Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Lags Behind Europe In Online Privacy
blaine writes: "There is an interesting article at CNN regarding the differing policies towards privacy that the United States and most of Europe have. It details some of the disputes between the United States and Europe with respects to the United States not being as strict in enforcing online privacy."
Personally, I don't think freedom means Big Brother telling all his little plebs to play nicely with each other.
Freedom means being able to do anything you're willing to take responsibility for. There are ways to protect your privacy on the internet. So long as the government doesn't take those away, we shouldn't expect them to start forcing replacements on us.
What exactly in "land of the free and home of the brave" implies massive government regulation of private business to protect the pathetically defenseless masses?
Every "Web Surfer" out there needs to know about online privacy. That is, it doesn't exist unless you work really hard for it.
I doubt many of the readers here actually put valid details into the forms at web sites for "free registration" etc. It's obvious that even if the company does intend to use your details responsibly it's too easy for someone else to get their hands on them. Similar with spam - most people have a throw-away address like mine above for any public uses. For similar reasons I won't use the passport / e-wallet system which are becoming common - my computer can't be trusted with running games properly, let alone my personal details.
The greatest concern I can see is governments misusing personal details. In my country (Australia) there are always cases of this, from councils selling mailing lists to the electoral roll being used for mailouts. This has nothing to do with the web - similarly for anyone you buy stuff from who needs your home address.
So why do we need specific "online" privacy laws? Sure, I can be harassed at things I say or do online, but this is hardly different to being yelled at by old ladies or religious nuts for wearing a heavy metal t-shirt (yes, this has happened to me).
Why don't more people know about on-line privacy? Why don't they realise that e-mail is far easier to intercept than a phone call, and that when you post to a public forum it might be traced back to you? I guess it's the same old story - people don't want to learn, they just want it done for them. You can only try to tell them.
Some annoyed European with moderator status is no doubt going to moderate me down for being a troll.
I am French, but I spent a little time working in the US. I was struck by the frequent requests for a driving license or a social security number for things that do not have anything with respect to driving or social security.
Of course, I did not have a SSN. I was then instructed to get one from some obscure agency some thirty miles away. I came back later to the bank, and they told me they after all did not have to take my SSN. Instead they gave me an IRS form that was something like 6 pages of American fiscal legalese! And of course this form threatened me with horrible penalties should I make an error in filling it.
Friends of mine also get fed up with being asked for an SSN to do just about anything. Ask for a phone line? Give me your SSN.
In France, I only give my SSN for things having to deal with social security (and employment, because they have to pay for social security). I only show an ID when I cross the border, pay by personal check or attend an university exam.
It sure is sad how nine little numbers, originally intended as nothing more than a method of tracking social security benefits decades ago, has developed into a universally consistant method of tracking you from the cradle to the grave.
It has also made identity theft rediculously easy. All someone needs is your SS# and your birthdate, and they can become you. Then it's up to you to clear your name and credit history. Until recently, the person whose identity was stolen wasn't even considered the victim.
When Social Security was established, the cards actually said "Not for Identification". Unfortunately, there were no laws to punish anyone who required the number for ID, so we have today's situation.
In 1998, Arizona passed a law that banned colleges from using SS#s as student ID numbers. We need laws like that on a national scale.
Another thing- what if you don't have a SS#? What if you are a refugee, an illegal immigrant, or a foreign student? Can you still be denied municipal services for not providing a SS#?
Put my clarinet beneath your bed 'till I get back in town.
I'm a proud user of Netscape 3.04. It plays well with others, and apps can't connect with it like they can with IE. App makers who want to be underhanded know that IE is available to "hijack" if they really want to, but there's no way they can count on an ancient version of Netscape being installed and IE being denied permission to contact the Net. Windows Explorer is completely denied permission to send packets anywhere. I'll get Mozilla when it reaches M17 and switch to that, but for now Netscape 3.04 is entirely adequate. I can't complain about its quick and admirable performance. Its only shortcoming is that pages created sloppily using Style Sheets and Microsoft-extended protocols display oddly, but they still display well enough.
:-)
Who would want to use IE, anyway?
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Just to pick up a few points, working from the UK implementation of the EU directive, the Data Protection Act 1998:
Essentially, the standards may be set higher over this side of the Atlantic, but the actual performance means that the practical difference for the time being is nil.
Anyone in the UK with an expertise in basic computer security has a prime opportunity to make some money selling advice to just about every commercial concern on mainland Britain. And, no doubt, the same goes for the rest of the EU.
AndrewD
Slight disclaimer: don't rely on the above as legal advice for your particular circumstances. I'm only qualified to advise in the UK on English law, and what appears here is only a broad outline statement of that law. In short, relying on comment postings on /. to take business decisions that might cost you money is your own affair and don't come crying to me if it all goes horribly wrong.
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
Yes, US English is more widely used than UK English, but in schools around the world, except in the US, it is still UK English that's being taught, and in official business in Europe, Asia and Africa, when English is required, UK English is used.
Except in Canada. Here Canadian english is used. Canadian English is rare outside Canada, and most Americans don't even know it exists. But it our official language.
I do agree on the height of taxes, though... But then again, taxes are what make a welfare state.
Yes, that is a problem :(
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
The US economy is 1000 times more robust than European economies because we allow people with ideas to exploit them.
If such things was quantifiable (which it isn't), I really doubt it would be a 1000 ratio... Probably a 1 ratio, because as soon as the dot com bubble burst, the whole US economy will collapse.
As far as economic studies goes, countries like France, Germany or Finland have higher-productivity, higher computerised economy than US. Go into a Renault car factory and then go to a GM one in US. Notice the difference... It takes more than some SUV driving yuppies creating silly dot coms to make a "robust economy". Get out of your cubicle and visit other countries before crying "USA is da best in the world".
Don't forget "Humour, valour, labour, favourite, flavour, etc... Don't know if all those are UK english, but they are Canadian English.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
Sounds like you already accepted the "inevitable"? Then you already lost! Keep in mind that the people who give up hope lose any chance they might have had. So don't just say it's over already, no, continue the fight. I say it's "inevitable" that individual freedom will win.
He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt a man doing it.
-- Eavy (: Linux Is Not UniX
and you are anonymous. What are you afraid of?
America lagging behind some other part of the world in an area where reason and intelligence should make better decisions obvious? Imagine that?
Things like this never cease to amaze me for some reason. I love America, I was born and raised here, but I can't fucking stand Americans anymore. Our politics are dominated by a bunch of assholes who present their favorite assholes to a bunch of sheep that vote for whoever they are told to by their respective church/party/employer and then we end up with crap like this.
It just pisses me off. The US has more freedom, money, and resources than any other country on Earth, and people continue to fuck it up endlessly with unyeilding stupidity.
I think I've fallen in love with the concept of America, and grown to hate the execution. I don't know where the hell this country is going, but I'm going to save up for the next couple years and move my pasty geek ass to Spain. Sure they have plenty of morons there, too, but at least I'll be pissy in a country thats a bit more laid back.
I wouldn't care if you would have cockroaches in your kitchen at home, yet I would mind if you had them in your restaurant kitchen.
I wouldn't mind if you (as a private person) would store my e-mail address and send me an e-mail. I do care if you (as a company) would do it: I don't like spam.
I think I better speak up here: the RIP Bill is currently just that, a Bill. That is, a proposal for legislation that may or may not make it through parliament.
The proposals in it that cause all the alarm are:
Of the above, the second isn't too bad. It's no worse than the police being entitled to use an angle-grinder to open a safe full of seized evidence. The problems lie in the fact that as drawn it makes forgetting your password potentially a criminal offence, it isn't subject to judicial scrutiny beyond the original warrant, and there are tipping-off offences (you aren't even allowed to tell your lawyer about it outside certain limits) included.
The other two are horror stories on their own, though. The regulation of bugs and taps has been taken the wrong way (it should have been resolved in favour of protection of privacy) and the ISPs are defecating in rage at the amount the means-of-interception provision will cost them if it is ever implemented.
On the sunny side, we've already beaten this lot once (it was originally in the Electronic Communications Bill, which became the Electronic Communications Act 2000 earlier this month) and no doubt we'll do it again.
And just to help anyone who wants to make a fuss about this, complaints, comments and suggestions about what ought to be done with the Bill (like, for example, binning it and starting again, not "sticking it where the sun don't shine", sore though the temptation may be) should be directed to our esteemed Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right honourable Jack Straw, MP. Whose constituency office is just around the corner from where I sit and type this, and I may well pay him a visit and see if I can bore him into submission...
AndrewD
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
I'm a pretty good bot though. first time someone notices.
//rdj the anthropomorph
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
>Who do you want to keep track of you: Business or government?
That's indeed the question. I just wanted to make a point the other way. People cannot influence companies or the persons in charge of a company, whereas a government is chosen (keeping to the US and EU). Personally I would sooner trust a government than a company. At least governments are supposed to look out for their people, where companies only look out for themselves.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Well done, friend! I think you are exactly right. Remember that CNN (the "Clinton News Network") has strong leftist leanings, and is much more willing to criticize big business and their crimes than it is to criticize big government and its crimes.
I think both government and business collaborate and compete for our privacy. The government is allowed to use force to achieve its goals. Of course, that does not make the evil actions of big business less evil.
I'd moderate your post up, but I lost my moderator status yesterday. ;)
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I saw a program on PBS not 5 minutes ago where a Symantec spokesperson was saying that online privace is really basically the responsibility of the users :)
True, very true. Who else would have the responsibility? The government? Remember, the internet is an international entity, and as such can not logically be held to be under the domain of any one particular government. Sure, you can say that servers in the US are under the domain of the US government, but what about a server in, say, [small country of your choice]? It is inevitable that you will eventually run across a server that is not covered by any reasonable rules of privacy (or whatever other subject you want to discuss).
What this means is that even though governments may say that they have author-i-tah(tm) over what goes on in the servers based in their country, the final responsibiltiy rests with the end user.
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
"I'll gladly give up my online privacy on Tuesday for a bitchin' credit card offer today."
"Oh Popeye! Save me! I keep getting spammed by United States pyramid marketing schemes!"
"Don't worry, Olive, I'll moves ya' to Europe where online privacy is more valued."
"I'm strong to's do Finnish, because they eat's their private spinach, 'cause I'm Popeye the sailor man."
They can't all be winners, folks.
-BGS006
LostBrain
Wait a second, this isn't Ain't-It-Cool-News
But wouldnt it be even better if we could develop applications and network protocols that would garantee privacy?
It's a knotty issue. On one side, I'd certainly agree with it - it's personally disturbing to me to see more and more free speech on the Internet being censored by those with the money. A good case in point in DeCSS - completely legal, but the MPAA goes out and starts sending threatening letters to every site that hosts it around the world, and most of them pull it. That's why a truly anonymous file sharing system like Freenet will a godsend to free speech on the Internet.
On the other hand, the Internet does need some kind of more set user identification, if only to find the origin of all those spammers. ;-)
..it astonishes me that America of all places has the worst privacy, even worse then Europe. Wasn't the American revolution desgined to give us FREEDOM of speech, LOW taxes, RIGHT to not have your house searched without a warrant!
:-(
I believe 21st century America will be the next pre-victorian british empire, where instead of a corrupt king that has all power over human rights, we have kinglets (corporations)that are the new government and we serve them and not have government serve us.
The loyalists fought for the king in the revolution because they believe everyone should work for the king or the lords under him and in return they will take care of us and decide for us. Instead we have pro-capitalists believing corporations should rule and we follow because they give us jobs. Many are ignorant that our government is for sale and they lose rights like free speech (US encrption, Dmca act, patents), high taxes (breast cancer research bill that included pork barreling spending that killed McCain's election), privacy (darion project where the ciaa montiors all calls without anyones consent, credit card companies giving out purchasing information to anyone so your boss can find out your spending habits). I can't believe Canada and Europe are freeier.
IF linux is killed by patents and corrupt laws paid by microsoft, then lets create our own revolution. Whos in!
http://saveie6.com/
I sure hope for your sake you're being sarcastic there
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Sheesh.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Name the exciting European companies in high tech. That didn't take long, did it.
economics is not artificial any more than physics is. it is the science used to describe trade, trade which occurs anywhere people live side by side. And the rest of your post was nonsense too.
saying that something is "1000 times more" is an idiom that means "a lot". It is a standard English idiom that any competent speaker would know. It's not my fault that you don't know it. I've also visited far more of the world than you imagine, and far more than you have. France, Germany, and Finland do not have higher productivity, nor do they have high productivity growth which is a more important number. They have high automation because labor is artificially priced higher than capital, but that's an economic argument, something you wouldn't understand.
Also, I believe that it is only illegal to export strong crypto programs, not encrypted material itself. Therefore, it's almost a moot point, as strong crypto does exist outside the US, but our wonderful Government (TM) apparently doesn't think so. PGP exists worldwide, so if you encrypt your mail with PGP you're pretty much safe (as long as you use a large keylength).
Disclaimer: I am not a crypto expert, nor am I a lawyer. Don't take my words as absolute truth, or it will probably come back to bite you in the ass.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Commodore 64 Democoder
FC Closer
Privacy regulations lead to a smaller economy. Companies are willing to pay for information about consumers because it has economic value. Banning these transactions slows the economy down.
You could reasonably say that you think the tradeoff is worth it. But you are stupid if you say that what I say is not true, and you did, so that makes you ... yes, you guessed it, stupid.
Well, first, there are a lot of times it *is* desirable to not be uniquely identified (I'm sure those people in the early fourties who got tattoed their "GUID" on the forearm would agree. And that very same period would teach you how quickly a rather democratic (even if crippled) government can turn into one of the worst dictatorships mankind has ever known).
:-( )...
However, you can be almost uniquely identified by better than your SSN: {Name, Surname, Date and Place of Birth} gives you an almost unique combination. Better, there is enough room here for typos, which will hamper a database's ability to reliably collate data, but not a human's : this way, if someone really needs to ID you, it's possible, if it's just some greedy megacorp, they can.
I'm glad I live in a country where the SSN is protected (for how long ? Now the taxes can cross their tables with the (overdeveloped) welfare system
Well, I could argue that the most regulated economies (let's take the German Democratic Republic) had an unemployment rate of nil. Granted, that the five year plan concept didn't really provide for a successful economy.
Still, my point stands: You make an absolute statement which is unfunded. Example: People eating baby food turn into convicts. Proof ? 98% of all convicts ate baby food. On a more serious level there's the argument of the zero tolerance crowd, that smoking marijuana leads to heroin. True, a lot of junkies did smoke marijuana before turning to the needle. But even more smoked cigarettes or drank booze. Or ate baby food for that matter.Privacy regulations lead to a smaller economy. Companies are willing to pay for information about consumers because it has economic value. Banning these transactions slows the economy down.
You might be right here. But, who profits from that economic value ? Is it for the common good or is it to stuff the pockets of those that already have ? Mind you, I don't believe in the concept of a socialized economy. But there's a trade off between corporate interests and the rights of an individual. If in doubt I vouch for the individual.
But you are stupid if you say that what I say is not true, and you did, so that makes you ... yes, you guessed it, stupid.
What I say, is that you're throwing around figures on a completely unfunded basis (sheesh: 1000 times more robust...). See, I'd argue the same point with Europeans that tell me that Americans are fat, undereducated stupid fucks from the mid-west that dress badly. There are fat, undereducated stupid fucks from the mid-west in America, possibly a lot of them. But all my American friends (and there are quite a few) are quite insightful, cultivated and intelligent people, who dress smart and enjoy fine wines and food. What I do resent is brushing something, anything with a broad brush especially if it's based on totally unfunded data...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
What do you mean? beacuse I don't think like you?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Actually, the better version of the joke is:
What do you call someone who speaks 2 languages? bilingual
What do you call someone who speaks 1 language? English
What do you call somone who speaks no language? American.
Oh well, looks like another day of hard work done. Back to the beer.
but on the other hand, about 22% of kids in the USA is growing up in poverty, worst among ALL industrialised nations except mexico. sweden OTOH lets only 2 % grow up in poverty. (tidbit taken from time magazine)
so maybe european countries doesnt boom as much as the usa (unemployment has and still is falling in EU), but obviously a lot of people are much better off with the "schelorsis" than what is going on here.
palop
Please, don't waste my time using the former East Germany as an example economy.
But, if you understand free market pricing, the money that companies make from selling consumer information comes back to the consumer in the form of lower prices if there is competition. Since the companies profit from the data, they can afford lower profit margins. It's standard economic theory.
My original statements and argument were made on a completely sound economic basis.
There's something in that, but Americans also have a long history of feeling hostile towards any sort of government at all. Sort of an anarchistic streak.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"US lags behind Europe in privacy"
"Corrupt politician found to be taking bribes"
"Insurrection fails, Castro still in power"
Or from the Onion: "Model decides to give acting 'a shot'".
(Though I have to admit to enjoying much of the stuff people post on these stories...)
Pax -- Ob
We can't let a pesky thing like PRIVACY come in the way of profit....Can WE???
Is this surprising, considering the USA is the state that brought you the Clipper Chip?
Burris
After all, *my brain* contains detailed personal information on people who have not explicitly given my permission to carry that information into another country.
Seriously, what is the difference between transporting information across borders on a palm pilot and transporting it inside someone's head, apart from the fact that people have much more memory than palm pilots?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Yeah right, I'm sure Europe is so much better than the US in regards to privacy. If they really are so intent on protecting privacy then why don't they allow someone to patent it? A patent on privacy would protect it from everyone for the next 20 years, and here in the good ol' U.S. of A. you can do so.
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
Great. So an app starts an instance of IE and uses DDE to communicate with it. Zone Alarm is completely bypassed.
Anybody else find irony in the fact that he didn't post this anonymously? Why do I have the sudden urge to cross reference his icq info with every resource at my disposal?
I had the good fortune to attend a taping earlier today of a roundtable discussion on this topic that included Mark Rotenberg (EPIC), Bob Pitofsky (FTC chair), and Lance Cottrel (Pres. of Anonymizer.com, Inc.). This very issue came up, and it was pointed out that the "superior" European protections only applied to information collection by *private companies*, not the government. US citizens have a much higher level of protection from their own government (e.g., nothing more than the sig of a managing police officer needed for a wiretap in France). That said, it may not be much, but it's worth pointing out in the face of those thinking the European approach is the best thing going.
and here of course we have the RIP bill, Ireland could be doing pretty well though, think they have made it illegal to spy on emails and other privacy invasive things.
~ppppppppö
and of course given a name I can find the address/phone # of most people in the UK...
~ppppppppö
OK, Mr. Dutch Smart-Ass, I speak more languages than you (Czech, English, Italian, French, German AND Dutch). US English is easier and far more widely used than UK English. As a Dutch person you should know that. Or maybe you're just one of those few Dutch people who wants to be English. We Americans may occasionally sound silly abroad, but people understand us. We also don't go around saying "oi" and throwing deckchairs and bottles at crowds of police and non-UK soccer fans (viz- Belgium this past weekend). Our wrists don't scrape the ground either. As for on-line privacy- HAH! Try dealing with any European govt. bureaucracy and see how personal info they ask for. The Europeans are also further behind the US in Internet use and technologies (the average Joost pays 17.5% sales tax on PCs, etc.), hence less to protect. Laws mean very little on this Continent.
Podej mi tento talir s koblihama....
privacy is _more_ than just your private correspondence. using cryptography is only one way to ensure your privacy on the net. what cryptography cannot help is what the person/company on the other end of the wire is doing with the info you are prviding. what the europan laws are saying is that whatever you send a company of information so that they can send and bill you for some goods, is _your_ property and you give it to them _only_ for the purpose to facilitate the transaction, and they _cannot_ make a database of user which they can sell to others.
allowing free cryptography is one step to help privacy on the net, but it is naive to believe that all problems with privacy is solved with the use of it.
palop
It's not just the dot commers that have bought in to the SUV craze: ordinary folk have become brain washed too. I prefer to call them Urban Assault Vehicles, anyway.
i live quite comfortably thankyouverymuch. :P
Holland is clean,has good public services,ppl dont carry guns,and there are no children on deathrow here....
from my viewpoint even so called liberal American politicians only seem to fall slightly to the left of Atilla the Hun...
Why so many Americans seem to believe that others would want to follow their example escapes me..
and if i would want to be childish about it,i believe America has a national debt (ok, so we could argue about that),so i could say...
We Europeans ownz you foolz
over and out..
I have a "Zero Policy" tolerance.
I have a "Zero Policy" tolerance.
*/
How moronic. I swear slashdot has degenerated into some sort of platform for non-fact based rhetoric.
The GOVERNMENT wants to limit encryption so you cannot have any secrets (how much money you have, for starters) from them.
Private companies sell software to encrypt your data and push for a easing of anti-encryption laws imposed by the GOVERNMENT.
Now, turn off your computer, stop spouting BS and start thinking for a change. Maybe there is something else you are better at than thought, like knitting..
wow, that was a really well argued point. You sure convinced me!
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This law project defines the rights and dutys of audiovisual communications companies, and include an internet chapter. The 43-6-4 sub-amendment, which has been proposed without public debate, frames the citizens' freedom of expression on the internet, with a beforehands obligation of identification.
Each citizen, willing to publish on the web, or to post in a mailing-list, a discussion's forum or a newsgroup, will have to publish his surname, first name and address on his homepage, or to give it to his provider.
Such a law, regulating public expression, must be debated on a wide and public range, especially , as it is the case, when it goes against the actual rules and practices concerning citizen's privacy.
We ask the sub-amendment 43-6-4 to be withdrawn by the government and the examination of such clauses to be postponed until the coming law relative to information society, which will be proposed during the next fall Parliament's session by M. Christian Pierret, french Minister of Industry.
We urge every citizen who feel concerned by the defense of civil liberties to join this appeal.
It's not about the internet. It's about commerce and privacy.
Europe has laws that prevent your personal information (ie: what you bought with your visa and when, etc) from becoming a comoddity unto itself, bought and sold by companies.
In other words, Visa is allowed to know this, but only so they can bill you. They can't sell it. Same for any other vendor.
This is important in online transactions moreso than with meatspace transactions because, in meatspace, in a great many cases, nobody needs to know your name or where you live to sell you something, wheras with online purchases, they indeed to in order to collect payment and/or deliver goods.
"economics" is not a natural things, it is an artificial thing that we impose upon ourselves in order to allow our society to function according to a certain ideology.
Same with capitalism. It is just an ideology.
So.. when it comes to privacy, YES, we should regulate who can give what kind of info to whom. Commerce IS regulated, even in the goldl O'l US of A. Hey. what abou the Federal Reserve and it's interest rate changes? How dare they change this!
(but hey.. it's not federal and not a reserve..)
What you can do with your knowledge? no.. but the law CAN and SHOULD guarantee consumers certain rights with regards to commerce, as it already does.
Things like: personal information collected to complete a transaction shall not be sold or otherwise given away or used for any purpose other than to do the transaction in question unless specifically agreed to by the person giving such information.
In other words, businesses can amass whatever kinds of databases they want abou tyou.. they just have to ask you for your permission first.
At least to the casual user. How do you equip a part time internet user with the tools to protect themselves? You can't make people download and configure Junkbuster, PGP, high encryption patches for Windows and Netscape, etc... They don't have the time or the knowledge that these tools are even there. And even if they did, I'm sure most people don't appreciate just how much monitoring of our online use there is, and so see the need for them.
/. thought this story wasn't important enough to the online community to run, please let me know.
The UK is requiring every ISP allow the security agencies to monitor what websites are being viewed by everybody. International tools like Eshilon (sp?) monitoring our emails and who knows what other online chats...
My beloved Australian government just passed an ammendment bill that allows one of our security organisations (ASIO) to hack into our computers, copy, modify, delete any data they think is relivant to national security. I can only hope that the computers have to be in Australia. They're also allowed to disable any encryption or logon device that prevents further monitoring as well. And btw, if somebody could explain why
It's my opinion that the governments of the world will legistate the internet into becoming just another form of media. This is inevitable I think. The net isn't the last frontier anymore - it's been beaten down so that the powers that be can control it.
Which is sad, but had to happen. They monitor us by our use of credit cards and other financial records, and the internet will be made to work for them in the same manner.
Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
Some things are worth fighting for. Most of the rights we have in America (or are supposed to have), we have because a lot of people died fighting for them.
Most people will take advantage of others, given the chance. Without the threat of "strong-arming" (in the form of imprisonment, fines, or an ass-kicking) those with power would walk all over the rest of us.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
I agree with many of your points. In fact, since you've had so much trouble, I can see why you might take this maybe a WEE bit too far. There's definetly a problem with all these people wanting all your information, and I sympathise. But I feel the need to point out a few things, so don't take offense :)
:) Mind you, they could have been collecting DNA, just in case, but I bet it was just for cleaning.
About the DMV asking for your social insurance number, signature, and finger-print, there's a very good reason for this.
In the past, it was ridiculously easy to get a license. I, a Canadian, actually got a license, by mail, from Michigan. Of course it was illegal, but they still sent it to me. Pretty easy, eh? Think of all the things I can do with a valid U.S. license(don't worry, I didn't do any of them, I was just proving a point to a friend). I can get alcohol. I can claim to be a U.S. citizen. I can buy a gun. Can you believe that? I could buy a bloody gun! (By the way, I was 17 at the time)
So it's not really bad that they take all these things, so long as they don't show up on your driver's license(except maybe for your signature). They need to know who you are, even if it's just for a State ID... Who knows, the person they're happily handing a piece of plastic could be a killer. I'd much rather have all my personal information available to anyone who wants it rather than know that I caused someone to be murdered.
As far as the swab wiping off the scanner, the clerk could have just been cleaning it
And for the private companies who were asking for you SIN, they can go blow it out the ***. That's absurd.
Dave
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
"I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way."
--- Mark Twain
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
--
Here's my mirror
I really have a hard time believing that Europe protects online privacy better than the US, considering what I read on CNN.com yesterday:
u t/
http://www.CNN. com/2000/WORLD/europe/06/19/portugal.eu.summit.re
To summarize, most of the EU nations want to trade private citizens' income information (specifically, income from savings accounts). Of course, not only do they want to just trade this info amongst themselves, some of the EU governments want to hammer out agreements with 3rd party nations (read: US and Canada) so they can do the same with them. Frankly, I'm a US citizen, and I don't believe France, Germany, or even Luxembourg should have any access to any of my income information if none of my income was in their country. I really do not think a group so gung-ho about having access to private citizens' (of other countries) personal information is really that concerned with privacy at all!
--Mythos
"If my personal data were legally considered to be my property, then every time I gave my personal information to someone, I could insist that they only use it in certain ways, not share it with others, delete it at a certain time, and even that they pay me for it."
It's funny that you mention this. Property rights are the same excuse employers are using in order to fire someone who sends an unappreciated amount or type of e-mail using their system. As a firewall administrator for a large corporation, I can tell you that companies live by this rule. It appears that the courts are agreeing with its corporate partners. While it may be true that employers cannot listen to private conversations on a telephone, it appears that the laws do not apply to e-mail. I strike that one up to the technologically inept government some of us share.
I am currently trying to fight this rule inside my workplace. I know it's a losing battle because of the court cases but when a disclaimer is added to an e-mail that states something to the effect of this message is meant only for the person sending and the person addressed but we're still monitoring that same message, I find this quite misleading and to me seems grounds for a lawsuit.
I tend to view slashdot readers as anti-corporate but in this case, you're right about your concerns. Hopefully the privacy laws will change but it doesn't appear it'll happen anytime soon.
actually the people I don't want to have my details is %^"$^% Equifax.
~ppppppppö
---From "An Introduction to Cryptography" by Phil Zimmermann, the programmer of PGP himself.
This is an analogy I remind myself each time one of my friends at high school ridicules me for being a paranoid "conspiracy nut". It concerns me greatly that most of the general public of my country, Australia seems to take a laissez-faire approach to their online Internet rights. For example, Australians have already lost their right to unmonitored and uncensored (but not yet implemented) Internet usage and our intelligence agency, ASIO now has the legal right to actually crack our computers and monitor communications without a warrant all for the sake of so-called "national security".
What is just as worrying is that the general population accepts the face value of our politicians. The government in power, the conservative Liberals claim that they are acting in the best national security and moral interests of the silent majority, but to me, it would seem like they acting to silence the majority. The general public needs to be made aware of how insecure the Internet really is, and how governments are seeking to gain a legal right to infringe upon their basic human rights to freedom of expression and press. There seems to be an accepted dogma by the public here that the online world is different and that their human rights are automatically guaranteed by the nation's law instead of being restricted in reality.
Even my own high school, Sydney Technical High was planning student email access; a proposal to ban students using encryption to circumvent monitoring was considered. The majority of the student seemed unconcerned with this, except for a few others and myself as we saw this as a blatant attempt to impose the school's authority upon us while they were claiming legal responsibility over our moral wellbeing! The school told me that this email service was to be a "privilege and not a right" and thus if I was upset, I should use my own email. I was mainly concerned with those without access to encryption outside of school having their civil liberties breached. Luckily the school abandoned this scheme altogether after discovering free email services provided by services such as Hotmail. However, the mere fact that the school was willing to impose such draconian measures upon its students is a sad reflection of Australia's stance towards online civil liberties.
I am dismayed when my friends exclaim that the CIA will never read my email, because I am not important, nor have I done anything wrong or have something to hide. I wish that they could see that if they we don't start fighting for our rights online now, such as the right to uncensored access, encryption, and online self-security then a time will come when it will be too late for everyone to start voicing their opinions without fear from those seeking to impose their wills upon us.
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
Ah, then let me throw in my knowledge of Latin, Greek and Klingon *grin*.
Yes, US English is more widely used than UK English, but in schools around the world, except in the US, it is still UK English that's being taught, and in official business in Europe, Asia and Africa, when English is required, UK English is used.
Privacy? That coming from a country with THREE three-letter agencies that are world-renowned for their unmatched database size, detail and accuracy about people all over the world, including but definitely not limited to citizens of the United States of America? Comments on occasional soccer-related violence from a country with so much drug- and crime-related violence?
I do agree on the height of taxes, though... But then again, taxes are what make a welfare state.
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
Do you really want others to leave you alone, and don't enforce your right not to be killed/robbed? Fine. Next time a couple of big hairy doodz with shotguns come over to you to borrow some cash, follow you comment and don't ask others e.g. police to protect you. Grab a golf club and good luck excercising your freedom fully.
In my opinion, in this digital age my private information is valuable property. The data-mining companies seem to agree, judging from the vigorous speed of profiling everyone and their pet. I'm aware of some simple technics to fool the data collectors, but these technics're laughable if collectors get serious. To sum it up, I don't want to protect my privacy with a club when the big hairy corporations go around on tanks. I want the government to finally do the job it's paid for and enforce some order.
This is a guy who puts his dreams, resume, and personal stories up on his website. How concerned can he really be about privacy?
If you want to be anonymous you have to be pretty careful, used the same nick in 2 places? written about the same subject with the same speech pattern?. . . even now my ISP could be logging this, no https at slashdot.
Ok I know a bit OTT, but even so if you want privavcy you have to be aware of where you are losing it
~ppppppppö
ambition, I like that.
~ppppppppö
PGP simply doesnt work so well for communicatoins when your friends arent using it. I try and try my darnedest to get my friends to use PGP when we email back and forth, and only a few have come through.
Now I just want to setup my own proxy server(encrypted, of course) and take things further.
This is not a total solution to the problem, however. The other major problem is one of imbalance of power. Perhaps I could look around for an internet shop that will accept my terms for the use of my personal information when I want to by a CD or a toaster, but I can't shop around for, say, another electricity supplier or another grantor of driver's licenses, as mentioned by an earlier poster. These organizations can decide to require pretty much anything of you, any you will have little choice but to comply. Therefore, there must be laws governing what information you can be required to provide, and on what terms. Perhaps such laws would not be so important in an actively competetive market, but in a monopoly or oligopoly, they are essential.
Personally, I could care less if someone knows my name, mailing address, email address, ICQ number, website, what I ate for lunch, who I'm fucking... In fact, if I choose to reveal those things, so be it. But those are concsious choices. Many people also believe in the right to carry a firearm, yet own none. Many people believe in the right to practice your prefered religion, yet have no religion of their own. Many people also have the means to remain in complete anonymity, yet choose not to.
Choice and autonomy is the fundamental element in freedom, privacy, anonymity and every other concern over a basic human right.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
He did spell it correctly, at least as far as non-US usage goes.
All spelling flames must include a blatant spelling error.
All grammar flames must include flagrantly bad grammar. Furthermore, at least half of all grammar flames have to spell it 'grammer.'
Art Bell is no longer host of Coast to Coast AM. He retired, and the show was taken over by Mike Siegel. Even still, I would get the ACLU and sue the DMV. Unlawful search and seizure ring a Bell?
Pax Digitalia
Then why are several governmets restricting the use of cryptography. If it's up to the user to take care of their privacy, the we should be allowed to have the tools for it.
---------------
Fire Your Boss!
The main idea is that anyone can expect to accummulate as much wealth/power possible, even if it is endangering the welfare of others. So, naturally, any government that steps in to protect people from abuse is bound to be branded as "intrusive" by those most powerful and wealthiest elements of society.
Witness big media and hollywood that has been hammering "government is bad" into the head of the people for decades, to the point that they will actively vote for scaling down the government, even it it means misery and hardship for them...
--
Here's my mirror
After millions and millions of people died, I guess the european culture decided that maybe it isn't such a good idea for peoples lives to always be transparent to the government. Funy thing is that the germans considered themselves to be the most civalized, educated, and mature society in the world. These were smart people who elected Hitler as a democratic leader. The USA is very arrogant to assume that their immune from government (or corporate america it seems now days) from raging out of controll. I hope we never pay such a bitter price.
With the digital storage of fingerprints, any falsification not only is possible, but very feasable.
Consider this: They do not store the actual fingerprint image, they store the relative position of the interesting features of the print.
Things like: personal information collected to complete a transaction shall not be sold or otherwise given away or used for any purpose other than to do the transaction in question unless specifically agreed to by the person giving such information.
That is important if one does want to be informed about a delay in the shipment of (say) gizmo X, and one does not want to be subscribed to the mailing list announcing all those "wonderfull" gadgets the same company produces.
First, a fingerprint serves no purpose to prove my identity for acquiring an identification card. As there are no other existing thumb-prints (of mine) on record, there is absolutely no use for them.
Second, requiring a social security number proves nothing. Social Security cards have no check-bit number that can identify patently false or incorrect number combinations, so anyone can simply make one up (or, using a birth certificate, apply for a new social security card from the state).
As far as the cotton-swab thing, I would not have even pondered the situation further, had he thrown the swab directly into a trash bin or onto the counter. It's the fact that he bundled the paperwork together and took that along with the swab into the back room that fuels a conspiracy theory (yes, I'm being decidedly facetious here).
It sure is sad how nine little numbers, originally intended as nothing more than a method of tracking social security benefits decades ago, has developed into a universally consistant method of tracking you from the cradle to the grave.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Compliance with the standards is monitored by private organizations like the Bet ter Business Bureau Online, TRUSTe, or the American Arbitration Association, whi ch can then forward complaints to the Federal Trade Commission after their own i nvestigations. But will they? "In all practicality, that is never going to happe n," Reidenberg says. That is an extremely unlikely scenario."
Having TRUSTe guard ones privacy would be ridiculous. If I see a TRUSTe logo on a site, I doublecheck I have cookies/javascript turned off.
>It's the fact that he bundled the paperwork together and took that along with the swab into the back room that fuels a conspiracy theory
You can take it easy. If he didn't use gloves and didn't put it in a plastic envelope immediately it's contaminated and completely useless.
---------------
Fire Your Boss!
Looking with a hex editor will easily slurp out parts of text the editor thinks have disappeared for good. Any body or company should either ditch word if it has any pretensions of security or ensure that the stupid little fastsaved check in options is turned off
C.
I sometimes write stuff
This is probably the greater difference between Euro and US governments. European governments are more accountable to the people that elected them. And so their policies closer reflect what the people want. The result is the people are more supportive of government actions.
I am always amazed by the amount of (apparant) hostility that US citizens seem to display to their Government. Is this because they feel it's not their government at all?
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.
"that've led the vast majority of West Europeans to live in abject poverty"
Which bits of Europe have you actually visited to make this sweeping statement. Needless to say it simply isn't true.
Colour, Honour, Neighbour, Modularise, Polarise, Advertise, Realise, Centre, Theatre, Red Bus, Black Cab, Big Ben! Voilà. Eat that.
I'm Dutch, and the English I learned in school is British English, dispite the major language on Dutch TV being American English. At work I work with British people daily. And aside from that, the UK is a hell of a lot closer than the USA. So I speak and write British English. If you've got a problem with that, that's fine by me. Realise, however, that American English is only official in America. Wherever else you are, in Europe, Asia, Australia, Indonesia, if you are required to write English, you're required to write proper BRITISH English.
Please leave, and return when you speak as many languages as I do, as well as I do (Dutch, English, German, French).
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
The answer is simple: It's a "bad thing" if Russia (or anyone else) does it, but it's a "good thing" if the U.S. does it. Goodness and badness are always determined situationally.
As long as big business is allowed to buy and sell our polliticians, and as long as PAC's are allowed to spend unlimmited amounts of money on "issue" adds, this will never change. The American people, and privacy are an unpleasent NUSENCE at best to our current governement, which is too busy, enraptured by the almighty dollar, to pay attention to it's citizens most basic needs for relief of human suffering, much less privacy concerns online.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Exactly where in that article does it talk about the "US lagging behind Europe in privacy standards"? Doesn't it ever occur to the Slashdot crew that their may be reasons to have a less regulated Internet?
I'm not saying I agree one way or the other, only that editorializing in the headline is kind of irritating to this Slashdot reader. I can make up my own mind, thank you.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I saw a program on PBS not 5 minutes ago where a Symantec spokesperson was saying that online privace is really basically the responsibility of the users :)
...Oh, and we just happen to have a product for that...
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
I'm really sick of all the US {hype, vaporware} about "land of the free and home of the brave", "of/by/for the people", etc, when it actually ranks behind so many other nations in so many important ways, and our elected officials are always doing their darndest to set us further behind.
Whatever happened to the spirit behind the Bill of Rights?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That sure is a shock!
I had no idea, Europe Leads the US in online policy? What's next? Soon they'll be telling us that our form of government is imperfect?
On a side note, I watched a little C-SPan today, and in congress they were complain about the problems with the idea of 'free press' that they're having over there. One of the congressmen said that Russia was planning on monitoring all Internet traffic, as if that was some kind of "bad thing". I wonder where he was when Janet Reno et, al. proposed the exact same thing over here, multiple times.
Don't ever let anyone tell you that the US democracy isn't working to put the best interests of the people forward, because it just isn't true.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
So, while I'd like to see more privacy here in the US, I'd definitely not like to see more European economic schlerosis.
And don't think they have much privacy there either. Norway, for example, makes your income tax return public. Sure, companies can't use it, but they print it in the newspaper if it is interesting. I'm not kidding.
I assume the idea was so that they could use dogs to track down or identifiy specific people based on these databased scents, but there were probably even more sinister uses intended, I'm guessing (not that this wasn't sinister enough, but after all -- the Stasi were the ones who had a whole nation of people spying on each other).
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
For starters, it is only nine digits. That means that we'll run out of numbers just shy of the billionth record.
An SSN also has no check-bit. That is, VINs on an automobile have seventeen digits, but the seventeenth is used to verify the accuracy and legitimacy of the other sixteen. Without such an additional number in an SSN, it's very easy to just make up a number. Also, since numbers are not given out in specific birth order, there is no rhyme or reason to say "This person is 40 years old, but their SSN number's range suggests they should only be 25".
It's too bad the SSN has become such a massively unique identify -- but such a poor one. On one hand, I have a name. I'm not just some record in a database's table somewhere. But then again, I am. And sometimes I wonder if perhaps we should all just say "fuck it" and let people and governments document, track and video-tape us to death.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
But wouldnt it be even better if we could develop applications and network protocols that would garantee privacy?
The ideal, as I see it, would be a system that could garantee anonymity, or definate identifacation, in secure or insecure comunication.
One of the best examples is from the book, Database Nation. It seems that Equifax (as well as the other two major credit rating companies) will occasionally correct your report, only to buy "new" reports from other agencies and companies to keep their own records "up to date". But the reports they buy from the other companies have yet to be updated, so they end up reintroducing the originally false data again. The vicious circle repeats.
It's no wonder some of these middle aged suburban dudes end up shooting up fast food joints...
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
The blessing (and the curse) of the Internet is its ability to route around roadblocks. I see enforcement of these types of rules as an impossibility. Businesses will set up outside national borders and do whatever they want. If the US becomes more restrictive than they will move these data collection sites somewhere else.
"But in a wired world, it's a simple matter to send data to someone outside the EU, where those restrictions do not apply. So the directive, like many European privacy laws, includes a provision that prohibits sending personal information to countries that do not have "adequate" privacy protection. "
We will have to see how the battle between the nation and the corporation goes, but right now it looks like the corporations are winning.
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
The last comment makes no sense whatsoever. The U.S. government currently takes around 48% of all earnings. Scaling down the government and allowing people to keep more of their salary would cause "misery and hardship"?
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Thanks for the clarification. That said, I can't imagine it's any harder for an officer to conjure up "reasonable suspicion" in France than it is in the US.
"First, a fingerprint serves no purpose to prove my identity for acquiring an identification card. As there are no other existing
thumb-prints (of mine) on record, there is absolutely no use for them."
Lucky you,
When I was little (in the early '80) my mom took my to the local high school to have my prints put on file. She did this because there was some kind of campaign saying that it would help find me if I was ever kidnapped. To me that sounds like a load of bull. I'm sure it was just another way to help build up a file to track me with.
(Yes, I know I sound paranoid but sometimes that's not a bad thing)
- Apple Computer......proudly going out of business for over twenty years.
Seriously, for all the (understandable) bluster about privacy, we have not yet gotten to the point that online privacy isn't easy to have. Just like I don't want anyone to hack or flood my box, therefore I run a firewall (Black Ice), I don't want applications uploading info about me so I run an "internal firewall" called Zone Alarm which allows me to forbid any but permitted apps from sending packets. I don't want advertisers to track me with cookies, so I set cookie permissions through Junkbuster Proxy and have the added benefit of blocking ads altogether, plus quashing the "refer" and "user-agent" headers. I protect my "real" e-mail from spammers by having throw-away addresses for USENET and other public posts. If any website I visit demands a home address, and actually checks the validity of the address I enter, I pick a random name and address from an online directory (underhanded but it works)--otherwise I just write "fuck you" on every line of the form.
At first look that seems like it might be a lot of work, but it isn't. All of those applications are set up with a few clicks (even Junkbuster, text-based, has pre-made blockfiles available), and no detailed info is necessary--there is zero learning curve for the average Windows user. The trick is convincing the average windows user to install a few privacy-safeguarding firewall apps, to not accept or delete cookies from all but sites they want to give info to, and to submit false information to anyone who wants their address online. If people could be convinced to take similar safeguarding actions, then companies would cease to bother gathering such data in the first place. As I said, the trick is educating the public--the actual safeguarding of online privacy is quite easy, even for an average Win user.
The threat comes when even such simple safeguards as installing some software and not giving a real address can no longer work. Right now it takes minimal efforts to protect privacy, but it's foreseeable that companies will create ways of locking us in. If there's ever infrastructure to connect data about the ISP used by a particular address, for example, to visitors' IPs, it would make it more difficult to simply give false information to websites which demand addresses. Likewise, if every site demanded cookies and malfunctioned without them, it would be a bit more difficult to keep private although you could still keep cookies persisten on a per-session basis.
People are so pissed off about online companies trading information about consumers. But the real answer is educating consumers not to give up personal information in the first place, because then there's nothing for companies to trade. Doubleclick knows nothing about my online habits and never will.
The real threat is offline privacy, not online. Credit companies are evil, with intimate details of your buying habits available to them through non-Internet sources. Few people understand that when they sign up for a "club card" at a grocery store, every item they buy with it is recorded for posterity, from food to drugs to hygeine products. Few people realize that if they ever fail to pay a bill on time, even a magazine subscription or something else small it can linger in the files of credit bureaus for all time and fuck with their credit ten years down the line. Few people realize that their banks are required to report all sorts of sensitive financial data to the government thanks to laws purportedly designed to make it easier to force payments from deadbeat dads, but which apply to everyone with a bank account. Few people realize that the FBI knows exactly how many guns you own and what type (unless you bought them in a private sale), not for the public's protection but so that whenever the type of gun you own is outlawed they can knock on your door to collect it.
In short, worry more about privacy off-line than on-line. There are steps you can take online, but off-line you're fucked.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
He did spell it correctly, at least as far as non-US usage goes. Look it up in the OED. (Is it just me, or is this whole "grammar Nazi" thing getting old? Did anyone around here authori[sz]e spelling/grammar police for /.?)
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
\_^_/
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Seems like a touchy subject. But face it, it's a fact. It's about privacy of me and my neighbour, not about "less regulated internet".
The reason why US is lagging behind Europe on this matter is because the US government is hesitant to draw clear lines for the companies, to say that "this is unacceptable" and then enforce it somehow. So now the companies can just do anything to get a dollar.
wow, my first /. post :)
.. like .. McNally (hypothetical here of course) now how many Seumas McNally's you imagine there are? :) )
/. moderated interview of DB a few weeks earlier (in a encryption/privacy etc post) .. i 2nd that motion :)
the reason that SSN has become so necessary is that it has become a secondary "name"
take your name for example Seumas , not very common right? let's say your last name is
Dozens at least, and those are the ones currently living.
There must be a method of distinguishing between one "Seumas McNally" and the next, so some kinda GUID (Globally Unique Identifier, granted i stole the term from MS, but it's applicable here) is needed, which is a role that the SSN fills. And you have a name that's comparatively unique, take someone like "John Smith" on "Quan Lee" or "Siddig Singh" (or some other name that's culturally common). the problem is that it fills a dual role, it's not only a GUID it's a "passport" that not only proves who you are, it allows you access to define a persona.. these are mutually exclusive roles, what's needed is a secondary identifier.. eg, a number/letter combination that defines YOU, a GUID that's not given out to ANYONE (and one that's also COMPLETELY unique, ie odds of repitition somewhere in the area of 1 to 50 billion or so
i can't take credit for this idea, the ORIGINAL concept, afaik, comes from David Brin's
"The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?"
, which i am no doubt bastardizing HORRIBLY.
i recall a person saying we should have a
--
Einstein on Quantum Mechanics:"GOD does not play dice w/ the universe."
Hawking on Einstein:"GOD not only plays dice with the universe, he tosses them where we can't see the results."
--
Srivatsan Raghavan
machinshin@onebox.com - email
I take souls for Shai'Tan
- Programs sending data during the registration process (along with you real identity)...
- URL poisonning and other user-tracking techniques (among them, cookies attached to ad banners)
- Unique processor ID
- ...
Sadly, many of them are not only stories but also reality. But if you've the knowledge needed, you can bypass most of them... under Linux (or other unices) How?- By running a Squid cache which use an ad-zapper (so no ad cookies), an unpoisonning script and anonymizing some of your informations.
- By using Netscape (or other cookiefile-editing friendly browser) and going through your cookie file to remove the unwanted one
- By having several E-Mails, one of them on a free-mail system used only for potentially privacy-invading E-mail asking site
- By using Netscape+Fortify or Lynx+SSL to have high grade encryption for https
- By having firewalling rules that block all unwanted connexions (unlikely if you're under Linux/FreeBSD/... but may be useful if the Unix bos is masquerading connexions from MS Windows boxes)
- By making your E-Mail unfriendly to dumb E-mail grabbing program when you post on Usenet/forums
- ...
If you're careful enough, you may partially control what information you're giving away and limit the spreading of private information... but only limiting. People are making files about you even from he information in the PhoneBook (sorry, I don't know the exact wording in English) : from your first name, they can predict what age you're (i's not perfect but it's at least partially-working... There are modes even for the choice of children first-name !), from the place you live, they may try to determine how wealthy you're,I don't think that taking fingerprints is all bad. It is mostly used with criminals, that is true. OTOH fingerprints also are really unique and practically impossible to falsificate, so if they were used more widely, your personal documents (like ID and like) could not be used that easily by someone else. Someone could do your signature with a little training.
Yust my thoughts...
blurred
Here in the Netherlands we have the SOFI number, which is pretty much similar to the SSN that's used in the US. At first, it was meant only to identify people to their employers and to the fiscal services, but it has grown from there. Many other things require your SOFI number mentioned. Driving licences, passports, ID cards, banks, and lots of other companies, corporations, organisations and agencies require your SOFI number.
But they can't cross-reference their information with anything else anybody else has stored. Yes, the government stores employment and fiscal information, but only the government, fiscal agencies and your employer can get anything from there. Organisations don't require the SOFI number to cross-reference anything, but because it is a unique identifier that every person with a Dutch nationality has. Why would any organisation give their customers a unique identifier of their own, that their customers might lose or forget or that might cause other problems internally, when everybody already HAS a unique identifier that you can easily adopt to your own use?
And about phone numbers... Here it has been for a long time that there was only one phone company, owned by the government. That one phone company brought out one phone book - well, lots of phone books, assorted by region - with all numbers of everybody, and their addresses. You could also request to be listed differently, for example, to get a larger font, to be listed by a different name, or not to be listed at all, and all of that would cost you a rather arbitrary fee to cover the administration involved. So basically, if you knew somebody's name and location, you could find his/her phone number, but only if it was within your region, because you ofcourse only had a phone book for your region. Otherwise, you could call the information number to request their phone number, where they'd request the street address if there were more people with that specific name in that specific town. No real privacy issues there, imho.
The real privacy issues came with the "CDFoon Gids", the phonebook on CD. There was a little hack made named "foongrep" with which you could reverse search: find name and address when you have a phone number. Now THAT is a privacy issue...
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
while EU is multiple governments.
The problem with the US is that privacy laws are often dictated by big mega corporations (via their lobbies to your local congresspeople). Of course, the more the megacorps have info over your lives, the better!
In EU, it's harder for megacorps to exert such control because they have multiple govs to "lobby" (if even possible). So the privacy laws (or any laws) are often formed by consensus between govs, which is usually more pro-consumer (democratic govs have little to gain from knowing what the public fav. channels are...) than pro-business.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
It isn't just online, either. Let me review the most recent events that have really irritated me in this regard:
PG&E
I've recently moved and PG&E wanted my social security number, to turn on the electricity. I debated it and they very nearly refused to work with me, only giving in at the very end when I threatened to contact the utilities commission.
PacBell
Pacific Bell required my social security number to initiate phone service. I refused and, only after speaking with a manager, was allowed to decline. In addition, they required a fee for not publishing my name in the phonebook. And, to add further insult, asked if I would be willing to sign up for junkmail from them and their co-operative companies which "might be of interest". In other words, they want to sell my name and address and phone number to every dick trying to make a quick buck.
California DMV
The DMV was the worst experience. I wasn't even getting a license, but only a State ID. First, they required my social security number. It was my understanding that this could not be required of me. In fact, there are only very few agencies (all of them government agencies, other than your employer) who can require this. In fact, most government agencies are supposedly not allowed to require or request this information of you.
Not only did the DMV require it (the manager and supervisors told me I could leave if I refused to provide it and said that there was absolutely no possibility of ever getting an ID or license without this information -- which I'm not sure serves any honorable purpose other than just gathering data).
Second, they required that I sign my name with a stylus on a digital pad. I usually sign my name with a flared hash mark across the entire last name. The person manning this stylus told me the computer would not accept such overlapping signatures and that it would not be valid; do it again.
"Not valid?!" I asked, shocked, "How can it not be valid? That's how I sign my name!"
"Well, it won't accept it. Sorry," was the reply.
"Then the signature on my StateID will be invalid, because it isn't the signature I use everywhere else. Doesn't that invalidate the whole thing?"
Besides, since most people verify your signature by comparing it to the one on your ID card or license, this means that your real signature is no longer valid, thanks to the DMV!
Further, the digitized signature that was sent on my ID card six weeks later (another gripe, considering in Oregon, I can go in and have my card or license in my hand when I walk out fifteene minutes later), was nothing like my real signature, even without consideration of the flared hash that it should have had across it. It looked like some etch-a-sketch hack by a two year-old Pablo Picasso.
The final straw was just before I went to have my picture taken at the other end of the DMV office. They thumb-printed me. With a little digital scanner. I couldn't believe this was legal! What happens next year, they require a pinky print? Then an index finger? How in the hell is it that the police department isn't allowed to just require everyone in the world to provide prints, but the DMV can? And to say "well, don't get a license or an ID card" is rediculous. You can't cash a check, work anyone, or rent a video without ID.
And, last of all -- after providing a print, the guy behind the counter took a small one inch square cotton-like swab, wrapped cleaned off the scanner, and took the swab into the back of the office with my paper work.
Okay, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I'm not the avid ArtBell listener or anything, but this struck me as at least a bit odd. In one visit, you are basically giving them your address, work information, birth certificate, social security number, mother's maiden name, photograph, signature (that invalidates your real one?!), a thumb-print and DNA?
I'm probably crazy. My mind must have been overly imaginative that day. I mean, would my own government be hording all this information, including prints and DNA off in a massive archive somewhere? Surely, not.... *cough*
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
After AOL released paersonal information on that gay sailor to the US Navy, I just assumed that the US ISPs respected everyone's privacy. Utter anonymity can be both a gift and a curse. For the part, it is a mechanism for people to speak out without the fear of being recognized. Unfortunately, as we have seen here on Slashdot, it also allows people to antagonize others and can lead to crimes being perpetrated upon the people.
Of course, I bet Sealand has the best privacy of all nations.
Pax Digitalia
The alternative is opt-in, where you have to explicitly give them permission to use your private data. At least this offers the defense that you should have known what you were giving up. It may not be much, but it's a step.
In a world where so much is dependent on information, having the right to review someone's file on you is critical. Remember the story last week about the mistaken identity? This stuff happens. I'd rather that my insurance company triple my rates because someone with the same name has a history of liver disease. Or whatever. Let me choose.
Europe's standards are pretty decent. The ones in the US suck.
Such a surprise... are there any countries, barring the third-world or Communist ones, that don't have better online freedom than we Americans. "Land of the free?" We passed that one up a long time ago inexchange for the real American ideal -- money. Mabye someday we'll realize that money isn't everything. Monopolies will be defeated by an open source-empowered Internet, and we'll have real security. The government will become efficient and we'll spend less on security and more on social programs. Is that asking so much? Oh, probably...
I think that privacy concerns have been greatly exaggerated in the press, as I haven't heard of any major violations. The only complaints that I have heard were about targeted advertising, and they already do that on T.V. without any adverse effect. As long as corporations don't SPAM me or call me on the phone and ask to buy something (which most online companies don't do, and the ones that do NEVER will receive money from me based on my principles), I don't have much of a problem with it. Allowing them to make a little bit of money off of us through targeted advertising can allow many corporations to provide more free services, as most services on the internet, such as newspapers, gaming sites, search engines are.
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
Also read my note Secure Email Download with SSH on the Be Tip Server. While the tip is BeOS specific, the basic ideas work fine on other operating systems.
Of course, to download your mail via SSH, you'll need a hosting service that provides it at their end, which is why I recommend Seagull Networks. Note that if you upload content to your website with FTP, you're exposing your password to network sniffers. Seagull Networks allows you to use secure copy (scp) for this so your password remains secure.
Finally, I use the Linux Encrypting Kernel under Linux and PGPDisk under Windows to keep important personal info like my Quicken checkbook, and confidential business information like the source code I'm writing for my clients encrypted on my laptop so the theives won't have them if my computer is stolen.
With either one you can create a big file that when mounted with a passphrase is accessible like any ordinary filesystem. I have even found that I can run MPEG movies off a PGPDisks with no loss in playback quality on my laptop which has a 450 MHz Pentium III.
Finally read the Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems for significant discussions on privacy issues. It is available as comp.risks on the Usenet News and on the web at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/.
Do you think Microsoft takes care to protect your privacy when designing its products? Guess again.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Do you really want others to "Enforce" your privacy?
If it has to be strong-armed, do we really want it?
-KillerPenguin
-----------
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I!
The privacy laws don't prohibit having a phone list of friends or the like, so there's no concern for private persons. But the law clearly states that wehenever a company collects data about a person, the company is obliged to have the persons consensus. The person on which the data is collected has the right to know exactly which data is collected, what use the company makes of it, and the right to change it and to ask to be cancelled!
This works also well against spam: whenever I get unsolicited commercial e-mail from an italian company, I politely write back asking where they got my e-mail address from, what other data they have from me, and to immediately cancel my data from their database - otherwise I will sue them. I did it about a dozen times, and not a single time the companies complained: the sent me an excuse letter, cancelled my entry and told me where they got my e-mail address from: usually it was from Yahoo. So I contacted Yahoo Italia notifying them of the abuse many companies make of their e-mail lists. Soon after my complaint Yahoo Italia inserted a disclaimer in concordance with the law, which explicity prohibits using their data for sending spam...
Unfortunaltely when my e-mail appears in a spam-list of some US-company, I can hardly do anything to get rid of it, as the US don't protect someones privacy.
Italy also introduced digital signatures years ago, while the US is doing it only now.
Welcome to the future, dear USA!
ms
Not only is it hard to figure out what privacy means in a way that enhances your
privacy without ripping off mine,
but there's an inherent contradiction between the agencies in government who might benefit from
providing protection laws and most other agencies who are doing data collection,
which will resist any regulation that interferes with them requiring businesses and individuals
to use Social Security Numbers, Taxpayer ID numbers, and other centralized identifiers and databases that
the agencies need or want. The economics of computers and communication (cheap and getting massively
cheaper all the time) make private data correlation valuable and easy already, and with mandatory
use of common database keys (SSNs are great, but even telephone numbers or name+address work surprisingly well),
there's minimal incentive for businesses to structure their databases in ways that are hard to correlate.
European data privacy laws don't just control big annoying corporations in ways that
don't affect you - they also let governments into everybody's computers,
including yours and including corporations that have records on you.
In some countries, they make it illegal to keep databases of any kind of personal information online
unless you register them with the government.
Have you registered your online address book with them?
Or the email from your girlfriend with her phone number?
Or the mailing list for your anti-nuclear group
or your church
or your football team
or your anarchist literature-and-beer-drinking society?
There's a good article on
Swedish network regulations
- the early ones banned computer conferencing systems,
because they were on computers, and might have discussions including the names of
participants, or their religious or political views, etc.
They've calmed down a bit, but not enough.
In some countries, including Sweden and the US, it's safer if you're a journalist,
because there are press freedom laws protecting the privacy of journalists' work.
Of course, in Cyberspace, everybody can be a journalist.
You've probably got Journalistic Works In Progress, which have special legal protection, on your home computer, haven't you?
......... No? Well, then go write some!
However, it's not safe
to be a journalist everywhere.
On the bright side, if European Data Protection Laws don't let you keep personal records, your anonymous remailer really can't go keeping logs, can it?
(Most of this rant is on my web pages.)
David Brin has written a lot of stuff about privacy, particularly
The Transparent Society, about how the economics of surveillance, cheap cameras, and databases are unstoppable, so give up and focus on the important issue, which is making sure the public can watch the government so it behaves itself. I don't agree with it all, but he makes a lot of good points.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If the people in the US think their situation is bad, they should see what law is going to pass thanks to English Government. RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers, making an appropiate acronym) is a law on the final step to be approved, and it may a reality the 5th of October.
With this law, the Government will have access to every email and other crypted communications to be able to control "delictive activities". ISPs will have to control all their traffic and grant access to that data to the GTAC, the new center of the secret service.
This is scary because things like this tend to be copied from one country to another in Europe.
Contrary to what a lot of people think, the US Constitution provides no explicit right to privacy. The few existing privacy laws are an amalgam of the prohibitions on "unreasonable search and seizure" and "self-incrimination."
The Boston Phoenix had a very interesting article recently on how to deal with this. For instance, sexual harassment could be considered an "invasion of privacy" instead of a "hostile work environment" (aren't they all?).
Put my clarinet beneath your bed 'till I get back in town.
US citizens have a much higher level of protection from their own government (e.g., nothing more than the sig of a managing police officer needed for a wiretap in France).
False. Wiretaps are actually classified in two categories:I see nothing in this talking of a managing police officer; if a managing police officer did as you said, he'd be liable for prosecution (wiretapping outside of the above conditions is a felony).
Please check your information before posting.
This is a guy who puts his dreams, resume, and personal stories up on his website.
Maybe it's all made up, if you read something from his public CV, it's less probable you are going to check it elsewhere, and then dicover the horrible truth.
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
This is take from the CNN article:
That seems like every American's dream: No longer can telemarketers harass you with surveys or special long-distance offers during dinner time, no longer will you get junk mail where you have to suscribe to a magazine to guarantee your chance of winning $1,000,000, a new Ford Explorer, or a "Diamond-Style" Ring (one guess as to what I won). But... Where's the flipside? The flipside is that your choice, between the US and the EU, is the following:
The truth is that there's lots of paperwork that everyone has to go through if you live in a European government, regardless of whether you are an individual citizen or a corporation. For example, here's what you have to do if you want to customize your car in Germany (bad examples of custom cars can be found here):
After you get your changes done, you have to go to the local TÜFF (basically the local DMV) and get an inspector to look over all the changes. Then, he gets to decide whether they are alright or not (they've denied such simple things as tailpipes and spoilers). If these changes are OK, then you get to acquire a new license, that states the changes on your car and that you're allowed to drive a car with such changes (we're talking 7% tinted windows or Saleen Mustangs here, not add-on rockets).
There's frequent road stops looking out for modded cars, and yes, they pull you over, and make sure each change is on your license. If it's not, off to the TÜFF you go, and expect one of the following to occur:
Now, I realise this isn't exactly 'internet privacy'... I just want to show an example of the overbearing style these governments choose to use. This doesn't just apply to modded cars in Germany, of course. Taxes, health care, education, everything is weighed down by a form-happy bureaucracy. I don't think that for certain people this is bad, nor do I say that the US is better than the EU or vice-versa.
I'm just trying to point out that there's pros and cons that you have to take if you want privacy. Personally, I'd rather get called by a telemarketer than pulled over because I got wider tires, but that's a personal choice.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
man, CNN is just stating the obvious. To give an idea on what is happening with online security/privacy on the internet, I'll give you some background on the NSA. The National Security Administration has banned export of strong cryptography - so they can read what people are sending. The NSA does not reveal any cryptanalytical weaknesses that they find. They make their hardware encryption devices tamperproof, so you can't see that they have put in a backdoor. As technology and organizations like the NSA evolve, privacy will just get worse and worse.
> America is run by a bunch of pussies.
No, cigars.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yeah, well, trust the New Left to patch that and other irksome incompatibilities between the European and American business, I mean political, models. I wonder what pathetic travesty the socio-prostitutes in power will come up with next. So many ills, so little time to undo a century of anti-competitive laws that've led the vast majority of West Europeans to live in abject poverty unfathomable in a country where the market reigns supreme.