Slashdot Mirror
Sen. McCain Introduces Privacy Bill
Manjit writes: "An article on Yahoo! reports that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has
introduced an
Internet Privacy Bill
which would require Web sites
to disclose how personal information will be used. I'm not really
much for government regulation but I think that the privacy problems
will not be resolved without laws forcing businesses to safeguard personal data. My favorite quote from the article: 'The bill would enable consumers to sue Web sites who violate the bill's agreements to sue for up to $22,000.' This would be great! The best way to get businesses to follow the rules is to hit their bottom line if they don't."
The actual bill text isn't available online yet (I think it'll show up here), so I'd be remiss to start evaluating it. I also don't see anything yet at EPIC.
Keep in mind that McCain is the same senator who in January 1999 introduced a bill to withhold e-rate funds from schools and libraries who did not install censorware. That bill's stalled, but he introduced an amendment last month with the same idea. The government giveth with one hand and taketh away with t'other.
They'd be well off dropping the 'Internet' part of this concept and go w/ all business w/in the US. So any business in the US is liable to any of it's customers, foreign or domestic, if they are unfaithful in their privacy statement.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
After the lobbyists get to this bill, they'll flip the parity bit and BUSINESSES will have the right to sue CONSUMERS if they provide false information on online registration forms. (See also: electronic signatures; UCITA.)
I really, really wish I could post this as a joke, but I've seen too many bills that looked good initially, and during initial debates, become horrific monsters when someone made a one word change. E.g., a bill that requires landlords to provide minimum standards as a "floor" (e.g., basic habitability like water, sewer, heat, electricity) became a monster when someone changed that word to "ceiling" - making all leases that guaranteed anything nicer than a hovel unenforceable!
(And sadly, Colorado really did need to have a state law that guaranteed apartments would have running water and flush toilets. An "oversight" intended to protect remote mountain cabins was being exploited by some urban slumlords.)
In either case, this will definitely be a bill to watch. Esp. since Congress has already passed several last-second easter-egg amendments during the past few years.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
McCain, after his (sadly) failed presidential run, is arguably the senator with the highest profile in the whole nation, and probably has the ability to pull this off, especially since it is sponsored by three other senators, two Ds and an R.
.com/org/net, which the US retains some control over. And those are the vast majority, but there are other domains out there. I wonder if they can make it stick at the consumer end, ie if the /customer/ is American, the law applies.
Thing is, how applicable is this going to remain? All web sites hosted in the US, probably. Arguably all
--
Communication is only possible between equals
Everyone always brings up the (valid) point that the Internet spans international borders. However, US law applies to any company or individual doing business in the US. Just because a company co-locates it's servers in Switzerland does not give them any protection from US law. If their money goes through any US bank, you can sue them and put a lein against their US accounts - so even having a Swiss bank account isn't going to save their bacon.
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
The only was is to have introduce statutory damages and attorney fees. That is, even if you can show no damages, that it is assumed that there is $X in damages.
This type of damages are needed in privacy act legislation,credit reporting legislation, and SPAM legilation.
Otherwise, they will say, well, we know it's illegal, but they can't prove it was our false report that caused damages.
Fight Spammers!
According to them, it's OK if sites violate their privacy policy and collect personal information as long as they don't use the web to do it...
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
I think this mainly shows how politicians just don't get it still. They think of the net in terms of it only being American. They are dead wrong and foolish, as usual. More importantly, our government has what I like to call the Anti-Midas touch - what ever they put thier hands on, turns to shit. This will be no different.
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Reading Jamie's link, I can't help ROFLMAO. Only in Washington would a man be able to introduce a bill with the designation "S.97" that goes by the Short Title of "Children's Internet Protection Act".*
I trust McCain et. al in exactly the same way I trust a hungry wild dog: I won't shoot him as long as he's keeping the rats away, but when he starts offering to babysit I get uncomfortable. There are some things I just don't need his help with.
Although I like the idea of being able to sue people who misuse my personal information, I wouldn't be surprised if the title of this bill is misleading. McCain is good enough to get away with fooling most of the people most of the time. For instance, the much publicized Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which the general populace accepted as panacea, does absolutely nothing to reform campaign finance except allow larger PAC contributions and allow employees to opt out of labor union contributions they don't agree with. And does anyone -really- believe children are protected by censorship?
Calling this bill a Privacy Bill is falling into the exact same trap. It will not create any true standards of privacy. Instead, it will create the illusion of privacy, where non-US web sites can still use your information however they want and US web sites need only say "We sell your info to the highest bidder(s)" in blinking size 3 Tacoma font at the bottom of the page. Beneath the TrustE logo.
Rev Neh
*Yes, I know the real "long" titleof S.97.
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been