Slashdot Mirror
FTC Asks To Regulate Privacy; Doubleclick Hires PR Team
It is important to keep in mind what this is being billed as: Doubleclick calls this, in their press release, a "Consumer Privacy Advocacy Board." Supposedly this board is set up to, you know, advocate consumer privacy. So, let's take a look at its composition.
Robert Abrams, former attorney general of New York: hired because of his connections in New York State, which threatened to file suit against Doubleclick. His role will be to lobby his buddies in various government agencies to prevent privacy lawsuits.
Robert Litan, vice president and director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution: supports "opt-out" marketing and notification of privacy policies, as opposed to actual privacy. (Which is exactly Doubleclick's position, of course.)
Harriet Pearson, director of public affairs at International Business Machines Corp.: Pearson is one of the people behind the Online Privacy Alliance, a corporate front group working to attack privacy on the Internet. Pearson has moderated seminars on how to profile users without seeming to be Big Brother; her job is to make you feel good about not having any privacy. Every group needs a PR flack.
Lori Fena, chairman of Web privacy organization TrustE: Fena is an advertising executive by trade. And obviously, having her on board means that TrustE won't exactly be cracking down on any of Doubleclick's practices.
Daniel Weitzner, an executive at the World Wide Web Consortium: Weitzner's main job at W3C is promoting P3P, a protocol designed to automatically give out your name, address, phone number, credit card information, Social Security number, and other personal data to Web sites as you browse -- a sort of hyper-invasive universal cookie. Need I say more?
Elizabeth Lascoutx, a director and vice president at the Council of Better Business Bureaus: Lascoutx's work at the BBB used to center around children's advertising -- she sought to have commercial messages on children's Web sites set off from the rest of the content in the same manner as television advertising ("after these messages, we'll be right back").
David Stazer, vice president and co-founder of PlanetOut.com: I don't know of any qualifications Stazer might have with regard to privacy.
Stewart Baker, a partner at the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson: Baker used to be the general counsel of the National Security Agency, probably not the first people you'd think of when you think "privacy"; he's an influential Washington lobbyist now. Baker publicly attacked the efforts to boycott Intel and Microsoft over the Pentium-III processor ID and the GUID embedded in MSOffice documents -- he stated that if all machines on the Internet were authenticated and identified, things like denial of service attacks could be prevented (which is true enough, if you don't mind a total loss of privacy).
No one from EPIC? No one from the ACLU? You can draw your own conclusions about whether this "Consumer Privacy Protection Board" (sic) is intended to actually help Doubleclick change its ways, or whether it is merely intended to help protect the company from lawsuits and adverse governmental action, like, say, the FTC wanting the authority to force companies to respect privacy concerns.
More regulation from the FTC is not the answer, because clever people always find a loophole or a way around regulations. DoubleClick will. And that's not even counting the lobbying possibilities.
The 'net simply moves/changes too fast for legislators and their regulators.
The real solution to privacy is users--we must demand it. Most poeple don't, and haven't a clue of what privacy would bring them. It will take some really bad scares before John Q Public wakes up.
I'd much rather deal with the problem myself, personally.
--
Speaking of "who are you", who the heck is "michael" (the poster of this story)? Maybe we could get a list of who all these /. posters are?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
A couple of thoughts. . .
1- If find it difficult to beleive that the legislators and psuedo board members really had balancing our rights as their number one focus suring the recent retreat to Leesburg. I think the focus was more than likely on balancing their drinks while on the 10th fairway. Nothing like spending our tax dollars on a little vacation. To me this is not a very good precident on the way to send a positive message that the hugely impacting pricacy policies are being managed over drinks and golf.
2- So now they are looking at "poorly thought out legislation". So in a remedy for that they are going to pass more, with input from folks such as former NSA officials, and we're supposed to support this and blindly go along beleiving that the results will really be in our best interest? Don't think so. This is a true formula for disaster as far as our privacy right go.
Don't just whine about poor internet privacy and freedom policies,
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
I'm not intimately familiar with the P3P spec. But according to the P3P guiding principles user agents are supposed to:
On the surface, at least, that looks pretty reasonable. It certainly doesn't sound like the description given above. What am I missing?
I'm not going to make any comment on this "news", except to say DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
This commentary is so ridiculously biased and paranoid that unfortunately this article tells you almost nothing, except Michael has been watching too many "1984" movies.
I think it behooves everyone -- particularly the people who run Slashdot -- to remember that reasonable people can disagree even on matters of privacy. Sometimes these people don't even live in James-Bond-Villain style homes with albino cats, plotting how to take over the world. Good lord, sometimes they're even real people with real families!
And sometimes these people even have good points.
Knee-jerk -- dare I say immature? -- reactions like the kind that "michael" creates are NOT the way to influence policy.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
There must be a reason to collect data. This can have quite far reaching consequences. I.e. if an employer asks on an application about religion, sexual preferences or your dope smoking habits, this is verboten. Because this data is not relevant to the application
Data can't be past to third party without explicit consent of the err! victim. Some 235 page click through agreement with a well hidden check box is not considered explicit consent.
Every person has a right to get information what data is stored about her/him and has a right to correct wrong data.
Data may not be collected indiscrimnately
etc...
Personally I'm rather regulated by a govinmint that puts my interests as an individual before those of big business entities, then by some strange privacy advocacy panels set up by corporations whose business model is to violate my privacy. But of course your mileage may vary.ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Fantastic reporting. Great job slashdot! Now I hope the comments will be equally enlightening in this - can anyone else here dectibe the backgrounds of other company's "privacy boards," if any such animals exist elsewhere?
Also, does anyone have a contact address for doublclick to protest this? I would really *like* to see company's self-regulate themselves, but if this is their idea of doing it then I hope national gov'ts regulate them to insane degrees.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
The 'net simply moves/changes too fast for legislators and their regulators
I keep hearing this and similar comments over and over, but I don't understand it.
In what way has the Net changed so fundamentally that a privacy policy from 1990, or 1980 would be outdated today? The entire point of good lawmaking is to make a law general enough to be adaptable to new circumstantial details.
If, at the beginning of Compuserve in the 70s, Congress had a made a law saying:
"No one shall, without prior consent of the user, keep records of that user's activities on any electronic network, including personally identifiable information, except such that is necessary for technical or security reasons. This shall in no way limit the use of information provided by a user in any public forum such that a user would not reasonably expect such information to be considered private."
And there would be another paragraph explaining that people with existing/ongoing relationships can store and use such information as is necessary to maintain that relationship (commercial or not). And another one talking about how sharing information with third-parties is subject to other rules, and some final sections with definitions of terms used.
Making law is very much the same as making code -- if you do it high-level enough, you only have to change the details to make it work in entirely new situation.
More regulation from the FTC is not the answer, because clever people always find a loophole or a way around regulations.
So we shouldn't even try? People manage to get around the laws against murder on occassion, but we haven't seen fit to scrap them yet. At the beginning of the Civil Rights Era, the anti-discrimination laws were circumvented with dull regularity. Now you'd be hard-pressed to find a companies who won't do anything to avoid getting in trouble under them.
The point is that yes, people will get around the law but we'll reach a balance point that's a lot closer to provacy than it is right now. We're certainly not going to get more provacy by doing nothing...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
well...i seriously appreciate slashdot now. Prior to this article, i had thought it important to draw my own conclusions on stories posted by the slashdot crew. Thanks to michael, i don't have to do that anymore, since it's blatantly obvious that he's done that for me :)
Slashdot
FUD for nerds. Opinions that matter
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
To be honest, they can probably get away with this - especially with the new team they've hired. There are many people that still don't use the internet so they won't care what DoubleClick does..Then there are the millions upon millions of people who use the internet (read: AOL) and don't have any idea what DoubleClick wants to do and they don't care; they are all for whatever someone tells them to be for because they don't know better..Then there are the people who are /. users and the like who have some sense of what is going on here.
/. users) are far out-numbered I'm afraid, and there are just not enough people out there opposing it..
The problem is, we (the
I'm tired - time for bed...
~Steve
--
~Steve
--
"<r-xr-xr-x> Just try to edit me" -- www.ircnews.com
Good call, that's quite correct. It's a shame that it works that way. Aside from lobby's all they seem to look at are the inacurate polls.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
I'll be honest here. I don't know what proposals are up for privacy on the net. Later to night I'm going to take a look at Electronic Frontier Foundation and see what they have on the topic.
In the near future, I'm going to become more active in this area. Why? Mostly, the ease at which 'tallica and NetPD invaded my privacy -- not only my privacy, but millions of people -- an entire segment of society was poked, prodded and examined without their approval or a court order.
Traditionally, the authorities cannot enter my home without my permission or a judge-issued search warrant. Private citizens? They either have to get permission, or contact the authorities if they think I've committed a crime.
But suppose I have a computer with a soundcard, mic and camera installed. It's technically feasible for people to enter my home -- not just the autorities, which is bad enough -- but regular people can enter without my permission. Several years ago there were issues with some Unix workstations having funky permissions on such devices and varisou forms of monitoring going on.
Finally, at some point, I think the peer-to-peer connection between two personal computers needs to become a protected channel. No examination or monitoring without 1) My explicit permission; or 2) a warrant issued by a judge.
I understand why 'tallica did what they did. They want the traditional revenue stream to stay intact as technology transitions away from CDs. The problem is the unforeseen negative consequences of such an action -- if 'tallica and netPD can examine what we do at will in the year 2000, who knows what the courts will say is legal 20 years from now!
If anyone has links to sites working on these types of issues, I'd like to see them.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
The up side is that countries like Cuba would be welcomed, after all aren't these sort of countries famous for freedom and privacy and the general good treatment of peoples right? :(
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
If you want your personal information to remain private, the DON'T GIVE IT OUT. DUH!
I'm curious, how did you get a job without telling your emplyer your Social security number and your home address? How do you get medical care without providing billing information to the hospital? How did you get a drivers' license?
How did you get your credit cards? how do you get the things you order online (or offline) without a proper address? How do you pay your phone bill?
I'm fascinated by the idea that anyone who doesn't live in a mud hut is an idiot for "giving out" information that we could so obviously simply keep private. The point is that many people you HAVE to give information to in order to exist have no relucatance whatsoever of selling that information to other people you specifically don't want it to go to.
We're not getting pissed about people using information we gave them knowingly and willingly, but if I give my SS# to the insurance company I don't think they should have any legal right whatsoever to sell it to my gocery store, or Amazon.com, or anyone else.
If the FTC gets in the act they won't just be nice about it, it will become a federal crime
I should hope they wouldn't be "nice about it", otherwise you lose most of the deterrent effect. they aren't nice about it when I break laws, why should companies get a break? Of course, the truth is they generally ARE "nice about it". The FTC will send warnings, demand complaince, do everything but send a singing telegram with flowers before they penalize a company. If anything the FTC is too lenient, because 99% of the time the worst that happens for breaking the law is you get told to stop breaking it. I wish I got such harsh punishment!
It is much easier to deal with a corporation which has it self interest at heart than it is to deal with a government which is hell bent on "helping."
Why doesn't the government (or rather, regulators/politicians) have it's self-interest at heart? Why doesn't the corporation want to help? Ayn always says, check your premises...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
If you're using Internet Explorer 4 or Higher, there's the security settings which allow you to set zones. You can then assign websites into zones.
Put *.flycast.com and *.doubleclick.net into the 'high' security zone and watch the problems go away.
And if sites won't let you in 'cause the banner won't load... did you really need them ANYWAY?
I don't know if Netscape 6 has anything like that - I never use alphas on my machine, I like the idea of vague stability. No matter how much of an illusion it may be.
----
Brazil has decided you're cute.
As, i'm sure with a lot of people, the big thing that bothers me with organizations like Doubleclick.net is how the (alledged) profiling is done without any concent. Although, I personally don't solicit them, organizations like Alladvantage (which pay you to view ad banners) at least compensate you, and it is something you sign up for. Doubleclick.net not only gets payed to show the ad banner, but they also get free consumer information, which is just wrong.
Hmph... so, to finish it off, I applaud organizations like Slashdot who do their own ads, since they are obviously taliored around the page and aren't being used for a large scale marketing project.
And, finally, to the author of this story, please be careful to be as unbiased as possible. While I do think that Doubleclick.net is a spawn of the devil, objective reporting is quite important (the lack of which is why i don't watch TV news anymore).
Just how i see it. =^)
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
What nobody seems to realize is that the companies that collect private data have an even greater incentive to safeguard the data than people themselves. While many people (including myself) are willing to divulge certain information to companies in exchange for rewards, the database of information that companies such as DoubleClick collect is one of their most valuable assets.
If advertisers obtain information from their database, than the value of the database (which, until that point was proprietary) depreciates. Why would an advertiser pay a premium for DoubleClick's advertising when they can send ads direct to the people in the database, themselves. Since companies do not want their investments to depreciate, they will go to great lengths to protect that information--often doing more to protect the information than the people in the database, themselves.
The major problem with DoubleClick is not that they might have our information. It is simply that they are collecting it without explicit consent that upsets me. I have no doubt that any information thy do have is safe in their hands and that paranoia is not warranted.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
While I'm not a big fan of DoubleClick, nor do I follow their business intensely, this panel isn't necessarily a complete sham. First, more information doesn't necessarily equal increased revenues. There are many situations where collecting a particular piece of information is essentially worthless, yet it can stand to do a great deal of PR damage (possibly resulting in a push away from DoubleClick). For instance, if DoubleClick provided a profile on some website's users, say, SomeAIDSvictimsDiscussionSite.com, there would be little way for them to profit (legally and safely), yet it still exposes them to major liability and PR damage. If such a panel could steer them clear of situations like that, it would be worthwhile for both parties. Second, I question michael's "research" as to these particular members.
He may very well be right, they may all be creeps. But just because he writes a line or two about their supposed 'evilness', doesn't make it true. Likewise, just because DoubleClick makes money through the creation of marketing databases, doesn't mean each additional unit of information is profitable for them. One might very well look at this board and say, Ok, we have: A lawyer (to advise on legal issues), and gaggle of people who've lobbied for reasonable advertizing and privacy restrictions....A relatively well rounded board (on the surface atleast) to advise a CORPORATION on what they can, and should, realistically do.
what is wrong with storing an anonymous cookie on your computer?
What is wrong is that DoubleClick seems to want to make these cookies non-anonymous.
The more I think about this post, the angrier I get.
I've said this in several posts, but I think it needs to said again load and clear: This article is nothing but gossip and innuendo.
If Michael wants to provide actual facts, that's one thing. But this character assassination is just not acceptable. I even had a follow-up post state that I should provide evidence that these people are not anti-privacy!!
Folks, is this really the world you want to live in? Where people are guilty until proven innocent? Gossip and innuendo should never be acceptable. Never!
Again, I remind Slashdot that these are real people they are slandering without a shred of evidence.
If Slashdot had an ounce of balls, they would yank this article and issue apologies to all concerned.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
You can draw your own conclusions about whether this "Consumer Privacy Protection Board" (sic) is intended to actually help Doubleclick change its ways, or whether it is merely intended to help protect the company from lawsuits and adverse governmental action, like, say, the FTC wanting the authority to force companies to respect privacy concerns.
I belive it's obvious from just this biased statement that no, I can not.
I must say that I have never seen _this_ much bias in a Slashdot story before. Hell, even John Katz isn't this bad. Michael, it's one thing to do a little research for us on the backgrounds of the people on the board, it's completely different when you give strong opinions about what you think their intentions are. Next time, give us a factual article and post any personal opinions about the matter to the comments section like the rest of us; we'll decide if they're worth reading.
thePsychotron
Life is pain. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
It fits the old saying "keep your allies close, but keep your enemies closer".
Imagine the big three automakers hiring Ralph Nader as a "consultant" back in the 70s. Imagine Richard Nixon hiring Archibald Cox to form an "exploritory panel". Imagine Bill Clinton hiring Ken Star as a "advisor" in the 90s. Would any of these people sell out and join the oposition? I think not.
Not to name names ;) but these people:
Robert Abrams
Robert Litan
Harriet Pearson
Lori Fena
Daniel Weitzner
Elizabeth Lascoutx
David Stazer
Stewart Baker
are all selling out your privacy and their own personal integrity.
___
just a few months ago, Real Networks was caught red-handed violating their users' privacy in direct violation of Real Network's own stated policies. Real Networks displayed the un-TrustE seal of approval and un-TrustE let them completely off the hook, no punishment, reprimand, nothing.
There are numerous other examples of un-TrustE never lifting a finger to punish the people that pay money--hey, what a coincidence--into un-TrustE's coffers.... and you would know this if you did any of the research you keep whining about. This is the reality you've failed to master. Perhaps if you get to the 200-levels?
Are you a sysadmin? Have you considered setting up a Junkbuster proxy alongside your Squid caching proxy and recommending it to your users? You can save a lot of bandwidth by letting your users opt out of banner ads. Most of them don't like 'em any more than you do.
(If you use Debian on your server systems, Junkbuster is available in both slink (the current stable release) and potato (the current beta release) as the package "junkbuster".
If you use a Macintosh for your home system, as I do, I recommend to you the iCab Web browser, which almost exactly duplicates the image-filtering abilities of Junkbuster -- right there in your browser configuration.)
Advertisers do not have any right to your bandwidth or your private information. However, you need not rely on the FTC or any other branch of government to protect you, your children, or your institution's resources. And if you're only willing to stand up for your rights if government will help you -- then what rights do you really have?
. . get yourself a copy of Database Nation and you'll see what the public outcry is all about.
Here's a summary:
This book is more than simply a journalistic summary of the current state of privacy rights and violations. It is a call to arms. Forty years ago, unbridled technology attacked our environment--and few people seemed to know or care. With the publication of Silent Spring in 1962, Rachel Carson opened our eyes. Her graphic depiction of the ecological and health ravages brought by technology made many people realize the risks as never before. Today, our environment still imperils us, but things are better than they might have been, and we have a population that's informed and, in many cases, activist. This book pleads the case for privacy in the same way. There is much that can be done with, not in spite of, technology. An aware public is the first step. It is our hope that this book will open the public's eyes to the many intrusions on our privacy before it is too late.
___
0.0.0.0 javascript-of-unknown-origin.netscape.com
127.0.0.1 www.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.preferences.com
127.0.0.1 ad.washingtonpost.com
127.0.0.1 adbot.theonion.com
127.0.0.1 adpick.switchboard.com
127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.com
127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ads.i33.com
127.0.0.1 ads.infospace.com
127.0.0.1 ads.msn.com
127.0.0.1 ads.switchboard.com
127.0.0.1 ads.washingtonpost.com
127.0.0.1 adforce.imgis.com
127.0.0.1 ads.enliven.com
127.0.0.1 Ogilvy.ngadcenter.net
127.0.0.1 oz.valueclick.com
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad2.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad3.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad4.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad5.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad6.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad7.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad8.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad9.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad10.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad11.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad12.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad13.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad14.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad15.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad16.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad17.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad18.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad19.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad20.doubleclick.net
___
This list reads more like the Spanish Inqisition than an advocacy council. David S. from PlanetOut.com seems to me a bit of tokenism.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
That ASPSESSION cookie is set by any site using IIS and ASP. It's one of the "features" of Microsoft's web server. In order to keep track of things like session variables, ISS sets a cookie in your web browser. There's no way around this, except to not use IIS and ASP.
As proof, I run a web server locally (PWS, the Win98 version of IIS), and occasionally use Lynx (yes, there's a Windows version). I have Lynx's startup page set to localhost, and tell it to ask me about cookies. Every time I start Lynx, I get:
localhost cookie: ASPSESSION=FANJPPAAJCAA Allow? (Y/N/Always/never)
Or some similar string.
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Should any company keep tracking data?
no.
Should I get to view my tracking data?
yes.
Should I have the right to contest the acuracy of that data?
yes.
Should the company have to seek my informed consent before loging my tracking data?
yes.
These are just a few of the rights that are being eroded every day.
___
Given MSs speed at fixing bugs, you have about 5 years to complete your vbs add blocking script.
___
Now, perhaps it's OK on slashdot, given this site's status as a quasi-journalistic, quasi-advocacy discussion board.
But it just seemed a bit too much like a pure rant, without any attempt to be fair.
--
There are some things that are totally ridiculous to worry yourselves about. And then there are things where worry, even paranoia, are justified. It seems obvious then that matters of privacy are something that we have every right to worry about, and even be paranoid about.
Even before the internet we had enough to contend with in terms of privacy; Echelon and the widespread (ab)use of our social security numbers had been going on for a while. Now with the internet and all of its hidden code, which few of its millions of users understand or know how it works, it is far easier to invade individuals' privacy.
I should hope that the need for privacy is obvious to all of you. Without privacy, the right and ability to keep your personal information and your personal life to yourself, individual rights have no meaning. We might as well live in 1984's Oceania.
Of course, the most direct threat to our privacy has long been corporations, NOT the government. This does not mean that I have forgotten about the FBI or CIA or the NSC, they do have their abusive tendencies. But they keep their files sealed and don't sell them to the highest bidder. And most governmental agencies, even the FBI and CIA, do have some respect for the rights of privacy of Americans, even if they forget those rights too often.
The corporate sector, though, has no incentive to respect privacy. They are driven by profit alone, not any sense of public service (however warped it might be in some gov. agencies). The government can be easily regulated, yet we seem to have trouble regulating corporations.
People on the right will argue that corporations should be free of regulations in order to do better business and keep the economy afloat. These are the same politicians, of course, who rail against the government for not respecting individual rights enough (i.e. the Elian case). Their contradictions are amazing, and it has long been clear that most politicians will do what their pimps in big business want them to do.
Still, government regulation is the only way to rein in corporate abuse of privacy. The FTC has realized this and many on /. have also realized this. Corporations will never regulate themselves, they're only interest is in profit, and so it is up to us to show the government just how important our privacy is.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
Umm, besides being "chairman of Web privacy organization TrustE... an advertising executive by trade", isn't Lori Fena still Chairman of the EFF Board of Directors and EFF Executive Director (President)? At least that's what it says at http://www.eff.org/homes/. I would assume that's at least as relevant to this discussion as her "trade", right?
Disclaimer: this is just what I got from a Google search for Lori Fena. I met Ms. Fena a couple times years ago, but I don't know much about her professional career.
Jeremy
Mozilla has a little cookie manager that lets you see every site that has set a cookie. It allows you the option of removing and not reaccepting any future cookies from removed sites. I really do love this feature, and it made my day when I found it.
Now doubleclick, and a slew of others, aren't able to set cookies on my machines. This really is the only thing you can do. If you visit a site, they have every right to record your having been there, and it will never change (and it shouldn't).
Could I buy a line break please?
But seriously, folks-
Obviously, I didn't use the internet to do any of these things. We are talking about internet privacy aren't we? I don't use the internet to pay my bills, Having worked in IS for 30 years has given me a respect for what can go wrong with auch online transactions. Bill paying is to important to leave to a machine. I pay and I get a receipt which I can show if necessary. This is usually not possible online
That's all good and well for you today, but what about those of us who DO get jobs online? Who do pay bills online? In 20 years it's highly likely that many items or services will have to be paid for online. There are many companies in existance today that will take nothing but a credit card for payment -- unthinkable 20 years ago. They don't want cash, they don't want checks, they want a credit card or won't do business with you. There are too many good reasons for them to operate this way -- it provides more protection for everyone involved in the transaction. Some companies have already reached that point online, many others will quickly be reaching that point.
The option of going offline simply to protect privacy (which of course is ridiculous, since your bank shares information with your insurance company anyways) is rapidly going away. And while we may be specifically talking about online provacy here, why NOT expand the policies to cover offline companies as well?
Bill paying is to important to leave to a machine
Well, having worked in IS for 30 years I assume you're aware that pretty much every dollar in the country (and world) gets automatically swapped by machines every second of the day. If that's your big concern, then you'd better pull your cash out of the bank because they're paying all their bills with machines, and they pay your checks with machines, and the IRS does your taxes with machines. Paper checks are convenience items only -- the actual monetary transaction is handled by machines, just the same as with cash.
Of course, sometimes it IS necessary but I am aware that it will probably be used in ways I hadn't intended. This is a choice I freely make and a risk I freely take.
While I congratulate you on your yogi-like wisdom, I have to ask the obvious question: why should giving my information to a company have "unintended" consequences? Should I expect that buying a carton of milk, I may also be adopting an orphan? Or by signing a check to the phone company it may have the unintended consequence of voiding the warranty on my toaster?
We're not talking about Acts of God here, where needless court battles are fought when someone trips on the sidewalk, we're talking about human beings (corporations) deliberately making the decision to use information in a way they were never authorized to use it. Why should giving my social security number to the DMV for the sake of getting a drivers license give them the right to sell it to auto insurance companies, or Kraft Foods, or any guy whon walks in with a check? That's not an "unintended consequence", it's people selling my information without my permission against my wishes! It's completely intended by the people doing it.
I don't need the government nanny state to "protect" me. In fact, it is the government which requires me to disclose my SSN (the mark of the beast) to get a job. It is the government which requires me to have a license to travel. It is the government which now seeks to fix a problem which the government created in the first place.
I assure you that there is no law on the books anywhere in this country that requires your employer to sell your social security number. There is none that requires insurance companies to have it at all (though they will need it to pay benefits, for tax purposes). It is the insurance companies' policies that demand your social security number to buy a policy not the law. There are VERY, VERY, few organizations on this planet that have the legal abligation to collect your social security number, and fewer still with any obligation to share it with anyone outside the IRS and the Social security administration.
It is private companies that have built this tangled mess of SS numbers being used as "personal identifiers" for everything from credit cards to the warranty on your car.
You seem to be asserting that a crime needing a government solution is being committed by companies which use personal information of their customers which is freely given and which people have been amply warned about.
This may be the crux of our disgreement. I don't believe the information has been given voluntarily or that customers have been "amply warned" about it. If that is the case, then no one would be violating this proposed law. But unilaterally selling the information to a third party with no relationship or logical interest in my transaction does not, to me, seem "voluntary". And accurate disclosure of what will happen to information has always been the greatest sticking point -- why do companies fear so having to disclose WHAT and TO WHOM they are giving this information?
DoubleClick changed from "we will never connect this online information to offline identities" to "we will do everything in our power to connect this information to offline identities, if you don't like it, too bad, we've already got your info". Do you consider that "disclosure", or even remotely honest?
Well maybe not because of building codes, alas - another freedom lost
I'm sure the people who died in the hi-rise apartmnent building collapse in Cairo last week (due to a dramatically deteriorated foundation and other structural problems with the building) will rest easy in the afterlife knowing that they died for the sake of freedom. After all, everyone should be a structural engineer and be able to tell for themselves the difference between a load-bearing beam of 6 tons and 8 tons.
Yes it is true that government has it's self interest at heart as do corporations. The difference is that governments seek to regulate and rule and always do this with a heavy hand.
And what is to prevent corporations from functioning with a heavy hand? Or governments from operating with a light hand? I personally would suggest that the FTC is one of the lightest-handed government groups on Earth. They generally keep their heads down due to the influence and dollars of the folks they regulate, and as I said before will send about a hundred cease-and-desist letters before they get really nasty and tell you to "stop doing that or we'll write even nastier letters".
Whan the feds get these databases of online transactions, how long do you suppose it will be before these records are shared with the state governments?
I dunno, but considering most transactions are electronic already (thanks to credit cards), we should already be seeing the effects of the government having this huge dossier on our spending habits. Of course if the governemnt ever asked for the information, every company would sue (since this is valuable property).
Privacy concerns can be worked out by people interacting in a voluntary way.
I think I've heard that song before. Doesn't the second verse go something like "if we took the guns away from both sides, no one would be able to fight". Nice in theory, but how efficient is it going to be for DoublClick to negotiate privacy policies with 250 million individual people? Isn't it a lot easier for us to just vote on a baseline standard and if you want to give more information, put it on a t-shirt to wear around town. I'm sure people would be happy to have your social security number -- no one is suggesting you can't give it out.
If your concern is for the sheeple who can't protect their privacy then you could mount a campaign to inform them of how to do it but don't think I will react kindly to your asking the government to trample anyone's rights, especially mine.
My concern is not for the Sheeple (though I do have some concern for the regularity with which some people feel it necessary to portray other human beings as sub-human by using such phrases). No, in good American style I'm in it for myself -- I'd rather not spend every second of every day holding a lengthy negotiation with every business over my personal privacy policy. Purely selfish, I know, but despite some folks' assertations that businesses are always receptive to customers' demands, I've found that very few businesses are interested in negotiating my privacy concerns...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Normally, I block doubleclick with /etc/hosts, but some pages have HTML code such that if the included ad (an HTML iframe/object/whatever) cannot be found, it reports 404 on the whole page. Slashdot is one of them.
Will I retire or break 10K?
http: //partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/ articles/20privacy.html
Just replace "www" with "partners."
raunchola (at) hushmail (dot) com
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
She works at International Business Machines Corp. That company hasn't existed for a very long time. Does anyone know when International Business Machines changed their name to IBM? Was it the 1960's? The 1970's? Anyway, it was a hellava long time ago.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
My reply: I don't know just how to make this thing look as fancy as you folks so please forgive the lack of breaks, paragraphs and Italics
Just submit everything as "plain old text" and use basic HTML (such as the and ) to do simple formatting. And two enters or a or a will give you paragraphs; much easier to read and follow.
My assertion is that this problem can be worked out between the customers and the companies who are doing the gathering WITHOUT government interference
Well to that i can only say that nothing indicates you are correct. We've had this probelm for several years now, and it's not a secret. The companies have been complained to numerous times, and they've been warned by individuals, other companies, and government agencies (such as the FTC) that they need to get better privacy policies. They insist that self-regulation will work (essentially what you are suggesting). but it hasn't. They've made industry groups (like TrustE, etc) but nothing has changed. They still wheel and deal with our personal data while saying that those who complain have nothing to worry about.
So when does all this magical self-regulation take place? When do they suddently start listening to us? They haven't so far -- what will be different in the future (other than them having even more data on us)?
An example - try to buy insurance wihtout giving your social security number. It's impossible. No company in america will sell you insurance without having a social security number. But they don't need it. Try telling that to the guy on the phone, or his boss, or his boss, or HIS boss. It doesn't matter, because "we don't make the rules, sir." Write a letter, phone, whatever you like, it doesn't matter -- people have been telling the insurance companies for a few decades now that they don't need a social security number for anything, but they still demand it. And once they have it, they are more than happy to sell it to anyone willing to pay.
Many people seem to think that government is benevolent and that it can solve this problem and save us all from the scourge of data mining. It isn't and it won't. It will only make the problem worse
I don't think too many people believe the government is benevolent, or that it can save us all from much of anything. But it is a useful tool that can be used by society to push or pull in a direction. It's a useful way for us to say, "hey, our information is private, and unless you ask someone first you're not allowed to use it."
As for making the problem worse, I'm not sure how putting information merchants under the jurisdiction of the FTC would make them sell MORE of our information, or sell it with less discrimination, or for a lower cost. They already sell it to pretty much anyone who asks.
As an example of the so-called benevolence of government data-gathering, made oh so easy by forcing us all to have numbers and licenses, is the misuse of the census data to round up Japanese Americans and herding them into concentration camps during WWII. An activity which is and was completely illegal I might add. Where was the protection you seek the government to provide?
Obviously it wasn't there, but again, no one claimed the government was a benevolent overlord. We could just as easily point to the poor working conditions and slave labor of the same time period and ask where the benevolence of the corporations was.
The utopian world envisioned by those who think government will protect our privacy is nothing but a fantasy. Government has and will continue to abuse our rights and has nothing but bad intentions for the use of the data
Again, i doubt many people think the government will "protect" our privacy any more than they will "protect" out physical safety. Murder is illegal but there's still a lot of it going around. The most the government can do is make laws, and enforce them as best they can. The imperfect nature of the laws (and the enforcement) is no reason to claim the entire system is flawed. Fortunately we have the tools to tune it up as we see fit.
Giving the FTC regulatory ability over online privacy will not solve our problems forever, but it's a push in the right direction. Companies will push in the other direction, other laws and organisations will push in still other directions. You can push with technology (I push in my own way by using Cookie Pal to refuse most cookies, and using Freedom to surf when i really want to be anonymous.)
I'll stay with my own methods for protecting my privacy even though I must give up many benifits of "modern society" because I refuse to be a number.
And I have no doubt people who use more than one method of protecting privacy will be more successful at it than those who rely on any one method (wether it be the benevolence of a company, a government, or others).
I know folks who drink nothing but bottled water, even though the tap water is perfectly healthy. For whatever reason they want that extra feeling of comfort, and they're entitled to it. But I'd still like for the water supply plant to have to meet minumum standards of quality and sanitation. Not because I'm incapable of boiling the water, but because it's a waste of my time when they can process it there.
Can you say "BAAAAA!"
It's funny, I'm so cynical and pessemistic, but on Slashdot I'm practically Mary Poppins (relatively speaking). I've never seen so many people so convinced that everyone else is brainwashed (presumably by "The Man") and the world is coming to a fiery end. I've met suicides with more hope for the future of our country! (g)...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Good thing that in europe commercials are regulated. Since a few weeks even more :)
I am not familar with the exact rules on how much is allowed but only a few weeks ago there was a lawsuit which commercial tv didn't like: any movie shorter than 110 minutes can only be broken up by commercials once. since the lawsuit, this is for the bare movie, without the commercials. before the lawsuit, the 110 minutes included the commercials.
makes for a bit less commercial shit.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Yes and no, respectively.
The US Constitution is nothing like regulations. It isn't even written like most law. Much high level, and devoid of detail. More like Frech "Code Civile" than English law. This would work.
Oddly, I think I would be more comfortable with a Surpreme Court decision establishing that data privacy was part of the controversail "Right to Privacy" in 9th Amendment.
I asked them to show me the law that requires a person to have a SSN. They couldn't show me one, so I never gave one. Myself, and others work freely without a SSN. Look up the famous Taco-Bell case.
Would that be the case that was settled out of court? Cases are settled out of court all the time, and no precedent (or even legal nuance) is generated by them. Keep in mind that all the SS# cases that have gone past the first round of claims were all based on religious freedom under the EEOC (odd that a government so hell-bent on destroying us all stands up for religious freedom).
I work for an offshore company which provided a company credit card.
Ah, is this Personnel Supply Co? Forgive me, but I'd rather not entrust my employment and finances to an "offshore company" just to avoid whatever percieved evils the guv'ment is perpetrating on us Sheeple.
Thirdly, you DO NOT own your automobile UNLESS you have the "Manufactor's Statement of Origin."
Actually, I don't own it because I haven't paid off the loan yet. But I'm sure you know a way around that, too?
It is your right to refuse giving out personal information
Of course it is, who is arguing otherwise? All I'm saying is that people shouldn't be allowed to sell it if you do give it to people voluntarily for a specific purpose. Not ebveryone believes the 16th amendment is a fraud and there are really only 49 states, but we should be able to agree that selling personal information without informed consent is a Bad Thing (tm)...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I, for one, value my time more than I value that sort of privacy. While I can understand some people are upset about DoubleClick's actions, that does not somehow make it terribly relevant for everyone. So you think DoubleClick stinks? Good. Filter them. Hurt them where it counts, in their pocketbooks. But if I have to spend the amount of time you spend dealing with it, I'd rather not, because I have bigger fish to fry.
Furthermore, I have occasionally analyzed my packets, and generally evaluated the situation. I know full well what information they can gather on me, and what they can not. There is no further benefit to be had by me analyzing my packets regularly. I know the furthest extent of what they CAN do; the only thing you do is confirm that they ARE doing it. Why bother? Anyone who spends inordinate amounts of time worrying about this type of crap probably isn't a terribly worthwhile customer anyhow.
Does that extra worry help you much? No. Does it hurt DoubleClick much? No. In other words, you're spinning your wheels.
I, on the other hand, as a worthwhile customer, can wield quite a bit more influence simply by choosing to not deal with certain organizations or websites. If enough people like me start giving them the finger, then action might be taken.
The bottom line is that your efforts are largely wasted. What you're saying is nothing new, and the incremental costs for DoubleClick are slim to none. IFF you care about this as much as you claim, I suggest you pursue alternative methods. Such as joining the rest of society, and spending your dollars elsewhere, or making a persuasive argument (for other worthwhile customers) other than the proverbial "fuck you".