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?
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.
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".
Last month, while I was crashed at work under my desk (it was one of those long days followed by a longer night), my laptop bag was stolen. What was in it? Well, aside from $900 in cash, software, some laptop related hardware, personal effects (no laptop, since that was plugged in and on my desk!), there was the following list. And before anyone talks about how dumb I was to have all this stuff out in the open, keep in mind that this was a day before our entire building's occupants was moving to a campus in another city and that I had dumped everything in this bag for safe keeping and ease of transport. Also, it was less than three feet away from me when it was stolen, but I was asleep. Finally, I was in the second floor of a completely empty, huge building and the only people ever to venture through were the night security guards, which wandered through once or twice until morning.
Anyway, the list:
- Social Security Card
- State ID Card
- HMO Card
- Medical documents
- SecureID's (encryption card for online access of our VPN -- one for each company division that I work with).
- Badges with my photos and employee numbers on them that allow me entry into every building on the campus.
- Two CD-Rs with every email and ICQ message ever sent or received by me, including many personal documents from medical information to intimate items between a (now ex) girlfriend of mine.
Thankfully, the data contained on the CD-R's were encrypted with two types of high-level algorithms and, additionally, archived in ZIP files with a 50 character password.But, as the police officer stated as soon as I filed the report, "Looks like someone has enough info to completely steal your identity..."
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
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
"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
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
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
Freedom of speech and "Privacy rights" don't work together. You can have one, or you can have the other. But not both. The word "Privacy" doesn't appear in the constitution, not once (you have the right to be secure in your papers, etc).
As much as you have a "right" not to have the government search your home without a warrant, big corps have a right to record the information that is generated when people use there servers. If you don't want someone to know you look at porn, don't go to their porn server.
"Privacy" and "Freedom" are two different things. Was it Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin who said "Those who give up Freedom for a little security end up with neither."
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
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
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.)
--
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
There is a further distinction between divulging one's own chosen material and the divulging of finger prints, medical history, SSN and other very private information. Nobody ever had their identify stolen from reading a dream, but they've had it stolen from acquiring an social security number and a little prior history.
People need to understand that privacy does not suggest non-existance or reclusiveness; walking in the shadows and avoiding attention. Privacy is the ability to choose what, when, how and to whom you reveal information that is legally and/or rightfully yours. If someone posts personal stories or dreams about you online, or puts them in a magazine, that is an invasion of your privacy. Doing so yourself is not, as it is a choice you have made.
Likewise, being required to offer a fingerprint and SSN for an identification card or having to pay someone not to publish your information (such as your phone number in a phone book, which sounds like a degree of extortion to me, however minimalistic) is to have that afforded privacy brutally treaded upon.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
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.'
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
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
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
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
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
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*
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
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!
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