.

      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.
      • Let's take a step back for a second...

        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.
        • Maybe what you say may happen, if you did something wrong.

          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.
          • Or, as I like to put it to the control freaks: "If you don't say anything wrong, you have no reason to fear our eavesdropping devices we intend to place in your apartment. It's for your own and childrens' safety".
        • Maybe what you say may happen, if you did something wrong.

          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)

          by SteveM ( 11242 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @05:11PM (#2385611)

          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

            • 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.

            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.

            • 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.

              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.

          • Oooh! Oooh! Don't forget, Clinton "accidentally" ended up with the complete FBI files on the leading Congressional Republicans. Just, y'know, in case anyone was starting to get the impression that the conservatives are the only ones doing it.
        • Maybe what you say may happen, if you did something wrong.

          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.

  • Mr. Muris's privacy interests also include [...] 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.

    Ok this guy's credibility is now shot.

    Move along to the next article.

    • 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)

        by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @05:08PM (#2385597)
        > 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.

        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.

    • How about a(n empty) "do call" list? Everybody belongs on the "do not call" list for spam and telemarketing.

  • Anyone interested in retaining their rights (Score:4, Informative)

    by The Slashdolt ( 518657 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @03:34PM (#2385022) Homepage
    Should read this [counterpane.com] and sign [indefenseoffreedom.org] the petition.

    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.
    • Seriously. That's a great piece on security from Schneier. Not quite on topic but should be at 5 anyway.
    • Dear President Bush, CIA, FBI, AT&T, Time - Warner, Microsoft, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, Mastercard, Discover American Express, Visa, and all associates, business partners, customers, affiliates, representatives, and employees thereof:

      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)

    by PinkStainlessTail ( 469560 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @03:35PM (#2385025) Homepage
    Ponemon, a privacy consultant, said he has been contacted by many companies -- such as banks and a national supermarket chain -- asking how they should tell consumers that they gave huge swaths of consumer data to law enforcement.

    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)

    by psicE ( 126646 )
    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?

    • Re:Freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gwernol ( 167574 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @04:10PM (#2385237)

      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)

      by aozilla ( 133143 )
      Hmm, that's an interesting viewpoint. Do you care to elaborate on what Bush has proposed which you see as 1984-esqe and totalitarian? Isn't freedom "the condition of being free from restraints"? Wouldn't these privacy laws put more restraints on people who happen to be running businesses? Privacy and freedom are two completely different concepts. Bush never called terrorist actions "attacks on privacy". Again, what freedom is Bush proposing to take away? The freedom to shave on an airplane? That's a freedom I'll gladly live without.

  • Glass Houses (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 )
    Since no one needs privacy, how about mandating that all houses be made of glass, and all clothing out of clear plastic?

    Never mind that some people are ugly naked.

    It isn't a public safety issue. People would learn to deal.

  • So, companies were voluntarily giving data to the government in contradiction to their own policies. How comforting...I'm sure all of the terrorists were frequent bidders on eBay.
  • Anyone who needs or wants privacy *must* be a terrorist after all. What's a terrorist I hear you ask? Well son, a terrorist is anyone that doesn't agree with Ashcroft, Bush, or his Daddy. In fact, if your political leaning is even slighty less than far right, you're a terrorist. Furthermore, if you won't allow us to install a camera in your home, or if you won't accept our hand-dandy biometric-recording national ID card- then you're a terrorist. In fact, you will know if you are a terrorist when we tell you, as we are currently updating the definition.

    Thank you for your cooperation. Now go buy something and watch TV.
    • Well, no, it's little more subtle - if you don't accept whatever measures are labeled "anti-terrorism", you aren't patriotic - and hence can be ignored by all right-thinking patriots.

      You don't sound very patriotic to me...
      • Yeah, I've gotten that knowing "you aren't patriotic" from my co-workers over the past couple of weeks.

        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.
    • "In fact, if your political leaning is even slighty less than far right, you're a terrorist."

      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.
      • 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.


        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)

    by TomRC ( 231027 )
    Their idea of a national "do not call" list for people to opt out of spam and telemarketing is a great reductio ad absurdum argument.

    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)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 )
      So why do we even need the list? Just make bulk email/phone solicitation over "personal communications media" illegal.

      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.
    • this is a very delicate freedom of speech issue, and its dealing with a realatively new medium. Not to mention its almost impossible to tightly define Spam. This is a very complex issue, and just banket outlawing anything always has unindented side effects.

      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)

    by Snar Bloot ( 324250 )
    OK, so lets assume that Company A, following the terrorist attacks, shares information collected from its web site in apparent violation of its Privacy Policy. Or at least, in violation of what its privacy policy said the day before.

    Now, here's what I'm wondering:

    • Why can't they change their privacy policy whenever they want...it doesn't have the force of law?
    • If they change the privacy policy after the fact and share information collected before the fact, what recourse does anybody have who feels slighted by their actions?

    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.

    • one is a policy, the other is an opinion, that the difference. Quite frankly I hope all the companies that volentarilt handed over the info should be sued. If it had been requested and/or subpenia, that would be different.

    • Counterpoint (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Shelrem ( 34273 )
      By that same logic, if I pay you to fix my car, and you then walk over and break my windows, i just shouldn't pay you to fix my car again.

      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)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <(imipak) (at) (yahoo.com)> on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @03:52PM (#2385113) Homepage Journal
    #undef PRIVACY
    #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.

  • Ongoing concerns (Score:3, Informative)

    by jgman ( 136006 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @03:54PM (#2385129)
    The aftermath of the Sept. 11th tragedies will be felt by the United States for years to come. My greater concern at this point is the effort Attorney General Ashcroft is exerting to pass an anti-terrorism bill. His requests would give considerable leeway to the gov't regarding electronic surveillance and wiretaps, continue the use of secret evidence and give much more leeway in obtaining warrants. Under his proposal immigrants could be detained without judicial review or consent. The requests which he has made would put a considerable dent in the 4th amendment and other parts of the Constitution.

    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.
    • I understand and am sympathetic to the concerns about losing freedoms but I can't help but to notice that most of the people on this board can't seem to imagine ANY legitimate intrusion by government on someones privacy. Such an extreme position is untenable (not to mention silly) since there are obviously legitimate government intrusions into peoples privacy. The debate should focus around the checks and balances on legitimate government intrusions to guard against abuse.

      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.
  • Terrorists all over the world are now rejoicing, since their primary objective was achieved: put and end to the civil liberties of the free world.

    sad...

  • if only.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    These laws seem to be obscured by "what if"'s.

    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..
  • is because everybody breaks the law. i mean, come on... lots of people like to flap their gums about "invasion of privacy" and "constitutional rights" and those are great things to discuss. really, i have no problem with that; but i think the real reason that your everyday joe sixpack doesn't like this kind of thing is that he's got something to hide.

    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)

      by bartle ( 447377 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @04:34PM (#2385390) Homepage

      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)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @05:14PM (#2385632)
      > 99.99% of the population is probably doing something illegal fairly regularly.

      "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

      p.411, Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, Signet Books, NY, 1957

      Reposted under what I believe in good faith to be fair use.
      • There's a variant of this: Anarcho-Tyrrany. The government allows a certain amount of mayhem, and then cracks down in general, in the name of taking care of the mayhem. In the end, the government has more power and more control, but the mayhem continues. Can you say "War on Drugs"? Can you say "War on Poverty"? How about, "War on Terr..."?

    • 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)

    by M_Talon ( 135587 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @04:25PM (#2385336) Homepage
    From the article:
    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.
  • Since the FTC has caved in to pressure from al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to attack the rights of Americans, will the Defense Department be considering commando raids or bombing missions against FTC headquarters?
  • We have to destroy the village to save it.

  • the FBI and FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

    by motherhead ( 344331 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @04:54PM (#2385491)
    Fundamental to the American philosophy is that the United States was born from the chaos of feudal, tyrannical European governments. That governments (by nature) are predisposed to tyranny and that we must be ever vigilant to insure our Great Experiment never falls to it.

    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.
    • Only then will the specter of George Orwell and Joe McCarthy be dispelled

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @04:55PM (#2385497)

    ...our government, and its wholly-owned subsidiary (NATO), are demanding even more privacy. We are about to attack Afghanistan based on secret evidence. Read any quote by Colon Powell or any other talking head from the last few days: plenty of "strong belief", "extremely likely", "probably", etc... If Osama ibn Laden is indeed guilty of the attacks and the Taliban was indeed fully aware and complicit, then what will our government risk by full disclosure of all evidence? It's not like we are going to bring him here and give him a free trial.

    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?

    • Two points. One is legitimate and the other is weak but an unfortunate reality that I hate and which we should never accept while continuing to fight it.

      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 ... er ... bluff is a GOOD trait in a political leader that must deal in the international areana. But that is a different conversation entirely.

      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

    • If Osama ibn Laden is indeed guilty of the attacks and the Taliban was indeed fully aware and complicit, then what will our government risk by full disclosure of all evidence?

      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)

    by Dr. Blue ( 63477 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @05:14PM (#2385629)
    Gee, who is surprised? After all, protecting privacy might get in the way of some company making more money. And items 1 through 10 on Bush's list of priorities are all "See that companies can make as much money as possible."

    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....

    • Arsenic in drinking water vs. ability of companies 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?

      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...")

    • If a corporation benefits, it does not automatically mean that the general public loses. If oil companies can use 2000 acres out of 15,000,000 in ANWR, resulting in cheaper oil and less dependence on the Middle East, that's good for everyone. And the arsenic issue was beaten to death months ago, but I'll repeat what I said then: if miniscule amounts of arsenic are so deadly, why did Clinton and Gore wait 8 years before enacting regulations, the cost of which would be paid only after they were out of office?


      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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -- Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc

Close