Slashdot Mirror
FTC Rules in Favor of Privacy
christian void writes, "The FTC recently ruled that it is illegal for credit reporting agencies to sell personal information to third parties. Here's an interesting article on a decision that will hopefully have ramifications in other industries. Score one for privacy."
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
LW
It's about time we required that companies collecting data tell us what they're using it for, and either not use it for anything else (without getting permission) or pay a penalty for the abuse of trust. Little as I like most of Europe's legal system, their privacy regulations are enviable. Now we're closer.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Yeah, there's just one problem... the score is still 162-1. :(
I skimmed through the article, but I don't recall seeing any information on whether the companies that Trans Union sold the data to are also similarly restricited. Once the genie is out of the bottle, hasn't the dsamage already been done? What's to prevent the marketing institutions to continue using data they have already gined, and in turn, pass that through to other, potentially larger data-mining companies?
Also, as I'm in the dark on this, are there any laws that prohibit the legitimate institutions from re-selling the information upstream to data companies? What's to prevent Bob's Auto Dealership from turning around and doing the exact same thing that Trans Union just did?
--sugarman--
On the scale of things, I place privacy as the number one human right that is most abused in the US. (Number two is life. Liberty is probably in the mid 30's.)
This is also good news for Europe->US relationships, as it is now EU law that EU companies cannot pass personal information to countries with weaker privacy laws. If the FTC does it's job, this could be the first step in healing a major rift.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"We regret the commissioners did not agree with our legal opinion, but we are not surprised..."
Heh. In other words, we knew it was illegal, and that we could make a lot of money before anyone decided to enforce the law.
<i>Trans Union has to stop selling the information or pay $2,500 for every violation.</i>
Wish criminal law worked like this for me... "Yeah, you've been consistently breaking the law since 1997, but we'll let you go without punisment, and won't bother to try to correct the harm you're illegal actions have already caused."
Intolerant people should be shot.
kudos to the FTC they have helped prevent the nightmare that occurs when you buy stuff with a credit card. imagine what would happen if, everytime you bought something with a credit card you got one AOL disk/cd in the mail
GO FTC!!!!!
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
I happen to have worked at a Credit Reporting Agency one summer. Granted it was an extension of Equifax (which the article correctly points out does not subsribe to the same standards as Trans Union), but it's not really all that easy to obtain another person's credit report (obtaining your own is as simple as asking for one... you get a free copy each year, but you have to ask for it). At my job we were able to access the Trans Union database of credit reports to compare to our own. The article doesn't seem to mention that a credit report tells more about people than most other documents ever could (ie resumes, biographies, etc). Looking at a person's credit report tells you if that person has ever tried to buy a car (because all car places do credit checks before they sell), how many credit cards they have (and whether they pay them on time), how many loans a person has (and when they've paid those on time as well), and what bank accounts that person has. It's actually quite a revealing document that should never be sold to third-party companies that have no right knowing that kind of information. Most people get their first form of credit when they're about 18, right? That's when they get a credit card, take out a loan, or buy something (car, house, etc). From then on they are tracked by credit and the trail is easy to follow. I'm glad to see the courts get after Trans Union for selling credit reports because no one but the person who's credit it is should be able to see these things!!!
Now I won't get ANY snail mail!?!?!?!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
What, so now if I'm a private company do I have to get permission from the FTC every time I want to sell or give away a piece of information I've collected?
Their (collective) hearts are in the right place on this one maybe, but the ever increasing government control over private enterprise bothers the hell out of me.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
dejanews etc.,
intuit
...also, now they're being investigated
Doubleclick has gone back on it's promise not only not to collect personal information such as real names, ss# etc, but also on the promise not to sell the info they collected to third parties. That means if you searched for something on deja news or other search engines, browsed any sites with doubleclick banners etc., all that info is being collected(including keywords you searched for), matched with your real name and real address which doubleclick gets (I assume) from sites where you registered, and then all that is being sold to third parties.
I bet e-truste, or whatever they're called, doesn't mind, doubleclick did change their privacy statement after all (in case it didn't occur to you to check recently).
Good bye privacy, hello big broth...ahem, doubleclick.
For example, I bet it would still be OK for a Hotline Psychic Friend to take your credit card, and then (now that they are a creditor, i.e. not a "third party") look up your personal info and say "I'm sensing that you've been on a vacation... I see palm trees..."
I think the right answer is disclosure. Anytime anybody buys or sells info about you, you get notified. Then, once we had an idea of how the data is flowing, we can make a judgement as to what we like and don't like. I don't think anything short of that will be good enough.
And, that probably won't be good enough either. I mean, as much as I try to keep my social security cat in the privacy bag, you can't buy a simple thing like a cell phone without forking it over. Why isn't just my credit card good enough? Probably it would be, but the Big Brother and the Phone Holding Companies know that they can get away with forcing disclosure. How about a "no requiring of information that's not necessary" regulation.
To prevent these kinds of problems entirely in future, I suggest a intellectual property / privacy amendment to the Constitution. It should specify in general language what rights people have to privacy and to information that they have paid to use.
While this is certainly a good thing, it only applies to credit agencies. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of corporations out there. This doesn't really do all that much to protect our privacy. It just means that 3 or 4 of the big corps won't get to join thousands of others at invading our privacy. And while it is true that the credit reporting agencies more information than anybody, most of the data they have can be aquired from other sources.
There's a link on news.com about doubleclick backing down the data merger with Abacus Direct databases. My question as it relates to this current issue with the credit company is what is to stop the companies such as doubleclick and trans whatever from doing this behind the scenes anyways? I mean honestly is the government going to try and enforce this?
6 .html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif?st.ne.fd.gif.d ">click</a>
Here's the news.com link. <a href-"http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-156274
At least this makes me feel a little bit better. People at the office call me crazy when I discuss privacy concerns and they say they don't care what people know about them. I wish I had a way to show them what exactly can be found out about a person from certain information.
Apathy of the public is going to kill this movement without proper education on the situation. That's my fear.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
I just recently bought a house, and hence got my first mortgage. Ever since, I have been deluged by both junk mail and telemarketers. I get mail either offering some sort of loan or home fix-up crap literally every single day. I get I don't know how many phone calls every week. Quite a few of them call during the day when I'm out, but I probably end up answering four or five calls from them a week.
I had figured that the company I got the mortgage from must have sold my name, but now I'm suspecting that it was TransUnion. Of course, due to the crappy state of privacy laws here in the US, I'll never know for sure. Oh well. I've got a friend who literally never answers the phone. He has his machine set to pick up after one ring, and you have to talk to the machine to get him to pick up. I used to think that he was just neurotic or something, but I'm giving serious thought to doing the same thing myself to avoid the telemarketers.
Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know of any good answering machine software for Linux? I would really like to be able to have an answering machine that acts normally if someone calls with valid caller-id info, and basically rejects anyone whose number doesn't come thru on caller id. Contrary to popular belief, the primary beneficiary of blocked caller id is telemarketers, not individuals. If the phone numbers of these companies actually came thru, we could just call them back and offer to sell them stuff, drastically increasing their costs. Or at least block the numbers out. Oh well.
We in the United States are very grateful for your unsolicited criticism of our country. In the future, we promise to take steps to make our country more like you think it should be.
The only way to stop companies like these from selling, renting, and trading this is to make it illegal. The legislature here in Minnesota started to look at making these kinds of transactions illegal. It was very popular with the public. Now of course the lobbyists have stepped in and convinced the legislature that the economy will collapse if that does happen.
Europeans have very strong privacy legislation and benefit from it. I think it is absurd that our government has gone head to head with EU to get around this. People need to contact their governments and let them know that this is important.
I think the way you get privacy without having the government involved in every transaction of personal information is to have laws regulating disclosure of all personal information transactions. When companies are forced to tell you who they're selling your information to it becomes possible for people to make informed decisions about who they want to give information to and who they don't. That makes privacy a commodity with measurable financial risks and rewards attatched to it for companies to look at. Until not selling my information becomes worth more than not selling it, we'll have no real privacy.
Maybe now I'll stop getting all those ads for the Pleasure-Vibe 2000 mailed to me every week.
Err, what I meant to say was, it's good that no one except pretty much everyone I do business with will be able to check up on what I've been buying.
Oh, was that sarcastic?
What real effect will it have on us? Can other companies still sell our data? Shouldn't it be illegal to buy this data as well as sell it? (after all, it's just as illegal to buy coke as to sell it) How do we know who bought or sold our credit info when we get a credit card application in the mail? (I get about 10-20 a week) Shouldn't there be a way to trace that? Who gets the $2500 fine? Does the court collect & keep it? Does the consumer get it? Who polices the reporting agencies to make sure they're not selling improperly? *sigh* True privacy is still a long way off, and I'm not sure this one judgement can stem the evil tide that is mass marketing.
These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
Post your address on slashdot and maybe you're mailbox will get slashdotted.
Many people have stated that the actions of the FTC in this case are "too little too late". I disagree.
If the FTC had fined Trans Union an appropriate amount for what they have done, it would put Trans Union out of business. The purpose of the FTC is not to put companies out of business (I think, please correct me if I am wrong), but to cause them, by reasonable means, to behave in a just manner.
On the other hand, if the FTC had given Trans Union some petty symbolic fine, it would set a precedent that would be difficult to change if Trans Union continued this behavior. With this sort of fine, Trans Union might continue their present behavior and see future fines merely as a cost of staying in business.
I would like to think that there might be a better solution, but I am unable to come up with one. In this light, I think that the decision of the FTC is reasonably good, as it will force Trans Union to stop behaing in the current manner, but still allow them to exist. Because as much as I do not like Trans Union (or any credit record companies), they provide a valuable service, one that makes it easier to do business.
of the war against Corporate abuse of privacy. It's interesting to note that both(?!) of Trans Union Corp's competitors have supposedly discontinued the practices involved in this breach. It might also be of interest to note that Equifax is now operating fully as a North American agency, not just a US one.
What this underscore to me is a simple question; why are Corporate persons being given more rights than real persons? When are the rights of real people going to receive primacy in Law? Though I didn't pursue a legal career, from what I remember of my Law courses a company is considered a person with all the rights and obligations involved- so why is it becoming more and more that companies are being allowed to abuse not only the system but the people in the system as well?
As an individual I'm expected to respect and abide by the laws of the land and to maintain my end of the social contract regardless of my financial means; if I break the law I receive punishment in the form of potentially crippling fines or even jail. If law is to punish me as a legal person for failure in this regard, why is it that the *other* legal persons Business are not only not punished for similar infractions, but are instead rewarded?
These guys at Trans Union are laughing at the commission- they've made millions illegally and now that they are finally caught they don't even get a slap on the wrist.
SOMEONE SAVE ME!
Information about me, and what I do, is no one's business but my own. Every company that wishes to archive or sell information about you should be forced to have you _explicitly_ sigh an agreement to do so.
One thing that drives me nuts about so many of the companies that archive and sell personal info on customers is that they tag the 'doing it to improve service' bullshit onto it. Improve service, my ass. They just want more money out of you per sale.
I personally would be willing to pay more per transaction from a company that I knew would NEVER divuldge my personal information. How bout the rest of you?
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
That depends on what you mean by "marginally safer". If you mean that Americans are in danger of having their privacy invaded or other liberties trampled, well, yeah. But to compare that to Kosovo is silly in that there is a difference between getting shot in the head and dumped in a mass grave and having thieves steal your credit info. Unfortunately, we tend to be so damn spoiled in this country that we equate the two.
Since I purchased my house, my answering machine screens all my calls unless I am specifically expecting a call from someone.
Between that and the plethora of junk mail about getting new home loans, etc. its quite a hassle.
Perhaps soon I can fix that....
:)
-Vel
Antitrust law falls under criminal rather than civil law, and we all know of one too many examples of a large corporation getting off with just a Consent Decree that consisted of promising not to use anti-competitive tactics in the operating systems market. Ooops, did I give the company away?
As for the rest of criminal law, you're right. Particularly irksome is the obscenity convictions that were adjudicated under doctrines that didn't exist until the Supreme Court pulled them out of its collective ass and applied them to the pending case (Miller v. California).
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Amen to that!
Have a Happy.
WAAAAAAAZAAAAAA!!
havin a beer watchin da game true true
I'm not sure which of the trade rags I got this out of, maybe even one of the Windows-centric PC ones, but you can opt out of Double-click tracking you by going to this page at Doubleclick.
...
Assuming they actually do what they say
Will in Seattle
Why should we forget big brother? Did you really think that big brother would come in the form of governments? They have some kind of charter, no matter how it sometimes becomes perverted, to work for the greater good of people. Doesn't the idea of complete corporate domination fit much more elegantly in with the vision of 1984, and the imagery used by the movie?
I don't think so.
The US has 5% of the world's population, and 25% of the world's imprisoned population.
12.8% of the population of the states is black, but 60% of the prison population is black.
Put that together, 15% of the world's prison population is black americans, but they comprise only .6% of the world's total population.
The average black family income is almost HALF of that of the average white family.
Tell me those aren't related.
Tell me that people living in slums are worried about companies buying and selling their credit card information?
Privacy is a 'human right' worried about by rich people.
Not to say I don't think it's important to respect, or think that a positive move towards greater individual privacy vis-a-vis corporations is a BAD thing, just that IMO, it's silly to call it the 'most abused' human right in the US.
Greg
What the fuck does this have to do with data collection?
This is about personal info.
Fsck, this is about respect.
The right to be left alone is essential to freedom, to paraphrase a judge's comments.
Privacy != Secrecy
Privacy != Security
Privacy != Safety
Gah... c'mon.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
If your life and financial well being were in the intrests of the community in general, a judge would ensure that they were maintained.
Unfortunately, it is important for the well being of the community in general (not absolutely necessary, but important), that Trans Union stay in existence, while it is not important for the well being of the community that you stay in existence (no matter how important it is to you), therefore, Trans Union gets a tongue lashing and the threat of future fines, but you get the death penalty etc.
Is it clearer now?
From the article:
Trans Union indicated it had expected the decision. "We regret the commissioners did not agree with our legal opinion, but we are not surprised," said Oscar Marquis, Trans Union's vice president and general counsel, in a statement.
So, they knew what they were doing was wrong, at least in the abstract sense of 'against the law' and yet, they did it anyway. They should throw these fuckers in jail if you ask me. I guess big corps get to break whatever laws they want if they think they can legally worm there way out. (What would be really nice is if we got that $2,500 that they would have been fined for each instance)
[ c h a d   o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
...but I'm pretty sure that corporations (I seem to recall they have to incorporate) are legally considered to be "persons" in some ways, but they're not entitled to "all the rights and obligations involved". F'rinstance, General Motors doesn't get to vote, IBM doesn't have to register for the draft^H^H^H^H^Hselective service, and WalMart will never have to serve on a jury. Oh well...
These guys at Trans Union are laughing at the commission- they've made millions illegally and now that they are finally caught they don't even get a slap on the wrist.
They're laughing and crying. They're laughing because they got away with it for so long, and still aren't being punished; they're crying because they had a pretty good thing going there and now they've been told they have to stop or they'll have to pay (ooooh!) some fines...if they get caught doing it again.
*sigh* This is getting PATHETIC. I'd bet you that a *large* chunk of the people visiting this site feel that privacy issues (online and not) *ARE* important to them.
Not EVERY article is for EVERYONE.
If you hate Katz so much, save the bandwidth and quit reading his stuff, or for gods sake, stop bitching about him!
Greg
I can only begin to question where you've obtained 30,000 bowls of hot grits, and also why you've chosen to put them in your pants where they're not as useful. 30,000 bowls of hot grits could feed 30,000 Etheopian kids. You know that Sally Struthers chick on TV? She would probably like 30,000 bowls of hot grits for those crying little children. /dev/null? /dev/null can fit inside my PC so it can't be too large, but how many bowls would it take? And how big are your bowls? Maybe you'd be moderated up to insightful if you could justify your new use of hot grits.
Since you seem to be the expert on hot grits, I also ask you this. How many bowls of hot grits would it take to fill
I use the mgetty+sendfax package in conjunction with the KDE faxing application. Not only does it let you eaisly send and receive faxes but you can also receive voicemails with a compatable modem (mine is a diamond supra 56k with voice).
Another really nifty feature of this software is that it lets you configure an unlimited number of answering messages, it'll just loop through them all playing a new message for each caller (and thwarting many telephony devices which the telemarketers use).
Also, check your state, city laws. In some areas telemarkets are illegal. In Florida they are required to be licensed and if you have your name on this opt out list, it is illegal for them to call you (and fairly easy to sue them over). I added my name to the opt out list and I have had exactly 0 calls since then.
They are a threat to free speech and must be silenced! - Andrea Chen
Fish! LipHo
The benfits of this law are readily apparent. The article didnt go too much into the legal technicalities of the bill. What are the other resrictions. While I dont mind the government cracking down on certain companies, i just start getting nervous when the government steps in and starts taking control from people.
12.8% of the population of the states is black, but 60% of the prison population is black. .6% of the world's total population.
Put that together, 15% of the world's prison population is black americans, but they comprise only
Are you saying that "something must be wrong" because these people are black? I thought that skin color shouldn't matter? What percent of the NBA is Black? A stat like this might show something is wrong but then again it might not.
I personally would be willing to pay more per transaction from a company that I knew would NEVER divuldge my personal information. How bout the rest of you?
I suppose I would, but I wouldn't be happy about it. Why should I have to pay more just so I don't get unpleasant surprises? I've been told it's economic reality - if something (privacy, f'rinstance) is valuable, I should be willing to pay for it. I guess that's understandable. So I ask: where's my cut for disclosing my SSN, my credit card numbers, the sites I visit? Doubleclick et al never told me they were gathering this information; I had to hear it from places like Slashdot. They profited from that information. It's valuable to them. There seem to be different rules in play for the big players. If something is valuable to you or me, we can expect to pay for it. But if it's valuable to Doubleclick, they want us to give it to them for free.
I'll pay more for food that doesn't have dogshit in it too, because that's important to me. But I won't be happy about it. I'd prefer that ALL the food on the store shelves was dogshit-free.
It seems to me that privacy is a legal right that we've guaranteed under law. It's an agreement to stay out of others' business and provides recourse for dealing with others too deep in your business.
My wife works as a loan officer. The first time she pulled up my credit report on her machine (which took no time at all) I was completely amazed and the sheer volume of information. It's not just ultra-detailed credit and purchase information, but "lifestyle" information as well, such as 'customer loyalty' (they provide check, debit card and credit card verification for many many buisnesses, then share that data with their other databases, and with most purchases tracked, it's easy to see what things you purchased and where), 'behaivour models', how many people you live with (roommates, parents, spouse, kids, etc), medical and dental bills, utility information, you job and education history, ad nauseum. In fact, before Equifax changed their name from Retail Credit, their files even tracked a person's political activities.
It should also be noted that most of the top three credit report companies also run direct marketing databases, medical insurance claims databases, and auto insurance claims databases.
The biggest problem with this industry is that they have no interest in protecting your personal information - their expicit goal is the sale of that information to the most buyers possible. Case in point - does anyone remember Lotus Marketplace? Lotus teamed with a credit agency (I forget which) and sold CD-ROMs with the profiles of 100,000 people. Of course the law later put a stop to it, but it's a good example.
BE VERY AFRAID!
How Politicians Lie: http://www.factcheck.org/
You didn't really address the thrust of my comment. I don't want to quibble about who's a creditor and who is not, and you may be 100% knowlegeable and correct: my point was that the article says "third parties" will be barred from buying your data. I'm saying that it is not clear to me who is a third party.
The article was talking about selling the data to people with whom you have no relationship so they could mine the data for potential customers. I'm sure that your credit card agreement, and their agreement with your merchant, and contract law covering you and your merchant does not define your merchant as a mere "third party". So, my original point about the Psychics (that is how they do it, I've heard) are still valid:
That's why I call for regulations which place burdens on data gatherers across the board. If my data is in your database, I think you must tell me. If my data is bought or sold, I think you must tell me. Any system that falls short will fail.
Apologies in advance for using the word "spam" and "shrinkwrap" in novel ways, but I'm trying to make a simple point in a few words to a smart audience, and I hope not to have to write yet another post to clarify clarify clarify.
It seems to me that this would be a much more effective basis for creating a system for selling personal information: companies must buy the rights to use a persons information. Of course, in many instances individuals would grant use of their information for free, but basing a system on this rule would grant individuals the ability to control in what way their personal information may be used.
For example, I don't want phone solicitations of any kind so would limit access to anyone wanting my phone number. In this digital age it wouldn't even be far fetched for me to allow a clearinghouse to sell my phone number on my behalf for $5 per use. On the other hand, I am active in sports so would grant permission for local sports stores to have access to my address.
This may sound radical, but it is not that different from the current practice. There are a lot of companies out there already selling our personal information. They already act as the clearinghouse I describe. All that would be needed is for them to find out from individuals in what way and for how much they would allow their information used (granted, this is not a trivial task).
Some would argue that this would drive up the cost of gaining access to personal information. As someone interested in personal privacy, that isn't a bad thing. :)
YAAC (Yet Another Anonymous Coward)
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Thanks for pointing out to us that black Americans committ most of the crime in the United States.
It, of course, is only a race issue to the degree that leaders of the "Black community" keep encouraging young people who respect them that they're 'victims' and should lash out at society.
WOW...
Just thinking about that makes me hot and sticky!
And privacy isn't a techie issue? Just because you've had a bad childhood experience doesn't mean that you need to cry about something that's relevant to the nerd community. Also, JonKatz had nothing to do with the posting of this story. Grow up.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
He pointed out that Black people are imprisoned more than whites. This is not the same thing as saying that black people commit most of the crime.
Just one more attack on us crackers. What am I supposed to do with all that data I've downloaded if I can't sell it? This is how it starts. First they make it illegal to sell data and then they make it illegal to use a gun. It's coming I tell ya it's coming!
What I'd also like to see is credit reporting agencies/any financial institution be required to present you data about yourself on demand, and at NO charge (they usually charge about 8 bucks in some states).
Since some AC's can't seem to follow your point:
The US has a very high rate of imprisonment as compared to the world.
The percentage of the US prison population that is black is much higher than the percentage of the general US population.
Blacks are far more likely to be poor in the US than whites.
Now, the thing that most people don't think about (many American leaders don't _want_ to think about) Race is not the signifigant correlation to criminal activity.... economic status is! The correlation between race and imprisonment is largely due to the correlation between race and economic status. (Although bias in the system doesn't help much either) Despite the standard propaganda "anyone can become anything they want to in America!" (which may be true to an extent), not _everyone_ can become anything they want to. It simply is not possible for everyone born in poverty to die wealthy.
...end meandering rant...
Intolerant people should be shot.
80% of the NBA is black. Why? Because they are better ballplayers it would seem. Why is 95%+ of the NHL white? You don't need a lot of melatonin where the sun don't shine. (i.e. lots of ice, a.k.a. Not Africa)
If you really want to mess with these bozos, and they demand information to go with your sale, do what I do: lie. Give them some bogus name and address, preferably one that is undeliverable (like a non-existent house number). If they try sending mail there, it either goes into a black hole or bounces back at a cost of probably $1 to analyze and delete from the database (requires a clerk's time). Salting their database with useless, costly errors makes it less worthwhile to maintain it, and thus less likely to dig deeper even if they aren't stopped by law. If they ask for your zip code, you could tell them you don't have one (yeah, right!), or fake it. I always give them 20215. If I bought enough stuff at those stores I'm sure I could make a few analysts scratch their heads. Oh, last and most important: always pay cash.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
_______
2B1ASK1
FTC RULES
THEY RULE
HEH HEH
I think that statistics based on the geographic origin of inmates, the amount of money spent per capita on crime control and more importantly EDUCATION in these areas, and the crime rate would be MUCH more interesting.
As far as privacy is concerned, I see the influence of megacorps as something QUITE frightening. They are very interested in maintaining the status quo (at least their rich shareholders and executives are, surely!) and aren't likely to act in a manner that's socially responsible in the long run.
Privacy policies are an aspect of this. Knowledge is power, et al.
I think that COMPANIES should have *LESS* rights to privacy than individuals. What information they're selling to whom should be PUBLIC information.
Greg
Race is not the signifigant correlation to criminal activity.... economic status is!
But one could argue that race and economic status are related, because of my next point...
Despite the standard propaganda "anyone can become anything they want to in America!"
The possibility exists, the reality is far different. It's a basic outcome of free-market capitalism, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Some people like it, some don't. Guess which ones are which. Guess which ones are in jail.
--
+&x
Two of my credit cards have started showing up at various places. I wondered how someone got my personal information all correct.
Thanks, Trans Union!
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Don't read slashdot at the end of a long day.
I could have sworn that the headline said "FTC Rules in Favor of Piracy."
Now that would be a story.
I agree, but...
While the rights of consumers not to be solicited for buying Elvis memorial plates is not the most important application of privacy rights. Privacy rights are extremly fundemental, not only in a political sense, but at a more basic level. Without the ability to be a private person with an internal world, humans would be reduced to being cockroaches, totally oriented to an external world of pleasure\pain.
Prison, after all, is used to strip people of their privacy and turn them into a base level of human thought where they are only responding to emotions of fear and greed. And most people who are in prison got there because of their private, not public behavior, ie drugs, usually fairly harmless drugs.
Go to http://www.nomoreprisons.org to learn more.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Insta-"privacy" peace-of-mind mini-howto
Step 1. Get a hotmail address. Make up BOGUS information: you live in Japan in a city called Washington DC, are 80 years old woman with 0 income and 10 children and work as a CEO in a multinational company etc.
Step 2. ALWAYS use your hotmail address and give bogus information when filling web forms. ALWAYS.
That helps you sleep a bit easier. When you get too much spam to your hotmail account, abandon it and start a new one. This is self explanatory.
For extra fun, find out e-mail addresses of the companies you love and dispose the addresses liberally next time you surf for pr0n. If you can find two automailers, make them chat to each other!
OK, now the scam: In the past two years, not one, not two, but three collection agencies have continually sent me mail, claiming to represent the bank that issued the defaulted-upon card. Each of them offers me a chance to "clear my debt" at a deep discount. Granted, the amount of the debt is pretty small, I am willing to pay it, but I have severe doubts as to the credibility of these agencies. At least two of them are scams, and so I haven't acknowledged any of them, for fear of confirming my entry in a scammer's database. When I checked in 1998, none of the three agencies had websites. (maybe I should try again)
My first question, once I realized what was happening, was "How did these people get my name and SSN?" Then I learned how credit agencies will sell your data to just about anyone who can pay the price.
Every one of these letters reads the same: first, I have a short period (10-14 days) in which to reply to get the good deal. Threatening language follows, with vague threats to my credit rating should i fail to respond. The postmark on the letter is typically later than the date on the letter by a significant fraction of the offering period. Next, about three weeks later, comes another letter, stating how I lost my chance, and the entire balance is now due, and making more vehement but still nonspecific threats to my credit rating. Then comes another letter or two, saying that they are going to take action against my credit report. Then silence for a few months, and the cycle repeats.
All three "collectors" use the exact same tactic. It's like they bought the same "collection agency in a box" software kit.
I talked to my lawyer about this and she told me to not do anything until something appears on my credit reports. Only the collector who legitimately owns the debt may report to the credit agency. And even that I can contest, since it is the same debt already reported 10 years ago. So now I collect my credit reports annually (and struggle to read them - damn are they arcane).
But the bottom line is that the credit agencies practically promote this kind of scam by selling the data to people who have no right to it. I wonder how many people have been burned by it?
I can see the fnords!
Earlier today, Odell Barnes, was killed by the criminal state of Texas, despite the fact that several evidences showed his innocence and the unfairness of his trial.
GW Bush refused to delay the execution despite the intervention of the Pope, the French Prime minister and many others. Great president you're going to have, american people.
Moderate me down if you think this is off-topic, the shame has to be known.
Its insteresting how many people ignore the dangers of the simple cookie. I browse with cookies on by default, but in my autoexec.bat, I have a line that deltrees the enter temp, temp internet, cookies directory. Still, I get paranoid about people knowing where I go and who I am. I have a few questions however. Is it true that cookies can track your access to sites other than the one it is from. If so, what idiot put this feature in and what is his address. If you can't find it just search his name on Altavista. Second, isn't there possibly a better way to do this? Perhaps an electronic "profile" that would autmomatically get presented to non SSL sites, which one could concievibly load with junk information. However, enough of the rambling of an 80 year old grandmother living in Washington DC, Japan, making 0 dollars a year as CEO of a multinational corporation. :)
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Why do we get blanketed with this $^#%?
It works. Anytime you buy so much as one item from something you got in the mail, it is a major return on investment for the bulk mailer. If you buy something in response to something you got in the mail, you have really dug yourself a hole. Don't buy/subscribe to stuff that way. If you want a good/service, find another way to get it so that they don't get the little ref # that tags along with thier bulk ad.
Several sites, such as junkbuster(s) [i don' know the spelling or url] give a long list of steps to get off various lists, including addresses.
I sent demands to the three credit beaurau's (sp?) demanding that they immediately cease and desist selling my credit info. So far, only one has replied, with a copy of my credit report. One full page of inquiries were listed, with only 6 that were legit. All the others were promotional - read sold - to various companies. Chevron was making an inquiry every other month! Guess what gas company I don't patronize anymore.
You must take an active stance to stop this junk. Once you do you will see results. Also, when you get another credit ap, return the envelope to the sender, with a letter informing them that all further correspondence will be subject to a $500/per piece proofreading charge. It costs them mail money, and gives you a nice lever to use against them. It also wastes their time sending the letter through channels.
Uncle Sam is for sale. He doesn't care about your right to privacy. Therefore you must take matters into your own hands to defend yourself. I know its not right, but until we can all get together and provide enough influence on our elected representatives, it is the only option to insure our privacy. Write to your local and state officials and let them know how you feel. Polite and well written letters are VERY effective, if you just take the time to write them. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so start squeaking - loud enough to drown out some (all) of that cash from the big corporations.
Sorry this was so long, but I'm having success, and hope I can inspire a few others to get going.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
no can do. i came. i saw. i had a beer. and watched da game. true. true.
Gee so much for this being a free country.
INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE.
Yet the government rules that information is "private" and can not be exchanged freely, and a hundred slashdot posters raise a foolish cheer.
Nobody should be prevented by law from exchanging information which they posess. Information needs to be free before people can be free. Now I'm not saying that you don't have a right to privacy. You may indeed have a MORAL right to privacy.
But it is YOUR responsibility to protect yourself from making bad purchasing decsisions, it's not the government's place to do so. If you deal with companies that are willing to make money off of your personal data, that's your problem.
You clearly have the ability to protect your privacy through your own choices. You could choose to only deal with credit card companies who guarantee your privacy thru their service agreements. You could choose to shop only at stores which advertise a "purchase privacy guarantee" to all of their customers.
But noooooo, if you are a typical American you instead wait until your personal information is being bought and sold all over the world. Next you whine and complain like angry children because the free market system works correctly. And then you beg the government to make it illegal for companies to do what comes naturally in a free market, namely make money off of information they responsibily obtained.
And what do the politicans say? Sure, just re-elect us, and we'll protect you from all the scary bad things that you don't want to think about.
No wonder this country loses more and more freedoms with each passing year. It's being railroaded into protecting the lowest common denominator -- the people who are so weak and stupid that they don't appreciate freedom -- at the expense of the free and the strong. And no wonder our taxes are so high. The government has to waste billions enforcing stupid laws like this.
This news makes me sick. Devolution in action.
-- laws are the opinions of politicians --
... whole schools full of sex year olds ...
Cookies are a very useful tool, not a pain at all.
They for example allow an online-store to remember the products in your shopping cart so that you can pick items one at a time and then buy them all at once when you are completely finished shopping.
They also allow a page with a simple address to be customized to look the way each viewer wants it, instead of exactly the same for everybody.
The only modern problem at all related to cookies is with web pages which both include ads from another site AND sell your personal information to that other site. Imagine for example you go to www.slashdot.org and it includes an ad banner from www.doubleclick.net.
This naturally allows Doubleclick determine a little fragment of information about you (no cookies necessary)... it knows you viewed an ad thru Slashdot. But it doesn't know who "you" are.
So it puts a cookie in your cache for www.doubleclick.net. Then when later you browse to www.cnn.com, and another ad banner is displayed from www.doubleclick.net, Doubleclick reads back in the earlier cookie from Slashdot (because it's really a www.doubleclick.net cookie, not a Slashdot cookie at all) and can say "AHA!" the same person who was just browsing Slashdot is now browsing CNN.
But Doubleclick still doesn't know you you are, until you type your personal information into a site which sells your personal information to Doubleclick.
So you go to www.buy.com and there is another Doubleclick ad. You buy something. Doubleclick now knows that somebody viewed Slashdot, CNN, and then bought something at www.buy.com. If buy.com guarantees your privacy you are fine because Doubleclick still doesn't know who you are. But if you are lazy and don't check buy.com's privacy policy, they may sell your personal information to Doubleclick.
Finally at this point Doubleclick now has valuable marketing information... information which YOU gave them by shopping in the wrong place.
So DON'T TYPE IN YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION except on sites which guarantee your privacy.
This is not a problem with cookies, it's a problem with people's web browsing habits. Place blame where it is due.
-- laws are the opinions of politicians --
What if every time we sent in a form, we enclose it in an envelope in which we've written a licence agreement. That way, we've put a shrinkwrap license on our personal information!
I was like.. "Woh.. are they getting rid of copyright and patent law! This rocks!" :-)
I have no idea why so many people here are singing the praises of the FTC. While this particular case is a good one, and I always like to see the government protecting our rights instead of trampling on them, the FTC has been doing a lot of fucked up things lately. For example, this action against Doubleclick is ridiculous. Why should it be illegal to do something on the Internet that private companies have been doing for years, and much more egregiously? I don't mind if they go after all companies unilaterally, but the FTC is using and being used by FUD about the Internet to do a lot of stupid stuff. Pass laws, take actions against online and offline companies unilaterally - don't march in and cause havoc for Internet start-ups which don't need any more havoc then a start-up already has. -- Badly affected by the over-zealous FTC
statistics based on the geographic origin of inmates, the amount of money spent per capita on crime control and more importantly EDUCATION in these areas, and the crime rate would be MUCH more interesting.
Without doubt. Like I said though, America's leaders don't want to have to consider that. The more clear evidence that they get that oppression is not as effective at reducing crime as education and a generally improved standard of living would be, the harder it is for a politician to sound sincere when he says that the crackdowns on crime that get the votes really is for the best.
Intolerant people should be shot.
The "Framers" were of course propertied men and mostly anxious that they not be separated from their goods by a rabble wielding legislative power. This is the root of the Federalist preoccupation with securing the rights of minorities. (They sure as hell weren't concerned with the minorities we speak of today. They were concerned to make the world safe for them, the wealthy few, under a majority-rule gov't where the majority were poor and uneducated.( They also wanted to ameliorate factional struggle among their own number, like North v. South). To that end they constructed a government that "wrappered" democracy with concepts of representation that ensured that a) only people sort of like them could vote b) they would have their own house in the legislature, the Senate, with unbridled veto-power, which the rabble wouldn't be allowed to vote for at all. Indeed, these intellectual giants and lovers of democracy constructed a gov't architecture that is best described as a finely tuned machine for stalling, passing the buck, frustrating the popular will and accomplishing nothing at all. This was not an accident; they wanted the central gov't weak--this would allow power to reside comfortably elsewhere--and be able to pull strings as needed in the Senate to quash unwelcome "innovations".
In the Founders' day, men were largely self-contained autonomous economic actors. Even large concerns were single proprietor businesses or partnerships. The legal entity we call a corporation today did exist BUT largely as a public benefit organization: they were usually subscribed by branches of gov't in conjunction with individuals to do things like build bridges, roads, canals and other public works. Prior to 1800 there were no more than 335 corporations registered in the United States and of these only 13 engaged in commerce and manufacturing. This was in line with the centuries old tradition concerning corporations: they were in some way aligned with or subservient to the benefit of the public sector. Even explicitly and boisterously for-profit enterprises like the East-India Company derived their right to associate under the form of a corporation from some ulterior purpose of the State. The typical corporate entity from the Middle Ages through the Tudor Era when the limited liability corporation came into existence, was chartered to do something that was of benefit to a municipality, a church diocese, or directly to the Sovereign.
Skipping forwards a century from the founding of the US and its constitution, the public corporation has become a regular occurence following the liberalization of the Law of Incorporation in 1811, in New York. Already the rights of an individual are becoming diminished, or overshadowed. The laws haven't deteriorated with respect to him, actually they improved: before 1828, almost nowhere in the US could white males over 21 vote unless they were "freeholders"--that is owned a certain amount real property. However, even though sufferage for ordinary citizens is expanding in this period, the liberalizing of Corporate law is spawning the new Super-citizen, the modern for-profit, limited liability corportion.
Corporations are legal persons, with rights like people, but what are the effective checks on their actions? I've never seen a corporation's shareholder go to jail for theft committed by his agent, the CEO, despite the fact that the theft was committed "for" him, nor have i seen one shareholder or CEO be humanely but lethally injected for murder. I have however seen their companies steal and sometimes kill. How is this possible, as you observe, that the citizen will be punished to the utmost, but the non-living, incorporated person go free? At the heart of the corporate entity is a semantic dodge, corporations have rights like people over their property; but unlike people they have limited liability for what they do. Beyond their stake in the company, shareholders are not directly responsible for the actions of the company. They cannot have their assets seized and liquidated to cover the bad debts of the corporation, nor even to cover legal damages the corporation owes to people and other companies. Originally this protecvtion was justified by the social purpose of the corporation: to do something of benefit to the community or state that had too distant of a break-even point to attract a private investor, or simply wasn't a profitable concern at all. This of course seems like Alice-In-Wonderland stuff to us now. Modern corporate officers have but one duty: maximise profits. If they don't carry out that duty to the fullest, even for a reason that would a "good" reason in personal life, community life, they are totally removable. Thus "personal accountability" to use a recently in vogue term for morality is shunted to ground and totally excluded from the system. Nobody is responsible for what they do, as long as they're making money. Thus each corporation--and "corporatia" as a system--becomes an automaton, deterministic, soulless, proceeding in accordance only to its own internal dynamic and necessities. Even obedience to law is plugged into the cost benefit analysis model. Will we be caught? that's a question that a human would ask; a corporation asks only if we're caught will we be fined in excess of our gains ? Ironically this resembles nothing so much as Marx's own idea of History, sweeping along from age to age governed strictly by material causality, doing what it has to do, at no time influenced in its course whatsoever by the conscious actions or will of people acting singly or together. In contrast to this Leviathan we have the old citizen, us, and the presumption in our antique lawbooks is that the two are somehow still equal. And therefore when the Super-Citizen gets out of line, the legal check on its action is for the aggrieved ordinary living breathing citizen to grab this godzilla by its paw and drag it into a court and sue him as in olden day under the Common Law. Yup. Amazingly it sometimes doesn't result in the human being squashed like a bug.
The Gentleman Proprietor of the eighteenth century constructed a political and legal order to privilege and zealously protect his interests and -lo!-it worked well, so well that it quickly spawned his successor, the modern corporation. However the monstrous child soon dwarfed and devoured its parent. The doctrinal powers of the parental order, the institution of its Laws, the guidance of its Philosophy are completely helpless to rescue us from the muderous offspring. The inhumanly large scale of society as distended by the evergrowing, all consuming corporation, the very facelessness of the corporate Super-citizen who rules us, its seemingly undending enmity to our rights and sovereignty --this is what we cannot stand and cannot understand. It's our country, WHY ARE WE GETTING KICKED AROUND LIKE DEPORTABLE ALIENS ??? Well it should be our country, if it were a democracy, but unfortunately it never was really set up to work that way. (Yes they were lying to you in junior high civics class. Amazing.) This country was begun in defiance of the old-world corporation (those 13 colonies were text-book examples of Public Corporations chartered with private investment in service to the Crown); under its new model of corporate organization, America has grown to be the prime actor on the world stage. Now like all other countries it is dying in the Python-like embrace of its gargantuan uber citizens. Maybe some other country's revolt will show us the path to a saner future. We cannot. We are like our own African slaves born in captivity, freedom we want, but we don't know what it is. There is no memory here of a human life without our masters.
Melanin, bro it's Melanin.
As for not needing melatonin "where the sun don't shine"... Well who's to say that shoving brain hormones up your babootey won't improve your IQ?
Could all depend on who you are and where your head is at.
They have names, addresses, etc. And when they get people to use their proxy server (like most people wind up doing since they keep on changing that setting) they also have a complete track of your web habits.
Care to take bets on whether they are selling this data?
Cheers,
Ben "no proof but..." Tilly
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
The US and EU were on the brink of a trade war on this issue. The European govts. have instated very restrictive practices (laws) regarding the manipulation/use/selling of personal data. The govts. themselves must abide by these laws (e.g. in Germany you can ask the secret services to disclose what information they have on you).
Unfortunately the US govt.(probably under industrial lobby pressure) would rather have a "free" system where each company selfregulates itself.
Anyone old enough to remember the game "Syndicate" ?
That is what a "free" world without govt. intervation/regulation would quickly look like.
Sandro