Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States

Data Miners Moving to Offshore Data Havens 320

Posted by michael from the data-arbitrage dept.
schwit1 writes "Washington Post has an article about former TIA personnel moving their data mining operations offshore (Bahamas) to escape U.S. privacy rules, and to make a buck. I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data (financial, medical, legal) of federal officials and their families on an open internet web server out of the Bahamas. Is this what it will take for the US to enact stringent privacy rules?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Data Miners Moving to Offshore Data Havens More

Data Miners Moving to Offshore Data Havens

Comments Filter:

  • Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:04PM (#10546737) Homepage Journal
    Aw, hell. While we are at it, why not privatize all of government? You might be surprised at how much is already privatized. We are well on our way to outsourcing our military to companies such as Haliburton and Computer Sciences Corporation (nee Dyncorp) as well as having our current POTUS wanting to privatize social security, the Dept. of the Interior, the Dept. of Eduation, the Department of Energy, our system of election to corporations like Diebold etc...etc...etc.... So, why are you now complaining about TIA and privacy?

    Individuals and organizations that will do anything necessary to accomplish their goals, even if that means skirting the law by going outside the country should not be tolerated. In essence, this approach would violate the law, thus this effort at relocation, so why is he supported by members in the current government?

    So, taking this further: Let's say that this company screws up in their data collection......what recourse will you have if the company is an offshore company? By what mechanisms will they be held responsible for errors or violations of the law?

    All of this is exactly why you need to vote in this coming election. Get out and vote!

    • Re:Vote! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:19PM (#10546834)
      "why not privatize all of government?"

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

      • Re:Vote! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 16, 2004 @07:08PM (#10547084)
        For the lazy, the full text of the "presidents management agenda" can be found here [whitehouse.gov]. The outsorcing of jobs in government starts on page 17. Here is a quote... "Nearly half of all federal employees perform tasks that are readily available in the commercial marketplace - tasks like data collection, administrative support, and payroll services." Another good quote is "Government should be market-based -- we should not be afraid of competition, innovation, and choice. I will open government to the dicipline of competition. GWB". And if you are interested, here are "scorecards [results.gov]" of how things are going. India, here we come! See, its not only programming [slashdot.org], its our entire government. They must all go to the same conferences.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Izago909 ( 637084 ) *
            Privitizing also reduces what transparency there is left. It's also another degree away from electoral oversight, as far as control is concerned. We don't get to vote corporate leaders in. Why not trim spending where it counts instead of these half-ased attempts? Does Halliburton really need all this money? We know the military can do a lot of it for much less. For all the bitching that goes on about 'big governemnt' at least its bottom line is self-perpetuation instead of profit, like corporations. Which o

        • Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Dachannien ( 617929 )
          India, here we come!

          I think by "outsourcing", the administration simply means outsourcing to private companies rather than doing everything in-house. The term outsourcing didn't always have the phrase "to India" after it, and I think the original meaning (along the lines of subcontracting), instead of the media-hype-friendly definition that gets used more and more these days, is what was intended.

      • Have you heard of something called "the presidents management agenda" that the Bush administration has been touting since it came into office. This president has been seeking to outsource all "non inherently governmental" jobs in the US executive branch for quite some time now.

        The amusing thing is that under the bush administration 800.000 public sector jobs have been added, which account for a large part of the jobs Bush claims he has created. In fact, as a percentage under Bush the number of public sect

    • Re:Vote! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @07:08PM (#10547083)
      Privatization isn't inherently bad. The reasoning behind it is many companies will have to compete for government contracts. This goes along with capitalism that the best business will come out on top. I worked for the US government in an internship over the summer. I've worked for small businesses. Believe me, there is a difference! If you can't get fired for being lazy, why work?

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

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

      • Re:Vote! (Score:3, Informative)

        by AuMatar ( 183847 )
        I've worked for the government. I've worked for large industry. Beleieve me- there is NO difference. Small industry might have some by benefit of size, but there is no inherent inefficiency just because its public instead of private. And it ain't gonna be the little guys getting the big money contracts. If anything the government doing things is *cheaper*- they aren't any more efficient, but you also aren't paying them a profit.

      • Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by the_meager ( 686660 )
        The interaction between business and government is obviously very harmful to our society. I have to question anyone who merely asserts that it is the fault of politicians, or that it is the fault of businesses or corporations.

        Nay, I say. It is the fault of how our government is set up. Let's face it, when you have too much democracy, and law-making and increased regulation becomes all too easy and common, big money is going to use government to deter competition. We were never meant to have a society in wh
        • At any given time, the 911E side had a dozen or so people working, most of which were not doing anything.

          Were these people the ones who would pick up the phone if someone calls 911 then?

          If that's the case, I'd say having extra staff for 911 service is kind of a good thing. Because when grandma Betsy is laying on the floor, clutching her chest, I'd rather not have a busy signal at 911.

          On the other hand if these people were maintaining the system rather than taking calls, that seems excessive.

      • Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (reggoh.gip)> on Saturday October 16, 2004 @09:01PM (#10547684) Journal
        Yeah, Halliburton getting billions for the Iraq reconstruction is bullshit. But I think the government taking over healthcare costing the taxpayers "more" billions would be just as bad.
        Now here is true bullshit.
        You have to take each example and judge it on it's own merits.
        Indeed, let's take each example and judge it on it's own merits.

        Case: the canadian universal health-care system:

        • In Canada, health-care costs the same per-capita as in the US.
        • In Canada, 100% of the population is covered (compared to 60% of the US population).
        • In Canada, if you need heart bypass surgery, it is FREE.
        • In Canada, nobody is prevented from getting employment because he would be too expensive for the employer's insurer.
        • In Canada, nobody loses his job because he suddenly has an expensive debilitating medical condition.
        • In Canada, if you need a new hip or a new knww, it is FREE.
        • In Canada, administrative overhead is 3% compared to 35% in the US. That's because in Canada, everyone has the same coverage, and you don't have to check the patient's credit record.
        • In Canada, there is no money WASTED on insurance companies PROFITS.
        • In Canada, professionals don't have to pay $400 per month for medical insurance.
        • In Canada, if you get whiplashed by a drunk driver, you don't have to hunt for the fucker's insurance because the needed medical treatment is FREE.
        • In Canada, employers aren't struggling to cover their employees [modbee.com].
        • In Canada, nobody will lose his life savings and his house to an hospital.
        • In Canada, drug prices are controlled and pharmaceutical companies do not spend twice as much on marketing as they spend on R&D.
        • In Canada, if you need a new heart and new lungs, it is FREE.
        If you yankees would get rid of your tired government is bad mantra, you would see that there are many things that just cannot be done by the private sector at all.
        • Nothing is free. They pay for all of that with very high taxes.

          • Re:Vote! (Score:4, Interesting)

            by yppiz ( 574466 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @09:34PM (#10547834) Homepage
            According to the grandparent post, per-capita costs are the same in the US and Canada, so their high taxes are equivalent to our high premiums, except they cover everyone.

            --Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

          • Re:Vote! (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (reggoh.gip)> on Saturday October 16, 2004 @11:18PM (#10548233) Journal
            Nothing is free. They pay for all of that with very high taxes.
            Which is better than very high private insurance premiums to a company that will dump you when you're no longer profitable, and then you lose your house to the hostpital. At least, the very high taxes benefit everyone instead a few insurance company directors (they don't pay dividents to shareholders anymore)...
            • Which is better than very high private insurance premiums to a company that will dump you when you're no longer profitable, and then you lose your house to the hostpital. At least, the very high taxes benefit everyone instead a few insurance company directors (they don't pay dividents to shareholders anymore)...

              In one post, you say your healthcare is "FREE!!!!", as in "FREE IPODS!" or "FREE VIAGRA!!" or "FREE BEER!" or "FREE NAKED TEENS HUNGRY FOR YOUR COCK!!!"

              But in this post, you admit it is not, in fa
        • My father is a physician who has greatly opposed government run health-care. The real problems have been government using unfair attempts to charge doctors with medicare fraud in the 1980's under Pres. Reagan, and here in the State of Washington, using statistical measures to determine who has overbilled medicaid without actually doing any line-item auditing (and violating any sort of due process rights of the doctors involved) under Gov. Locke. If Americans are not going to be willing to pay for the gove

        • Re:Vote! (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Marthisdil ( 606679 )
          And well, you Canadians also have that nice VAT added onto everything you buy....that also goes to help pay for all those costs. Also, if you're not sick on the verge of death, you get to wait in line forever...but yes, it's free.

          Just my 2 cents.
        • Alright. Good points and I respect your views. But when you keep saying "free" it confuses me. Aren't your income taxes much higher than in the US to pay for all of this? I think what the people of the US want is a system similar to Canada's that gets the same quality of health care through private health care providers at a cheaper rate. Cheaper by competition, of course.

          Maybe it's just a difference between Canada and the US, but when the US tries to make huge government programs, the politicians end

          • Re:Vote! (Score:3, Informative)

            by Pig Hogger ( 10379 )

            Alright. Good points and I respect your views. But when you keep saying "free" it confuses me. Aren't your income taxes much higher than in the US to pay for all of this? I think what the people of the US want is a system similar to Canada's that gets the same quality of health care through private health care providers at a cheaper rate. Cheaper by competition, of course.

            There are things that can be have cheaper by competition, like peanuts or memory chips. But there are other things that CANNOT have c

        • In Soviet Canada ...

          (Its a JOKE!)

        • I'm Canadian and while I love the fact that a visit to the clinic doesn't become a financial liability, and having a birthing doesn't cost you 3 months wages... you must also consider some other factors:

          Many good doctors have left to the US because being paid for private service is more $$$. We're quite shortstaffed on both doctors and at times qualified nurses. While immediate dangers are quickly dealt with and covered, staff are often less competent due to being worked over hours (severely overworked) du

    • Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TyrranzzX ( 617713 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @08:20PM (#10547462) Journal
      While we're at it, mabye we should privatise legislature, and the presidency, as well as the courts, to the eXtreme!!!1

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

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

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

      Frankly, I see this as another way to get the government into the "save us, take away our rights". Seriously, we want them to keep our privacy secure? Ok, we'll make laws that'll effect the little guy (people moving from country to country to evade the law) but decide not to touch the big guy (sony, MS, ect) with a 10 foot pole, and if we do, it'll either be a slap on the cheek or something else. I'v been seeing a lot of that lately, and it's sad that people on slashdot don't quite get it, and even sadder that I'v talked to people who think we should cut the heads off of virus writers infront of their families (for some reason, that seems to be a popular thing).
    • Kerry must agree with data being moved offshore as he, being 1 of only 100 US Senators, has not introduced any bills to combat this problem.

      If you want to know why look at who funded the DEMS and GOPs national conventions and you will find your answer.
    • I get so much doomsaying 24 hours a day that I had to isolate myself from even NPR for over a month. Now the sky is falling on Slashdot? I can't stand this feeling anxious for myself shit, it insults my intelligence. At least four context-less, timeline-less, drum-beating opinion pieces in less than that many days; this is almost getting childish.
    • To the moderators who are modding the parent down......are you modding me down because you don't agree with me politically? Or are you modding me as troll because you actually think this is a troll? How can encouraging people to vote be a troll?

      If you are modding me down because you dont agree with me politically, shame on you. That is censorship and no matter which side of the political fence you sit on, the First Amendment should be sacrosanct.


      • If you are modding me down because you dont agree with me politically, shame on you. That is censorship and no matter which side of the political fence you sit on, the First Amendment should be sacrosanct.

        Earth to BWJones: Slashdot is a privately-run geek portal.

        The First Amendment (of which I am a diehard defender) does not apply to private entities. It only applies to the government.

        Slashdot can censor whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, because it is *their* server

  • Escape US jursidction != stronger US privacy laws (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Emugamer ( 143719 ) * on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:06PM (#10546754) Homepage Journal
    okay the poster here is saying that if a foreign country hosts information that violates US laws, we are going to enact more laws???

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

    • Think about what Europe does (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Engineer-Poet ( 795260 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:09PM (#10546779) Homepage Journal
      The US could do the same as the EU, and prohibit export of personal data to jurisdictions which do not have equal or better privacy protections as ours. That would stop a lot of outsourcing in general, and probably be a vote-winner among unemployed geeks.

      • Re:Think about what Europe does (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Emugamer ( 143719 ) * on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:17PM (#10546824) Homepage Journal
        that makes sense, but how do you find someone who exports personal data? and how do you setup a system that tracks the sale of the illegally exported information? it sounds great, just not very enforceable
        • that makes sense, but how do you find someone who exports personal data? and how do you setup a system that tracks the sale of the illegally exported information? it sounds great, just not very enforceable

          That's like saying "How do you stop exports of goods and services to embargoed countries? It sounds great, just not very enforceable."

          This stuff isn't cloak and dagger. It's most often out in the open. You can't stop what you can't see, but most of it is very visible. After all, this is a business, and
        • that makes sense, but how do you find someone who exports personal data? and how do you setup a system that tracks the sale of the illegally exported information? it sounds great, just not very enforceable

          It's not always a big deal. I work in an area where we have to have quite strong controls over the data we hold. I like to think that we take care over it because it would be wrong to share the data with others. But we also keep control of it because we'd be breaking laws if we shared it. Avoiding break

      • Re:Think about what Europe does (Score:4, Interesting)

        by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposerNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:26PM (#10546874) Homepage

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

        • Data's different, it can be transferred in the blink of an eye. It's not like a bricks and mortar power plant. A middle manager wouldn't think twice about breaking that law, unless the government contract had severe financial penalties for doing so AND a means of monitoring for compliance.
          Besides competitors, what if the U.S. goverment wanted it? It's a U.S. company, as if they are going to say no. Again it will be a middle manager - I guarantee it. The CEO will 'not want to know about it'. This kind of thi

    • Re:Escape US jursidction != stronger US privacy la (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No, what is needed are laws that prevent the collection of such info in the first place. By the time it's published abroad, it's already been collected here.

      No, what we need is for someone to show people the kind of information that's been collected on them already, whether by the government or private companies. Say, collect all the info on the staff of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Faux News, and members of Congress, then send it to them. Sure, some systems might have to be hacked in t
      • I agree with your premise, I just don't think it would work. everyone needs to keep some private information about a person, its combining it that makes it dangerous and annoying. Credit agencies for example have SO MUCH information about you, and the amount of info on Lexus-Nexus is amazing, I found out there are professionals out there who work for rich people and try to keep their assets out of these databases... I wonder what would happen if lexus-nexus was taken down

  • Similar stunt in portland (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:07PM (#10546761)
    Reminds me of a publicity stunt a newspaper in portland pulled after the local government ruled that trash on the curbside was fair game for the police to seize without a warrant. They went dumpster diving at several high profile government officials curbsides and posted the results of their findings in the paper. I thought it was a very effective piece of journalism.

  • Ummmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@NOspAm.yahoo.com> on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:11PM (#10546787)
    Washington Post has an article about former TIA personnel moving their data mining operations offshore (Bahamas) to escape U.S. privacy rules, and to make a buck. I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data (financial, medical, legal) of federal officials and their families on an open internet web server out of the Bahamas. Is this what it will take for the US to enact stringent privacy rules?

    Does this make any sense to anyone?

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

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

    • Re:Ummmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:15PM (#10546806)
      No, the answer is to prohibit exporting personal data to these countries that dont have strong laws.

    • Re:Ummmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:43PM (#10546972)
      Sure. As a matter of fact, that policy has worked so well for copyright that they are extending it to patents as well. This is called "harmonization".
    • Does this make any sense to anyone? These companies are moving offshore to escape US privacy laws. So the solution is for the US to enact tougher privacy laws?

      Sure it makes sense... if you're a politician. Fix any problem with more legislation! More laws! More special committees! More money from special interests! The guy who submitted the story is probably a politician.

  • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pan T. Hose ( 707794 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:15PM (#10546810) Homepage Journal

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

    Enact stringent privacy rules? For the US? On Bahamas? Offshore? With the global jurisdiction and universal scope of US law, I presume? How would you want the "federal officials" to do that? Maybe US should "liberate" Bahamas?

    • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by qbzzt ( 11136 )
      Enact stringent privacy rules? For the US? On Bahamas? Offshore? With the global jurisdiction and universal scope of US law, I presume? How would you want the "federal officials" to do that? Maybe US should "liberate" Bahamas?

      I assume that this means to stop the data propagation at the point it is collected (in the US), rather than try to control it after the genie is out of the bottle.

      I, for one, welcome our new information collecting overlords.

    • Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:29PM (#10546892) Journal
      I am pretty sure the regulations would restrict the EXPORT of personal information.
    • no! then the IRS will know where my life savings went...Sweeden here I come!
    • I second the motion to have the next war in the Bahamas. Move to add a "Squirtguns only weapons clause", and a "beaches are neutral territory for manditory daily R&R" clause. All in favor? If we get it going now, maybe we can bring the boys home by 2037.
  • I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data (financial, medical, legal) of federal officials and their families on an open internet web server out of the Bahamas. Is this what it will take for the US to enact stringent privacy rules?"

    So, basically, what you're saying is, the ends justift the means? That's a logical fallacy, and is inadmissable as rationale. Try again.
    • Why is that a logical fallacy? Sometimes breaking the law is how things are changed. It shouldn't be the first reaction, but it is on the list.
    • If you're going to rule on people's logic, try being logical yourself. There are really only three options. Do as you would be done by, do as you were done by, or be a real bastard. If it's illogical to hope that the people with the most power to change things experience the results of their misguided policies and learn what problems they are imposing on everyone else, then you are ruling out options 1 and 2, so we're left with a downhill race to see who's the baddest sumbeech in the valley.
      • "...so we're left with a downhill race to see who's the baddest sumbeech in the valley."

        "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny."

        ~~ Thomas Jefferson

    • I'm not saying that this guy is right, but "the ends justify the means" is NOT a logical fallacy by any stretch of the imagination.

      It's not even a moral fallacy because sometimes the ends DO justify the means.

  • Won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beldraen ( 94534 ) <chad...montplaisir@@@gmail...com> on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:22PM (#10546855)
    At this point, companies enforce the idea that anything that they can get their hands on is theirs.

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

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

    • Re:Won't happen (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sillydragon ( 18114 )
      Until we recognize that just because I gave you my information it does not mean that it is no longer mine

      Am I the only person that saw that line and thought of how big business (RIAA, MPAA, etc) wants to have it's cake and eat it too?

      RIAA: You uploaded some music? You're going to jail, punk.

      TIA & Data miners: You once wrote your name on a napkin at a diner in Noplace, Arkansas...it's ours now and we can give it to anyone we want.

      • Re:Won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)

        by beldraen ( 94534 ) <chad...montplaisir@@@gmail...com> on Saturday October 16, 2004 @09:04PM (#10547696)
        You are not alone. When an intellectual property right holder has something or sells something, they want to treat it as a property. But, they want to treat the generator or the consumer as a licenser who is subject to a contract. It's been a very devastating road in U.S. that has been very well used to raise the barrier of entry to competition.

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

        I have a very, very hard time believing that the founding fathers had in any shape for form intended this nightmare.
  • I don't see how posting so called private medical data really matters. For example, how can it matter if you know that I am a diabetic? For insurance purposes? I imagine that I have to declare this anyhow.. What else? Legal? This is already public knowledge? Financial? Largely public as well. I really don't see the reason for all the uproar.. of course.. my mind is open as to why I should care...

    • Re:Forgive my potential shortsightedness but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:33PM (#10546918) Journal
      Medical data includes psyc problems, social disease and other things that make you a target for blackmail, job denial, etc. Employer will find reasons to can you if they want. Not having the problem in 20 years does not matter, you had it once, you are a risk. Insurance companies spend more time writing up reasons to deny coverage or claims than they do taking care of the premium payers.
    • It is irrelevant what you think about someone else's private information. You should want it safeguarded as if you wanted your own safeguarded (even if you don't WANT to safeguard your own). Liberty and social stability are built upon tolerance, hence you should learn to tolerate the desires of others, as you would want to have other people tolerate some of the things you do.
  • 'I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data (financial, medical, legal) of federal officials and their families on an open internet web server out of the Bahamas. Is this what it will take for the US to enact stringent privacy rules?"

    No, thats what it will take to have the site covertly shut down and its creators shot down.

  • RTFA (Score:3, Informative)

    by marktaw.com ( 816752 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:35PM (#10546925) Homepage

    The guy who designed the system is going offshore, because the government couldn't get the greenlight and hoping to find private backers.

    Bell said he did not become involved with Global until after he left government in March.

  • U.S. Customs for data (Score:5, Insightful)

    by UpLateDrinkingCoffee ( 605179 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:36PM (#10546934)
    We control the property that leaves and enters these shores. Shouldn't we also do this with personal data? I'm not talking about a big firewall like China has, but I am required to give out personal information all the time in the course of living my daily life. I would like assurances that when I entrust personal info with, say, my insurance company that the data will stay where the laws protect me. What good are privacy laws otherwise?

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @06:47PM (#10546984)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Um, no (Score:2)

    by eean ( 177028 )
    "I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data (financial, medical, legal) of federal officials and their families on an open internet web server out of the Bahamas. Is this what it will take for the US to enact stringent privacy rules?"
    Um, no because the federal officials don't write the rules. Congress does.

  • Won't make a difference (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TuballoyThunder ( 534063 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @07:08PM (#10547087)
    After the tricare hard drive theft [dod.gov], which contained information on half a million beneficiaries, one would think some action would be taken. No such luck--Tricare and the DoD still uses social security numbers as unique identifiers and I still have to keep putting fraud alert on my credit report.

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

  • already a precedence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Whammy666 ( 589169 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @07:10PM (#10547095) Homepage
    I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data (financial, medical, legal) of federal officials and their families on an open internet web server out of the Bahamas. Is this what it will take for the US to enact stringent privacy rules?

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

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

  • Presidne'ts Details (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kalak ( 260968 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @07:18PM (#10547139) Homepage Journal
    Address:
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20500
    202-456-1111
    president@whitehouse.gov

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

    Health Data [google.com]

    And here's his attourney [usdoj.gov]

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

  • Private Data? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nwbvt ( 768631 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @07:24PM (#10547171)
    "I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data..."

    Uhh, exactly how much of this information is private? Usually these systems are merely pulling together public data in an accessible database. Lets keep the strawmen in cornfields.

    Also if you were to RTFA (I know, too much to expect from /. story submitters), you would find that there are legitimate reasons for the company to move offshores other than to escape US laws.

  • Often, The Info Is Already In The Public Domain (Score:4, Insightful)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @07:42PM (#10547253)
    An important fact that's seldom discussed is that any information about me that might be available via the Internet has already been made public. The act of digitizing that information and making it available in a database increases its potential access, but it does not impact my privacy. The data were already in the public domain.

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

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

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

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

    Legislation that broadens government access to private information is, of course, a different issue.
  • It seems to me that the data these people are using is/was acquired partly in the United States and about US residents/companies. That would make everything they do with that part of the data subject to US laws, IMHO. Same applies to data they acquired from European Union countries and residents.

    Or am I wrong? Sounds like a monumental loophole that should've been blocked.

  • The Bush Administration Did The Same Thing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:01PM (#10547924) Homepage
    The current administration did the same thing by transporting prisoners to countries where the laws on interrogation are more lax. This is just another extension of the same philosophy.

    Actually, this could work out to be kind of an equalizer. Here in this country looking information on public officials could get you an "Ashcrofting." But let some company in another country do the dirty work for you. Hey, what's this charge on Bill O'Reilly's credit card to a place called Vibrator Universe?

    Actually, that's nothing compared to what foreign governments are going to do with that treasure trove of information. More likely what will happen is Congress will make it a crime to export data on Congress, and the let the rest of us take up the pooper. Business as usual.

  • Why not? Poindexter's crew ran their Iran/Contra operation offshore, in both Iran and Central America (Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador), as well as around the Caribbean for drug/gun transport, Columbia/Bolivia/Peru for getting the drugs, and in America only to get money and weapons for their modern triangular trade. This kind of stuff is business as usual for them, with the Internet replacing CIA-covered small planes for their brand of global "trade".
  • Their company may be incorporated in the Bahamas, but their servers are in the London Docklands area. They're a customer of "core-isp.net".

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close