Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Senator Prevents Action on Online Privacy Bill 189

Posted by michael from the sabot-in-the-gears dept.
securitas writes "The NYTimes tells us Senator Trent Lott forced the Senate Commerce Committee to adjourn this morning as it was on the verge of adopting an online privacy bill requiring ISPs and commercial Web sites to get customers' permission before they could disclose important personal information. That would include financial, medical, ethnic, religious and political information along with Social Security data and sexual orientation. I urge Trent Lott's constituents to make your voices heard on this. Same goes for readers whose senators serve on the Senate Commerce Committee." Salon and EPIC have written about Hollings' bill.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senator Prevents Action on Online Privacy Bill More

Senator Prevents Action on Online Privacy Bill

Comments Filter:
  • And the worst part about it is, he is from my state. I was unable to vote at the last election due to age, but you can sure i wont be voting for that bastard when his term runs up.

    • Re:This sucks.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by LordNimon ( 85072 )
      You really should call his office and complain, although it is already 5pm there now.
    • ...you can sure i wont be voting for that bastard when his term runs up...

      Not voting for Lott could mean that you're voting for an opponent or that you're not voting at all. I hope you choose the former over the latter.

      --Jim
      • Not voting at all could mean that you're leaving that line on the ballot blank because you don't think any of them are qualified, or that you don't show up to the polling place. I hope you choose the former over the latter.

  • Don't single out Lott (Score:4, Informative)

    by DRO0 ( 252117 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @04:24PM (#3539680)
    Get the attention of all of the task force members.

    http://rpc.senate.gov/httf/fastfacts.htm [senate.gov]

  • From a Mississippi Voter (Score:4, Informative)

    by Fizgig ( 16368 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @04:24PM (#3539685)
    I'm a Mississippi voter (shut up), and so Trent Lott is my senator. Right after the hearings for the (then) SSSCA with Eisner et al, I wrote a letter to Sen. Lott saying how much I didn't like that bill. I figured, "Hey, he's one of the top Republicans. This bill is sponsored by a Democrat. As much as I dislike Lott, he's bound to agree with me!"

    Not quite. I got a letter back three days ago. It was a bit behind the times, still referring to the SSSCA. It basically said, "Yes, there is a bill. Yes, there was testimony. It was very useful. Your opinion is important to me." Considering how reviled the CBPTA eventually became and when the letter was sent, it shouldn't exactly take a lot of political initiative to stand up against that kind of bill. But from the letter it didn't look like he exactly opposed it or anything.

    I realized there are lots of problems with Hollings most recent bill, and maybe that's why he's doing that, but I wouldn't call Lott privacy- or tech-friendly by any stretch of the imagination.
    • I got a similar letter from Ben Campell (a senator from Colorado). Standard practise in congress is to have an assistant write a form letter which says about what you got. Then they count up all the letters on the issue for/against and give the busy congressman some numbers. Not exactly an ideal solution, but then again, we pay for the people reading our letters and sending us responses. I'd rather not pay for a personalized response to every letter. As for not saying anything about a position, that's pretty standard politicking. Don't commit yourself to something if there's any potential you might change your position later. I'd be a lot angrier if I got a letter saying "I agree with you" and then he voted against what I had advocated than if he sent me something non-comittal and then voted against me.
    • but I wouldn't call Lott privacy- or tech-friendly by any stretch of the imagination.

      I wouldn't call Lott friendly period. :)

    • Same letter I got from Bush -- I wrote him asking him to lobby against CBDTPA and to veto it if passed.

  • typical Lott tactics (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jgman ( 136006 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @04:29PM (#3539707)
    Using this procedural rule is actually quite common for Lott. He has invoked this rule several times over the past year to tie up the business of the senate. He did this after the nomination of Judge Pickering was defeated in Committee.

    Of course, Lott also snipes at Daschle constantly for not clearing legislation in a timely manner. Go figure!

  • With all the buzzwords: Threat to US internal security, 9/11, axis of evil, rising energy prices, saddam, and castro?

    S
  • "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work." -Kent Brockman

  • Goddamn it! (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by CleverNickName ( 129189 )
    I'll just adjust my cynical hat for a sec, and loudly proclaim, "These ^%$#!ing people in Congress consistently vote in favor of large corporations, at the expense of normal people like you and me. A CORPORATION IS NOT A PERSON! Last time I checked, we were by THE PEOPLE for THE PEOPLE, not for the corporations."

    This kind of crap just makes me sick.

    I am now writing a letter (with a pen, on paper) to send to the committee. I urge EVERYONE ELSE to do the same.

    • Contact info (Score:4, Informative)

      by CleverNickName ( 129189 ) <wil@wil[ ]aton.net ['whe' in gap]> on Friday May 17, 2002 @04:37PM (#3539759) Homepage Journal
      Contact info for the committee is here [senate.gov].

      (Shoulda put this in my rant. Sorry.)

    • Re:Goddamn it! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nurlman ( 448649 )
      > A CORPORATION IS NOT A PERSON!

      In the eyes of the law, it is. The Supreme Court ruled about a hundred years ago that a corporation has almost all the same rights as a natural (i.e. human) person has. Coproations can own property in their names, sue and be sued, engage in political speech, etc. ad nauseum.

      You think Skynet and the Matrix were scary-- just wait until the coprorations become sentient...

      • I think you rather missed the point of the rant. It obviously is NOT, no matter what legal fictions we made up, and should not be treated as such.
      • You don't need to wait for them to become
        sentient. By working at one, you're letting
        it time-share on your sentience...
        Think about it: When you go into work,
        sit down in your cubicle, your job is to
        think "what is good for the corporation?",
        "what does the corporation want?", etc...
        Basically, you're thinking the thoughts
        that it would think were it truly alive,
        and thus, you enable it's "life".

        The Matrix is already here, there's
        just no other reality to go offline to :)
      • 'cept you can't prosecute a corporation for murder. And they can't vote (yet), thank God.
    • It can all be summed up in one of my favourite quotes (from the song Freedom by Rage Against The Machine):


      Evironment.
      The enviornment exceeding on the level of our unconsiouness.
      For example: what does the billboard say?
      Come and play. Come and play.
      Forget about the movement.


      It's for reasons like this that I refuse to vote. Not because I don't think that my vote makes a difference but because I don't believe that who I vote for will do anything differently than who I don't vote for.

      The current system in North America just doesn't work. It's not about the people. It's about the profit. It doesn't matter who you vote for. The elected (if they are truly elected *cough*clinton*cough*bush*cough) will either become corrupt and turn against you or they will be shot dead (like JFK and X).

      So even if I were to make a difference and get a 3rd party in office they're either going to do exactly the same thing as a major party would have done or they will be shot dead because they will piss off the wrong people.

      The only time anything will change is when > 50% of the population decides that it's time to change their government. It will start by people rebelling against authority. Not just anyone but people who normally wouldn't like programmers and house wives. Then when things start to get really out of hand and the government gets the military involved you have a typical civil war on your hands.

      And when that's all said and done history will repeat itself once more.

      --
      Garett

      • Re:Goddamn it! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by the_2nd_coming ( 444906 )
        vote 3rd party...you are guronteed that they will do somthing diffrent....try the greens...they are hugly anti-corpreations.
      • You are just thick (I don't mean to imply thick in the head... just rife) with cynicism. I believe that although cynical, you're not far off with the candidates being profiteers. The difference, and the reason why I vote, is the means of seeking that profit.

        I didn't vote because the absentee ballot didn't make it to me in time (stupid guatemalan mail system), but I would have cast my ballot for Bush. Why? They both represent special interest groups. He just happens to represent my special interests better than Gore would have. *shrug*

        To me it's always been a matter of hte lesser of two evils.

      • Re:Goddamn it! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mcfiddish ( 35360 )

        The current system in North America just doesn't work.

        I've thought about this a lot, and it seems to me that the "right" thing to do is run yourself. Start small and work your way up to where you can make a difference.

        So then I ask myself, why don't I run for office? I'm too lazy, and it's easier to put up with the crap being dealt me than it is to do something about it. Shameful but true.

      • Re:Goddamn it! (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jfortier ( 141983 )
        It's incredible bullshit like this that got us into the situation we're in today. Every single time you withhold your vote, you're not telling the people in Washington you're pissed off at them, you're telling them you don't care, so they should continue on doing what they're doing.


        The solution is to exercise your rights as a member of a free and democratic society. This includes the right to free speech. Instead of whining to the choir in a forum like Slashdot, go out into the world and talk to normal people about, people who don't know how our government has been bought out by corporate interests. Exercise your right to inform yourself.

        Go out and read some of Nader's books, like _Crashing the Party_ about how the Republicrats and their corporate masters did everything possible to keep him out of the 2000 election. If you aren't a progressive, find some right-wing activist you like and read what he/she has to say. You've got to move beyond songs (however moving they may be) and get facts to back up your arguments, so you can be more persuasive to your friends.


        The next step is to actually vote. Yes, there is a possibility (I personally believe it's a very very small one), that if a third party starts to gain power, its leaders will be killed or otherwise muzzled by plutocrats who currently run our country. I can tell you though, if that does happen, there will be outrage! There will be violence and revolution, and things will happen. The United States wasn't formed by people sitting around and whining that King George was a tyrant, but that there was nothing to do so they'd just wait around until housewives (housewives?) got fed up with things. They petitioned. They wrote articles. They tried to pass the laws that needed passing in their assemblies. They contined to escalate their protests until they clearly had no choice other than armed revolution. When they saw they had no choice, they did what had to be done. Do I think revolution is necessary? No. I think if people actually got their minds together and voted against corporate ownership of our government, no one would be silly enough to use force to stop the rightfully elected government from taking power. Why? Because a government that cares about the people might be bad for business, but the possibility of armed revolution would be a heck of a lot worse.


        So, you've informed yourself on the issues. You went out and talked to all your friends, and after years of grass-roots activism, someone reasonable gets elected. What's to stop them from turning into an other corporate-owned carbon-copy of the Republicans? You are! Continue your activism. Continue to watch your government to make sure they act in your interests. Continue to talk to your friends to make sure they watch the government too. If they go bad, repeat the process until you find someone who will work for you.


        It's called democracy. People power. The people have the power in our system of government, but it works only if they actually exercise that power. They've got to stay informed, watch their government, and exercise their right to speak against and vote against their government if necessary. If also helps if they go out and work in their community. People are less likely to be apathetic about our political system if they see that it encourages people to get involved and do something themselves to make the world a better place. Democracy isn't about electing a government every once in a while and then sitting around and ignoring them. It also isn't about people rebelling against authority. It's about people realizing that they are the authority. It's about people exercising their power every day of their lives, not just not election day. It's not easy, but few things that are worthwhile are easy.

      • Horse puckey. Typical GenX crap.

        If you don't vote, you abdicate your right to rail against the incumbents (or non-incumbents) with any authority -- Duh, you didn't vote, you didn't care enough to particpate in the process.

        Higher-than-normal voting percentages for third-party candidates have given credence to issues in third-party platforms, and the two major parties have adjusted their positions in response.

        History only repeats itself if people don't learn from past mistakes. Vote for the lesser of two evils, if that's the only choice, but VOTE! Then bitch about it.

        • I don't understand where people get this attitude. "If you don't vote you have no right to complain!" Bullshit.

          My problem isn't that I don't think I can change things. My problem is that I don't think changing anything within our current system is going to make any difference. It's not corruption of our democracy that's the problem. It's the fact that we're lied to about it being a democracy in the first place.

          It's not a democracy. It's at best a corporate republic but in the last 3 years it's been pushing on the side of a corporate dictatorship.

          If you vote you are succumbing to the illusion and proving that you can be lied to. You have no right to complain. You contributed to the illusion that the government wants everyone to buy into.

          I don't vote because I don't believe in our democracy. I like the idea of democracy but it's implementation in North America is so twisted that it takes all the democracy right out of it.

          I don't need the government to know that I'm mad at them because it's irrelevant. I'm doing everything in my power to educate myself about politics and society in hopes that some day maybe I can contribute the creation of a new system.

          But voting isn't doing any good. It's doing the opposite in my opinion. It's very similar to the "don't feed the trolls" that we hear about here on /. all the time. Don't feed the government my making them believe that you are with them.

          If you really are with them then that's fine. Go ahead and vote and advocate for a free democracy. That's your porogative. But please try to look beyond your country and beyond the government. What's the problem? It's not that no one's voting and electing a 3rd party. As I said I don't believe that a 3rd party could make the right changes in office, even if 20 3rd party candidates were elected in a row. It's not that we're not getting anyone honest in office it's the office itself.

          But I do write letters and I do try to make differences that will benefit people within the current system. I just chose not to participate in the evolution of the sytem because I don't believe in the system itself.

          --
          Garett
    • Pen on paper goes in the circular file. Do you think that an intern is going to waste his time trying to make out your chicken scratch? I would recommend instead that you print up some nice letterhead and check for typos before you send your missive out the door. Also, you'll probably save yourself a little bit of time.
    • For some senetors, it is faster to email them. I know in Oregon, at least one of our senators gives more attention to email, and in fact, prefer it, over USPS. less anthrax that way.
    • Well, this got a big bunch of "Flamebait" mods.

      I'm really sorry. It was not my intention, at all, to flame. I thought I was expressing a valid opinion.

      (We should be pretty pissed off about this, though, I think)

      So, uh...sorry.
    • Before you get too excited, you may want to read, in particular, the Salon article (linked above) re what this bill was *really* all about. It wasn't for THE PEOPLE at all.

      Unless, of course, you're writing to praise the committee for showing some sense.

  • Yesterday's News (Score:5, Informative)

    by floppy ears ( 470810 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @04:34PM (#3539734) Homepage
    Hello! This is yesterday's news. Today's News.com article [com.com] has more up-to-date info, and it says that Lott's tactic only delayed things by one day.
    • They are protesting for the anniversy of the first Bush judical nominee and the dem's refusing to even schedule hearings for them while our federal courts become even more slow due to the lack of judges. only 10% of the federal bench has judges. this protest has nothing to do with the privacy bill, it was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. " Another area where Daschle's penchant for inactivity is evident is in judicial nominations. Only eight of Mr. Bush's 30 appeals court nominees have been confirmed. District Court Judge Charles Pickering was defeated in the Judiciary Committee (which is not mentioned in the Constitution as part of the confirmation process). Three other nominees don't seem to be able to get a vote despite the fact that they have had hearings. Eighteen can't even get a hearing, though their nominations have been pending for almost a year."

      • Re:Yesterday's News (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Probably because Bush insists on nominating hardliner types that no sensible person would want on the bench.

      • Same thing that all the fuckhead Republicans did to all the dimwit Democratic judicial nominees under Clinton. Don't try to make this something to take sides about. It's just, , sorry about that, governement as usual.
        • What effect would the bill have on non-American websites storing American's information though?

  • Are we fer it or agin it? (Score:5, Informative)

    by condour75 ( 452029 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @04:37PM (#3539754) Homepage
    The fact that Hollings is behind this bill should be the first clue about the real agenda it serves. Hollings is also a sponsor of the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA, formerly known as the SSSCA), a bill that requires all new computers and other digital information devices to come with copy protection software and/or hardware installed on them. It would also outlaw any effort to reverse-engineer or disable any copy-protection format -- a measure that some observers believe will cripple software development -- particularly in the open-source and free-software communities.

    . . .

    It is masquerading as pro-consumer when in fact it is pro-business. The new legislation is similar to laws passed in Europe that divide your personal information into two types. The first is "sensitive" information, such as your financial and medical history, race, lifestyle, religion, political affiliation, and sex life. The second is "nonsensitive" information, and among that will include your name, address, and records of anything you buy or surf on the Internet. Under the act, business can't collect or divulge the sensitive bits without your express consent, but anything classified as nonsensitive can be freely collected and sold at will.

    --from Salon article [salon.com]

    According to Salon, the purpose of the act is to condone spyware by regulating it, and thus setting a precedent for its continued use. No fan of Lott am I, but that Holling guy don't sound too great either.
    • According to Salon, the purpose of the act is to condone spyware by regulating it, and thus setting a precedent for its continued use.

      Spyware exists, and it will continue to exist until it is declared illegal by an act of Congress of supreme court. And thus, would you rather have it unregulated and sending all of your personal and impersonal information to and fro, or would you rather have it regulated?

      Ciagrettes are also a deadly and annoying product that is regulated by the government, which would implicitly imply that the government condones tabacco use. Yet I would expect that few non smokers would argue that regulation is not a bad thing in that situation.

      In a world with two evils (regulated spyware and unregulated spyware), I'll take the regulations, please...
      • But, if this stuff is unregulated then other restrictions apply, surely. The Salon article seems to be saying that spyware will be given carte blanche to do as it will to your system and you have no recourse to anything (well, violence I suppose, that works :)
      • Indeed, the govt overtly- not just implicitly - condones the use of tobacco products - in fact, many state govts have budgets built on the financial foundation of taxation of tobacco use. Consider this sad fact when you state that regulated / taxed / condoned evil is better than a world where one can mount a defense legally. What if Congress decides regulation and taxation of spyware is the appropriate outcome? How hard will it be to get back privacy rights after that?

        Additionally, tobacco sales outside the US are essentially unregulated - in fact, they are aided and abetted by the US govt, to improve the balance of payments and ensure that the tobacco companies can make their liability litigation payments ad infinitum. Privacy, in my opinion, should be considered just as much a 'human right' as freedom from predatory marketing of inherently unhealthy (and useless) products. Of course, human rights are usually the first victim in the pursuit of cash flow.

    • Thank you. I knew there was something wrong with this bill, but I couldn't quite remember what it was. Kind of ironic that Slashdot portrayed it as pro-business before and everyone bashed it, but now that it's referred to as some sort of Holy Defender Of Our Freedom And Privacy, everyone defends it.
    • read the article [com.com]




      In the House of Representatives, Florida
      Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns has introduced a bill that would allow businesses to trade personal information unless consumers say otherwise. Stearns' bill would not allow consumers to sue if their privacy is violated.

      hollings' bill still allows consumers the right to sue companies for misuse of their private information
  • Read the Salon article. And remember who is sponsoring this bill. There may be more to this than meets the eye.

    And yes, I am a Mississippian, and a conservative, and no, I don't really like Trent Lott.

  • The important part... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday May 17, 2002 @04:40PM (#3539777) Journal
    The salon article:

    Likewise with the Online Personal Privacy Act. It is masquerading as pro-consumer when in fact it is pro-business. The new legislation is similar to laws passed in Europe that divide your personal information into two types. The first is "sensitive" information, such as your financial and medical history, race, lifestyle, religion, political affiliation, and sex life. The second is "nonsensitive" information, and among that will include your name, address, and records of anything you buy or surf on the Internet. Under the act, business can't collect or divulge the sensitive bits without your express consent, but anything classified as nonsensitive can be freely collected and sold at will.

    I guess anything that Hollings touches is evil.

  • That would include financial, medical, ethnic, religious and political information along with Social Security data and sexual orientation.

    This is not even an issue. The senator knows that every upstanding american citizen is:

    • financial: a hard-working taxpayer
    • medical: leads a clean life
    • ethnic: is from good stock
    • religious: is a proud and dedicated churchgoer
    • political: supports his president 100%
    • social security: skeptical of its goals
    • sexual orientation: damned straight
    So you see, there really isn't any unique information to keep secret. The proposed legislation is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
  • when the committee next meets? If I was a committee member, I'd be sure to throw this one at him just to piss him off more.
  • Before you get up in arms about the injustice of this move you might want to *READ* the salon article mentioned. Yes, this bill is something that's needed, but just like the Microsoft anti-trust settlement what you have after the fact could be more dangerous than before

    This law would make them get you to opt-in for what is considered "secure" information.

    HOWEVER, it is very loose on what is considered "secure" information and gives free reign for those same people that it's trying to supposedly stop a legal right to sell and/or give away personal information
  • I don't have time to look for the article I read, but isn't Hollings' bill actually a pro-business bill in disguise? IIRC, the kinds of data listed in the quote are protected, but other kinds of data, such as what you buy, are not. I think the article I read pointed out that it's meaningless, because with data on what you buy, companies can figure out a lot about you: your religion, your politics, medical information, perhaps your sexual tastes...

  • Good, we should be glad it is defeated. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @04:55PM (#3539867) Homepage
    Read the bill, or at least the comments WHY he shut it down.

    I think that it shouldn't happen. This bill legalizes sharing of much personal information WITHOUT authorization.
    It also legitimizes those constantly changing TOS that "by continuing to use the service you agree to"

    This is NOT a personal privacy bill, this in an anti privacy bill.

    Disagree with me if you want, but at least see what the bill and issues are BEFORE you go off half cocked complaining about this.

    The Senator from Disney is sponsoring this bill, which many others have pointed out.
    • no dude. this bill requires that consumers opt-in to allow companies to share/sell/use this consumer information online. read it again.
      companies are balking at the bill b/c of the costs associated with getting consumers to opt-in (effectively selling the customer on why to opt-in)
      • Maybe I misread the reports on it, not being an American I don't have much of an interest on the specifics.

        The articles I read left me with one impression.

        I still think it is very important people actually get ALL the information before they start screaming at the elected reps.

      • read the article [com.com]


        The measure is designed to increase Internet privacy by limiting how businesses can use phone numbers and purchase records and other data collected through their Web sites. Online
        businesses would be required to get customer permission before collecting or sharing sensitive personal information such as income level or religious affiliation.


        In the House of Representatives, Florida
        Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns has introduced a bill that would allow businesses to trade personal information unless consumers say otherwise. Stearns' bill would not allow consumers to sue if their privacy is violated.

  • What is the right thing? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Angel Hair Pasta ( 577266 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @05:02PM (#3539897)
    Lott may have done 'the right thing' by trying to keep this bill from passing. There was another /. article not very long ago More on Internet Privacy Legislation [slashdot.org] and a link from it A law to protect spyware [salon.com] that shows how this bill is not all that great for our privacy.

    One point that the article makes is that this bill would "place a congressional stamp of approval on precisely the kinds of practices that purveyors of spyware are eager to engage in" and "the nonsensitive clause is a huge gaping loophole through which business will ride roughshod."

    Before we blast Lott for this, we should get a good idea of what the bill does based off of something other than its name (which of course was given to it by Sen. Fritz Hollings!)

    I'm not saying that Lott is working for our better good, or even that he is thinking of people like us, but we should take a good look at this thing before we complain that someone kept it from passing.

    AHP
  • Just a simple FYI if anybody wants to track down the bill text on thomas.loc.gov [loc.gov] -- it's S. 2201, otherwise known as the "Online Personal Privacy Act".

    If you want a PDF version from the GPO, this link [gpo.gov] may work for you.

  • Yes (Score:3, Funny)

    by Zen Mastuh ( 456254 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @05:10PM (#3539933)
    The NYTimes tells us Senator Trent Lott forced the Senate Commerce Committee to adjourn this morning...

    It's true--he had to adjourn to his office to check his list of contributors. How else is a senator supposed to know which vote to cast?

  • "...--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

  • online section by section analysis (Score:3, Informative)

    by dcgaber ( 473400 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @05:28PM (#3540016)
    We have prepared on analysis of this bill andit is online here [ccianet.org], much easier than reading through the 30 pages, a condensed outline version. We oppose the bill and sent a letter [ccianet.org] to Sen. Hollings yesterday saying so, we also cc: to all members of the Committee (inc. Sen. Lott). You can also read our press release from our front page here [ccianet.org].

    We do not want to see the Internet, and Internet commerce treated differently than non-internet commerce. We do not want discriminatory effects placed on the Internet, and wide ranging new regulations and sever legal penalties that will bankrupt many firms. If you conduct any business with a web site, you should oppose this bill!

  • In a related story [cnn.com] by CNN (near the bottom) Rep. Stearns of Florida has introduced a privacy bill in the House which, in my opinion, is quite nasty. Here's what he has to say about it on his own site [house.gov]:

    "From these hearings, we learned that we must strike a balance in protecting personal information without unduly interfering with the free flow of consumer information that strengthens our economy and benefits the consumer."
    Quite revealing, in my opinion.
  • So he can order the creation of an army of clones, but he can't give us online privacy?
  • ...would be to have a general agreement drafted by the populace (users/customers) which serves much as the GPL servers us, call it the GTOS. The users/customers (the populace) can say to the business community, "We want you to use the General Terms of Service and we won't be your customers unless/until you do."

    Those businesses which give the customers/populace what they want get the customers, the others go out of business.

    By using this type of mechanism the populace can determine the terms of service for information usage. We obviously need a way to cut the U.S. government out of the equasion since they only seem interested in serving up what their campaign donors want and the rest of us be damned.

    Just a thought.

  • Your private information is worth $500.00 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ClarkEvans ( 102211 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @06:13PM (#3540258) Homepage
    It voted to require the Federal Trade Commission to develop privacy rules for offline businesses as well, and reduced the maximum amount consumers could win for privacy violations from $5,000 to $500.

    This is just absurd. Assuming that a violating company only got 1% of people suing, and a fraction of them winning... this means that the average cost per customer is really about $5. This is an acceptable "cost of doing business".

  • The slashdot herd of sheep ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RebelWithoutAClue ( 578771 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @06:14PM (#3540261) Homepage
    ... goes stampeding all over again.

    Seriously, all they seem to need is a perceived threat to privacy ("Senator Prevents Action on Online Privacy Bill"!!) even if the same bill was critized a while go on slashdot, and is sponsored by the senator from disney.

    Please, follow some [salon.com]of the links before jumping in to agree with the post ...

    Lott against privacy, Lott baaaad !!!

    what's next ?

    Hollings pro-privacy, Hollings good !?!?

  • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Geez, you people make me sick. The Republican party isn't perfect but they sure care a lot more about privacy, the FREE market, and individual rights than the Democrats. Stop being spoon fed what you read in the liberal media. Somebody has to be correct about this matter, why not read up and make your own decision.
      • I still find the Republicans lacking in many ways. First, they claim to be for a free market economy, i.e. Capitalism. I'm all for Laissez Faire Capitalism, don't get me wrong. But the Republicans are the first to run to bail out a failing business or industry. Not a very capitalistic idea afaic...
      • individual rights?
        such as individual/civil liberties?
        what organization promotes these? the republican party?
        maybe.... the ACLU. and last time i checked, the republican party was not a big ACLU fan
    • Did you bother to read the Bill? It is sponsored by Democrats, and numerous people have posted links to the Salon story which exposes it for the garbage that it is.

      This is a clear example of how awful Democrats are with protecting privacy, and you are going to sit there and say how wonderful they are? "They are great except for when they aren't" is what I'm getting from this.
      • read the article [com.com]


        The measure is designed to increase Internet privacy by limiting how businesses can use phone numbers and purchase records and other data collected through their Web sites. Online businesses would be
        required to get customer permission before collecting or sharing sensitive personal information such as income level or religious affiliation.


        In the House of Representatives, Florida
        RepublicanStearns' bill would not allow consumers to sue if their privacy is violated.
        • Read more of the article, or, better still, read the bill.

          The bill bifurcates personal information into
          "sensitive" and "not sensitive."

          Oddly, much of the stuff that's "sensitive" is already protected in a variety of ways.

          What the bill actually does is eliminate all of your privacy rights while identifying a few categories that aren't included in the gift to business.

          Betcha those get added over time.

  • Geez people. It's actually a BAD bill that we DO NOT want passed.

    • I'll have to agree. This is the bill that would explicitly make opt-out legally acceptable everywhere except it's few protected areas. I'd rather it died a horrible death so we can go for better ones at the state as well as Federal levels, than have it become law and trump potentially stronger state-level protections.

      Not that I think this is why Lott killed it, but I'll still take it as a good thing in this instance.

  • Huzzah!!! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by eyegor ( 148503 )
    Trent did the right thing.

    The whor^H^H^H^HSenator from SC is not to be trusted to ANYTHING in the publics interest. He did a nice job naming it though, Orwellian doublespeak at its best. Even fooled some /.ers.

    These days, even the party of Bill Clinton seems willing to trade our rights for a few campaign bucks.

    What's the world coming to?

  • You guys are clueless (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Friday May 17, 2002 @08:28PM (#3540779) Homepage Journal
    You want to know why the politicians don't pay attention to geeks? Because you're clueless. You're no more informed about the issues than your common couch potato sucking in the CNN lies.

    Last week you were all rallying around your privacy rights. This week you pan the guy that killed a bill that would have taken away your privacy rights. The geek coalition is just as malleable with ten second sound bites as the soccer moms and suv dads.

    Go find out what this bill is about before you start clamouring for its passage. It serves you a bowl of shit and you're happy because there's a doggy biscuit mixed in. Sheesh! Oh boo hoo that filthy republican took away my doggy biscuit...

    I'm definitely going to let Trent Lott know how I feel. I'll let him know that I'm glad he kept my best interests in mind in that den of weasels they call the Senate. I want a real privacy bill, not this half-assed excuse for a placebo.
  • the news relase i had read on the parlimentiary move by Lott was more business oriented. it basically gave the impression that Lott was doing this because of pressure by companies saying that this would cost them money and that cost was not in the consumer's intereste. there's only one person i dislike more than Trent Lott and thats Tom DeLay! that guy, literally, looks like a weasal. (im from texas, and actually am in the district next to DeLay's. and any of you mississipian's out there, dont worry about the flak, us texans get the unfair end too.)
  • The scary thing about our representatives is this:
    What if they truly do represent the will of the overwhelming majority? In other words, what if we had a clean slate, and could choose again? Would we end up with EXACTLY the same idiots and criminals in office? Or different ones with the same relative characteristics?

  • I urge Trent Lott's constituents to make your voices heard on this. Same goes for readers whose senators serve on the Senate Commerce Committee."

    are you kidding me? these congressmen dont give a flying monkey spunk about their constituents, they care about the lobbyists who finance their elections, the ones that keep them in office.

    yeah, so i'm negative, but its right

  • This is the same bill that would allow most of our information to be shared unless we opt-out and only protects the information that is already protected.

    Jeez, I didn't realize just how much of a spin /. was willing to put on a story to get people worked up.

    DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL!!!
  • Hello folks, is this thing on?

    This bill doesn't do much of anything to assure us of privacy. If anything, it ensures that spammers and the like have the legal rights to track us. This bill basically divides all information into two categories (personal/important and non-personal/unimportant) and sets an opt-in for the 'important' information while not even guaranteeing an opt-out for what it considers 'unimportant'.

    Of course you're asking yourself, "what's he mean unimportant?" Glad you asked. Your name, address, record of any and all purchases, etc.; important, personal information you're probably thinking. Wrong. Don't feel bad, I made the same mistake at first. Then I looked at who was pushing this thing (Fritz Hollings (SSSCA/DMCA/etc)) and I smacked my head and said, "oh, now I get it." The only information spammers care about is the information NOT protected by this bill.

    Gee, I have an idea, let's forward all spam email to Fritz Hollings' email address and see how he likes his own medicine. It amazes me that the citizens of South Carolina would allow such an anti-freedom, anti-constitution, anti-consumer, anti-individual, pro-corporation, pro-media (christ, he's referred to as the "Senator from Disney) to continue representing them. I somehow doubt that the majority of the citizens of South Carolina would vote for most of what he pushes if they knew what he was pushing.

    I say we give into Hollings. I mean, all he wants is lots of money, a large plantation, and plenty of people he can humiliate and beat down at will. Can't we get that for him so he'll go away? To me, it's absolutely insane that such a person is allowed to remain in office. We should have some sort of monthly review board for every member of Congress so that when they completely abandon their constituents, they can be removed from office quickly and quietly, making way for a human being with a heat that pumps blood instead of oil.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close