Slashdot Mirror
U.S. vs. Europe on Online Privacy
A lot of the blame for the misreporting falls on the authors of the study. They described their study as "An international comparative study of consumer privacy on the internet", when in fact it was nothing of the kind.
One of the major problems facing pro-privacy activists today is a certain type of corporate spin. Major advertisers in the U.S. have created a PR campaign whose goal is convincing people that notice about how your privacy is being violated (typically buried in a dozen pages of fine legal print) is more important than actually having privacy. The PR campaign is designed to push the idea that a privacy policy is what is really needed, not actual privacy. Of course, the privacy policy can say anything: "You have no privacy when dealing with this website" is a perfectly valid privacy policy. A privacy policy which says, "We keep all your information private", when in fact the company sells everything it knows about you to the highest bidder, is also a perfectly valid (though untruthful) privacy policy. So the existence of a privacy policy says absolutely nothing about the actual privacy afforded. Indeed, since privacy policies are written to protect the company, not you, the existence of a privacy policy is a good clue that this is a company which intends to violate your privacy. If you don't collect information from visitors to your site, you have no need for a privacy policy.
So it's embarrassing to see "consumer" organizations take a study of privacy policies and call it a study of privacy. It says to me that either they're strapped for resources (studying privacy is much harder than studying privacy policies) or that they're being dishonest. Occam's Razor suggests the first. But the results are harmful to their cause I think - they end up promoting the idea that privacy policies = privacy. This roughly similar to the idea that good brochures equal good vacation spots, or that good signage on the outside of a hospital equals good medical care inside.
Honestly: if someone did a study of hospitals by walking around them and examining the posted signs, and called it "An international comparative study of medical care", it would immediately be seen for a fraud.
Methodology is important. No study is useful without the proper methodology to support its conclusions, and in this case few methods to study privacy were actually employed. The researchers didn't, for example, actually audit any companies, actually going on-site and interviewing people to see what was actually done to data that was collected. The only useful conclusion drawn out of the study is that the large popular European sites were less likely than large popular U.S. sites to have posted privacy policies - quite possibly because, due to the fairly strict European rules covering the use of personal data, those European sites do much less privacy-violating than U.S. sites and therefore have much less need to post privacy policies. (And the European sites aren't involved in the U.S. PR campaign run by U.S. advertisers, either.)
The study is not awful. The researchers actually did some minimal verification - checking to see whether "do not mail" actually results in not getting spam mail from a company, for instance. (They encountered several cases where they received advertisements even though they had indicated they didn't want any - Ebay users will be familiar with this practice.) But most of the study was based on examining privacy policies.
Possibly the best way I can describe the study is this way: If a company did not collect any information from visitors, did not sell it to marketers, and in general respected its visitors' privacy - but didn't have a privacy policy spelling that out, in great detail - it would receive a poor grade from this study. This is fundamentally wrong - the organizations intending to protect privacy have forgotten the forest for the trees.
And IMHO they're full of shit, wherever they are.
However, if a British consumer group finds that America has better privacy measures, it may be motivated by desire to improve privacy policy in UK, rather than to let US feel complacent.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Here in the states there is a quiet debate about e911 services - the ability to locate and track any cell phone that is on. The ability to determine who is at a meeting in the proximity of whom. Divorce lawyers are foaming at the mouth to get this. This is being done in the name of 'public safety' whereby the police would be able to find you if you had an emergency, blah blah blah. At any rate we hear the same empty policy statements: "we won't sell the information to anyone, we won't give it up in bulk without a subpoena, it's protected, woof woof woof" But since the Republicrats have moved larger and larger portions of the implementation and execution of public policy to private enterprise there are few if any controls and no incentive whatsoever to comply with even that fluffing. You will be tracked you will be recorded.
> If the US government tried to implement that,
> we would be kicking and screaming about
> government control of the Internet,
Erm... In Europe the governments know who is collecting data and for which purposes, but they do NOT have access to those data. And if you're about to collect sensitive data (about religion, politics beliefs, sexual practices...) you need to obtain a special authorization: they check what uses you'll do with that data.
Moreover, the company that collects data is responsibile for them, so that even if these data "accidentally" leak to someone else, the company is responsible for what happens.
We don't have privacy policies, we have privacy LAWS.
Ciao,
Rob!
AniToolBox! An Open Source animation program!
It depends on your definition of "won" and "lost."
If your definition is, who was legitimately chosen by the American people, then according to the presse's recount, Gore won Florida handilly by any recount standard (save that which allows only machine recounts and thereby propogates systemic errors such systems entail, with no possible check or balance).
The Usurper, George W. Bush, is in office because of a supreme court willing to throw the constitutional process to the wind in order to pay back political favors 7 of the 9 justices owed the Republicans in general and the Reagan/Bush/W faction in particular.
By the "democratic" definition George W. Bush and the GOP lost, resoundingly.
Now, if you define victory as he who assumes power by whatever means then, yes, The Usurper won, just as Milosevic won (until recently), just as Stalin won, just as Idi Amin won.
The problem with accepting such a nondemocratic outcome without complaint is that it encourages future such actions by one or the other party. It is important for us, the people (who were the only real losers in the last election), to be in the Usurper's face, to call him such to his face and make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that we know what he did, that he is illegitimate, and that he'd better not even think of trying to shove his right wing agenda down our unwilling throats unless he wants to face widespread, vocal, and disruptive discontent.
The alternative is to encourage both parties to rely on increasingly undemocratic means to subvert the electorial process, until the behavior becomes so outrageious and so eggregious that people do rise up in violent reaction, which is the last thing any sane mind would want. Far better to voice our discontent loudly now and strongly discourage any such future behavior on the part of either party.
Be sheeple and lose your democracy, be a vocal, nominally free citizen, and at least you have a chance, however small, of preserving it.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Cauliflowered ears, burst eyes - it's a regular thing.
And this is something to be proud of? It's just as inane and idiotic when the europeans sacrifice the use of their bodies for a game as when americans do it.
This is like watching two morons debate who is the stupider of the two.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
So rather than blaming Clinton for the illegal things that we know he did, like lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice; rather than blaming Clinton for being a total self-serving piece of shit who possibly broke the law for soliciting contributions from foreign governments and a quid pro quo to his multi-millionaire supporter - you choose to blame the Republicans.
No. I blame Clinton and the GOP for different things in all those. Except the topic that I was talking about, the quid pro quo to the millionaire. In that case it is exclusively the realm of the GOP that deserves blaim for wasting my tax dollars as even Rabid Right Wing Ideologue Dan Burton admits that there was absolutely no hint of a crime being commited.
Don't let your obviously extreme bias lead you to conclusions that are baseless with regard to what I was actually chatting about.
--
No can do. The docket is full of meetings discussing whether Clinton should have pardoned a multi-millionare supporter.
It doesn't appear to matter that the pardon cannot be revoked and Clinton did nothing illegal, only immoral. Good to see our tax dollars spent on what we are interested in, eh?
It's like the GOP is trying to shoot themselves in the foot this time.
--
Here in the U.S., no such legal recourse exists.
Actually that is incorrect. If a company places a privacy statement in their advertising, and fails to adhere to it they become liable under US commercial codes for breaking a contract with thier customers. The FTC regularly fines companies that engage in such practices.
The point the study was making was that, just because there are better privacy laws in France, the fact that web site companies abuse these laws means there is still less privacy at some of these sites.
To quote from the consumer report:
"A special opt-out procedure that seems to
appear on many French websites raised an
interesting point. The procedures made it very
cumbersome for consumers to act on their right
to opt out of mailing lists. Several of the sites
tested did not provide the usual method of
opting out of further emails - by ticking a
certain box, for example, while placing an
order. Instead, at some point during the
transaction, the sites alerted consumers,
although rarely in a prominent place, to their
rights under Article 36 of the French
Information & Liberty Law of 1978. In order to
prevent a company from using the consumer's
information or from sending him or her further
information in the future, it is necessary to
send a postal letter to the company. This was
the case with the sites www.lalibrairie.com and
www.avecbebe.com. The two French sites
www.rouge-blanc.com and www.nature-bio.
com, notably did not make a reference to
this law on their websites, nor did they
provide opt-out choices."
What the consumer organization is saying is that until European governments actually enforce the laws they have, the laws provide no more privacy than US web sites are providing, despite US web sites operating in a nation with fewer relevant regulations.
I hope someone in France takes rouge-blanc and nature-bio to court for a significant penaly in a well enough publicized case that web sites begin to take the privacy seriously.
Here in the U.S., no such legal recourse exists.
Sure there is... if a company violates its privacy policy you have every right to sue them.
I like the US policies better anyway. Let the market decide how valuable your privacy is. If you have Store A and Store B selling the same product and A has a strong privacy policy and higher prices and B has cheaper prices and a weak privacy policy, why shouldn't people have the ability to make this tradeoff?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
People who winge and moan and CCTV cameras are obviously either, paraniod, have something to hide, or just plain stupid.
The irony here is that you, in all probability, have no clue why this statement alone provides all the reasoning for not having 24x7 cctv monitoring in public spaces. While I also have nothing to hide, what I am more concerned with is that my opposing cctv monitoring will have all the 'Right Thinking' groupthink types classifying me as a paranoid, criminal or a moron.
When I enter a private space I know that I know that I am likely to be monitored. This is the price I, and others, pay upon entering someone else's space. But I draw the line whenever I am in a public space. I also know that high crime areas benefit from the inclusion of cctv monitoring and I agree with the temporary installation of those devices in those areas. After all, there are only so many police available. But to monitor everywher all the time is much too close to a police state to be reasonable.
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
One of the major problems facing pro-privacy activists today is a certain type of corporate spin. Major advertisers in the U.S. have created a PR campaign whose goal is convincing people that notice about how your privacy is being violated (typically buried in a dozen pages of fine legal print) is more important than actually having privacy. The PR campaign is designed to push the idea that a privacy policy is what is really needed, not actual privacy.
If the company is honest about what they intend to do with my data, I have no complaints. If I don't like it, I'll simply take my business elsewhere. I imagine, given the litiguous climate in the US, that consumers could easily sue in response to a violation of a stated privacy policy.
What does bother me is when the government forceably gathers information from me. Businesses I can choose to avoid, but the government has guns.
I live in France, I OWN my personnal datas (I can ask any company owning some to delete it or not resell/give it). I can sue any company not following this guideline.
Except that it isn't a "guideline" it's the law of the land.
Thus any "privacy policy" would be either stating "we obey the law" (redundant) or trying to come up with some creative language to justify breaking the law...
If the US government tried to implement that, we would be kicking and screaming about government control of the Internet, and make instant comparisons to China.
...on the other side of the ocean.
I moved from Sweden to the US five years ago. It's funny how at both sides of the Atlantic a lot of people are sick of their oppresive country, and yearn for the freedom and decency of the opposite side.
I don't find Swedens privacy record impressive at all. The government demands to know pretty much everything about your life, and it's not afraid to use that information. Many of it's employees also have access to a lot of it.
How about this: In Sweden, your tax return is public information, with your entire income, where it came from as well as that HIV treatment deduction. I could go on.
There is also a law on computer registers, which makes most web sites illegal, since people's names are not allowed to be stored there. It is of course ingored and laughed at. Not too dissimilar from the scenario where a company ignores it's own privacy policy.
Personally I prefer companies to abuse my info than the state. At least they can't put me in jail based on it.
I also doubt that these online privacy measures, however nice they might be in theory, will work in any serious way. After all, information wants to be free.
Are we honestly expected to believe the privacy policies of people who have signed the paychecks for people who were convicted of espionage? Yes, I'm referring to just about every national government on earth.
I am !amused.
Ok, to take the easiest example to blow you out of the water...If MS retain the ability to get every manufacturer who wishes to ship any MS software to pay for a windows licence for each processor (and hence 90% of machines+ ship with Whistler) and they track all the world's Whistler's users data and sell it and statistics from it you are going to tell me that good old US competition is going to sort it out? The question is what should be regulated and what should not, and the laws of rhe real world should apply, i.e. this is equivalent to building a tracking device into all Cars and reselling that data and should be regarded as spying or stalking.
If your legal system does not provide any level of defence you must read every single piece of fine print on every site to discover if you agree with their policies or not AND checkup against an external source to find out if they honour them and any history. I'd rather spend my time surfing the net knowing that I have a level of privacy by default (at least on servers/companies who I know are under a suitable legal system).
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
The problem with the entire privacy argument is that both sides have trouble understanding each other AND like many important issues cases are easily conceived that clearly support either side.
To address the particular cases you quote, I would fear for the privacy of the area locals if the police installed CCTV. The aims for using the system would be noble and true, however the poliemen would be prone to spend more time watching the cameras and more time busting people "we know are up to no good" for anything they catch them on camera doing (e.g. loitering because their is nothing to do!). When they see people walking home drunk, wearing a "legalise it"/DeCSS T-Shirt or even just meeting another group of people to exchange something and then walking away they will start to look at them as possible suspects. Their privacy has been invaded although all they have done is A: taken advantage of licensed premises adding plenty to the public coffers; B: Visibly used their right to free expression or C: Seen an old friend and exchanged business cards. When I am out in public I expect to be caught for any crimes I commit which are not victimless and that I still have my fundamental civil liberties e.g. a policeman cannot stop and search me randomly or routinely or even stand there and watch/follow me for an hour randomly or routinely....he needs a reason.
In the case of the Swiss protection for prostitutes, one must only ask what footage will be shown if any VIP walks down that street or talks to someone. If the area is simply a "shopping mall" than I think CCTV is appropriate. However if it is public streets which are used nefariously (or even legally if that's Swiss law) alternative solutions should be found, by whatever means necessary. If not, you better watch out and think carefully about anything you do as it may be shown back and used against you and context is a hard thing to prove!
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Sorry, but its only a matter of time before Pacman, Defender et al work their way into the olympics! :)
Let's be honest here, American football has a lot more force involved than rugby. I mean, put your best rugby team against any professional American football team in either game, and they'd be hurt pretty bad. Just a size/strength issue, which is why we wear the armor...
--
I know it sounds confusing, but if you didn't wear armour, you wouldn't need it to defend yourself. As players use stronger armour, players need stronger armour to defend themselves!
It's not about the armor; it's the size, strength, and weight. The armor has gotten stronger over the years because it simply as had to. The average linemen in pro football weighs well over 300 lbs, stands a good deal over 6 feet, and is expected to benchpress around 400 lbs. Without the armor you'd see a couple of deaths each season. Hell, I've watched rugby, and I've watched American football, there's no comparison in the scale of force involved.
--
Last time I looked in the back of my PC, I saw that all the components came from Taiwan, Korea and China, not the USA.
They were designed in the US; other countries just cloned them.
It took a Finn to develop the greatest software, and the "second in command" is a Brit! (Alan Cox).
UNIX was invented in the US too; the Finns and Brits just cloned it too.
--
People often complain that the information obtained over the web is, on average, less reliable than that obtained through traditional media. Perfectly true, but traditional media is not without glib oversimplifications, garbled data, misleading factoids, reporters with questionable objectivity, and simple self-serving lies. One hopes that being exposed to diverse, contradictory sources of information will make people more critical of their sources and less subject to manipulation.
__________________
(Better) Regulations in the EU are needed because markets aren't competitive, so companies can screw the consumer at their pleasure. You're missing the fact that in the US the market (at least in principle) should take care of selecting companies with preferred privacy policies. Even without regulations, companies that screw too much with denying privacy will (should) be selected out. So it is true that privacy policies in the US is voluntary but it is also true that companies have to keep an eye at not pissing consumers off too much. Hence the result, from personal experience, that you have more protection in the US than in europe even without explicit government regulations.
Especially after reading this in which Richard Stallman explains how a law put itself above the individual rights in Britain.
So, how can we ask a state to protect its citizens' privacy if it doesn't recognize it as a right?
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
> So, instead of creating a possibility of distraction for the > childs and spending more money for policemen, they wanted to > install cameras to monitor everybodys movements. Nobody did want to become policeman in this area. > What a direct and senseful approach for a social problem. > The crime rate doubled for what reasons? > Because they didn't installed the cameras? Not exactly : The young understood that they had won : Nobody would monitor them and no cop would come. It had become an outlaw district. So, the crime rate increased because they felt "allowed" to play even more. > Cellulars are a greater risk for privacy, unlike walking in > public, you mustn't use them. We agree on this point. Good. > Monitoring everybody in public places is a restriction on > others liberty. It is public and the one who monitors does it for public purposes. It is contextually okay, IMHO. > I fear robbery less than the loss of privacy and > self-determination. Look around you : You already lost it, and they manged to implant in your brain the opposite feeling. > Not that the latter is more possible, but You might have heard > of the person in GB whose suicide was recorded by a > surveillance camera and broadcasted on tv. No, i don't have the television. I nver listen to faits-divers, I lived enough among them. > AFAIK, the only result of installing cameras has been that > criminality has migrated to other areas were no cameras were > installed. So ? At least some epicenters were dilluted, weren't they ? > Maybe you should read George Orwells "1984". Will it change my life or make me optimistic ?
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
- The Human Rights Act
- The Data Protection Act. In particular, our Data Protection Registrar has promised to prosecute any bosses that contravene the DP act under the auspices of the RIP act. Your privacy is safe with her.
As far as privacy goes, this is a consumer-oriented study, so really it's more about what businesses will do with your information, under the juristiction of the Data Protection act. The RIP act is more about MI5 spooks trying to snoop on you from the comfy chairs in GCHQ.Does my bum look big in this?
A privacy policy which says, "We keep all your information private", when in fact the company sells everything it knows about you to the highest bidder, is also a perfectly valid (though untruthful) privacy policy.
What they mean is "We keep all your information private" as in private property . That is, we'll sell it, not publish it.
-Craig
--
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
The problem is fairly simple, actually. Citizens of the EU, and to a lesser extent Canadians, have more legal rights to privacy, with the minor exceptions of the UK and Turkey, than do citizens of the USA.
But most major websites in the USA practice better privacy due to consumer pressure and our continual willingness to sue over anything, whereas EU corporations have fewer problem customers to deal with.
This will change over the next three years, as Bush loosens privacy regulations and enforcements, while the EU cracks down on such abuses.
So, to sum up: you get more perceived privacy today in the USA, but over the next few years you'll get more real privacy in the EU.
Canadians, of course, will get the best of both worlds. Luckily for me I'm a dual citizen of both Canada and the USA, so I can sue like an American badger to enforce my Canadian rights on American sites.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
I have been very fortunate in having had the chance of living in several different countries. So far I can say that, based on experience, privacy is better safeguarded in European countries.
I think the two countries where I lived and where privacy was part of the national agenda were Leichtenstein and Switzerland. I have become very disillusioned with the state of affairs in the US when it comes to this fundamental right. The Americans could learn a lot from the Swiss.
As for privacy on-line, we must all be proactive in protecting it. Some things I routinely do:
I think that, bottom line, being street smart about your wanderings on- and off-line is the best protection for your privacy. Don't disclose any information that isn't compulsory.
Cheers!
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
It's time for the U.S. Congress to debate the privacy issue and make some real reforms.
There is really nothing to debate, from the point of view of either the people or congress.
We the people know we should have privacy, and that the practice of selling our personal data without our explicit permission (for each and every sale individually) should be illegal, with penalties containing some real bite, including heavy fines and jail time for the offendors. There is really little if anything to debate.
Likewise, on the congressional side, members of both parties have whored themselves out to their campaign contributors (not just their personal campaigns, but to those who contribute large sums of soft money to their party's funds). Present among these in no small number are the very firms who make so much money at our expense, selling our privacy at wholesale rates to whomever comes their way. So there is nothing for them to debate: they aren't going to turn around and screw those who pay them so well.
Now, there is reason for a boistrous debate between congresses position and that of the people, but alas, since congress makes the laws, and the people have such a short attention span that they need have little fear of voter backlash for ignoring us, it is unlikely that the poeple would win such a debate in anything more than an abstract and theoretical way.
The only thing government truly fears are masses in the street, protesting, day after day, week after week. The only reason they fear this is because such actions represent the clearly implied threat of "shape up or face a toppled government or, worse, armed revolt."
Unfortunately, we the American people have been indoctrinated for thirty years that protesting is "stupid," "uncool," "pointless," "ineffective," and even "counter productive." None of this is true, of course, but it is almost universally beleieved. This makes it hard to get people on the street for issues they do care about in large numbers. Doing so day after day, week after week, for a period long enough to effect real change in policy, has become next to impossible.
Add to that that both The Usurper and his erstwhile opponent, Al Gore, as well as our previous president, Bill Clinton, all persue equally reprehensible policies when it comes to encryption, privacy, search and seizure, and consumer rights in general. While the Usurper is shoving his right wing agenda down our collective throats and taking actions which will probably ignite a new cold war and thereby benefit the bottom line of numerous defense companies who have him in their pocket (against the express will of the American people as the, mostly unreported, press conducted recount has demonstrated), it should be noted that, with respect to the issues most important to the technical community, such as privacy, freedom of speach, and intellectual property, Ralph Nader was indeed correct in saying that the only difference between Al Gore and The Usurper is the speed with which their knees hit the ground when in the presence of their corporate paymasters.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Spamm is prohibited in Spain, the regular ticket (how do you say, fine?) is about u$s 50.000 if a company is found guilty.
Also, any video camera that is located in public areas must be registered, approved and controlled by goverment agencies. Companies have a short period of time for keeping those videos or images, they have to be destroyed after the time has expired.
I don't know how this works in USA, but according to the amount of USA companies' spamms I am receiving every day, I don't believe USA is more "sensitive" than Europe regarding with privacy issues.
Try registering yourself in some large USA companies with a fake name (or in some conferences), and wait for a couple of hours before receiving new spams directed to that fake name.
--ricardo
sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
I lived in some districts in which young people usually feel bored and will burn any car on the parking in order to have some fun.
Once, the firemen came and the car's tank exploded while they were extinguisshing it.
the fireman lost his leg.
In the same place, there are dealers across all the place and the police office has a thick iron curtain (that I have not often seen open).
It has also been closed for 2 months several years ago as some people just burnt a car below it abd it had become too dangerous to work in.
When asked about setting some camera in this place, people just cried it was violating their rights. The police canceled this project and the crime rate has since doubled.
Did the people who protested know that their cellular phone was worse for their privacy?
I since moved to Switzerland and I heard about some cameras to be placed in a specific area of Bien in order to protect the prostitutes who were regularly aggressed. They specified they would not take any record but just use this to halp a single agent to monitor the whole area.
People also protested.
So they say : "La liberte des uns s'arrete la ou commence celle des autres" (one's liberty ends where one another's begin). I think cameras are a matter of social progress in public areas. We do need them : who wouldn't fear knowing his children are wandering in a dangerous, non-monitored area? No comments.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Privacy is definitely not one of those things. The US needs to wake up about who owns information on private citizens. The citizens own it, and that should never be remotely questioned.
- Unless you have been invited or are have a "reasonable" (non-commercial) expectation that I want to see you, do not come knocking on my front door.
- Unless you have been given explicit permission to call me for business reasons, do not call my house.
- Unless you have been given explicit permission to mail/email me for business reasons, do not send me mail/email.
My mailing address, phone number, and email address are all mine, damnit, and if I don't give you written or recorded verbal approval to use it, you cannot use it for marketing research or sales. You cannot sell my information. Unless you have a valid need (like for issuing safety recalls), you shouldn't even keep my information on file.The sooner Americans latch on to the idea that corporations don't own our information, we do - the sooner that we'll remove these leeches from society.
Yes, I know, I'm usually pro-business, but this is about privacy, and I think that privacy interests supercede business interests
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Privacy, has long since been a dead horse. Not just on the Internet, but in our everyday lives. I can not speek for those overseas but I am will to venture, that they ar just as bad as we are. There is an entire town in England that is wired with outside CCD caramra's with police stations every few blocks to monitor everyones movement. Here in america we are tracked by our banks, supermarkets, video stores, credit cards and our phone calling habits. Almost all of these have No privacy statement at all, and most do not even know that they are gathering and analyzing our habits.
:we only store your user name and preferances" then hide the actual data in a encrypted cookie. Of course they do want to do that because it would open there infomation up for viewing by other marketers as well. But there should be a happy medium there somewhere.
The main problem with Internet and web privacy is that the internet allows for one to visit or shop or browse a much larger base of information, thus allowing for a greater degree of data to be gathered. This is the lure of Market Makerers everywhere. When it comes to internet privacy it is up to the user to make sure that they are aware of the infomation being gathered and to protect themselves from unwanted storage.
Even with a company's Privacy Police on a web site that strickly states that the information will never be used or sold to outside vendors for any reason, we can not be assured of that. As is the case with pets.com, who recently filed for banckrupcty protecting and is try to sell of its massive customer database. Privacy groups are attempting to block this sale and hopefulyl will succed.
I beleive that in order to prevent the unwanted and often unanounced trading of our personal information that there should be steps taken to allow the user to better understand what information is being gathered. I for one would like to see that the entire cookie issue be redone. No more encryption on the cookies themselfs. Thus allowing me to actually see what EXACTLY they are storing on my system and what is being sent back to them. No more just posting that
We as a whole have to fight together and unifidly to help stop this and to ensure our privacy both online and off. If we just sit back and observe without doing something proactive to prevent it it will only get worse.
The ZAphod!
"No A Zaphod, didn't you hear we come in 6 Packs Now"
Mr Blair is fond of telling us that the UK has to become the world leader in on-line businessm, but the RIP bill means that the government/police/any big business that fancies a bit of a shufty, can have read any e-mail passing out of the country, or any other e-mail they feel like if it's hustified by 'the safety or economic wellbeing of the country'
Even if you decide to encrypt it, they can just request the key. "Forgotten" it? That's 5 years in jail. Tell anyone they're asking for it? Another 10 years.
I think it's pretty clear who has the worst privacy.
Of course - The USA has been reading them all for years using echelon
Hello Dave
Is Dave there please
Your my wife now Dave
Hello Dave
Is Dave there please
You're my wife now Dave
Sure, maybe their "survey" found some of the best policies on US sites, but that's totally voluntary.
At least the EU has regulations, so if a site is not abiding by privacy regulations, there is some legal recourse.
Here in the U.S., no such legal recourse exists.
It's time for the U.S. Congress to debate the privacy issue and make some real reforms.
----------------------------------
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
...The yanks get an early start with the Indecent communications legislation...oh, they`ve stumbled, the civil rights groups put a stop to that... And heres Echelon..what can stop this Brave New World order...
Here come the plucky Brits with their RIP act..things are looking bad for the yanks (and the british subjects, but screw them!)...
The French now, calling the stewards attention to Echelon...they`re not happy, not happy at all...
But whats this? Carnivore? DMCA? The yanks are back in front!! Is there no stopping them? Have they no shame?!
A couple of years ago I received a letter from a collection agency. Gee Mr. Anderson you owe us $1000 on this account. I didn't recognize the claimed creditor or account, so, being an innocent 'babe of the woods' type I thought "I'll just call them and point out that it's not my account" - All done! Right? Wrong! I call and am told that while the balance is $1000 they would graciously offer to settle this for me for a mere $300. What a deal! After I pointed out that this was not my account and therefore this was, in fact, a very bad deal, I was once again told this was a bargain and I should accept it regardless.
Needless to say I rejected their very gracious blackmail offer and instead opted to write them and the three major credit bureaus to inform them that this was not my debt. The credit bureaus proceeded to investigate and 2 out of three deleted the entry in 30 days as required by the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) when in fact they can not verify the debt. The last bureau deleted the entry in 45 days after a gentle reminder from me.
This was nearly two years ago and logic would dictate that there's nothing more to be said about it. Unfortunately the FCRA doesn't require logic and the FTC apparently does not enforce it.
Two days ago I received a new request from a new debt collection agency requesting that I pay $1500 on this same account! No doubt they would settle for $50 and a kiss but this is a major issue of principle. Where does it stop?
I am therefore trying a new tack and one which SlashDot readers will likely appreciate and also find very disconcerting. I have created a special website for this particular agency at http://pinnacle.avarix.com . After spending a few dollars I gathered all the information I could about the agency and its principals. At the site are the agency's real address as opposed to the PO box they provide. The CEO's real address(s) and date of birth and the last four digits of his SSN. I bought that for around $40 or so. Shocked? You should be and I hope that laws will be passed to stop my, and their, misuse of personal information, but until then, turnabout is fair play!
Maybe by getting the wolves to join we can encourage European style privacy protection (you own your personal information). If everyone has a vested interest in protecting their personal data we have a chance of changing the law. I think that if everyone took this approach we could shift the sentiment at the political level. I am sure that SlashDot readers will have some very interesting insights.
This is a prime example of how ALL 'studies' need to be scrutinized.
How often in the popular press do we read or hear of "a new study shows" that Fruit Loops cause cancer, or you can devolop venereal warts from "virtual sex" or [insert your own claim here]. There are also studies that show just how "right" or "correct" is any given side of an issue (abortion, gun control, whatever)
How often do we take the time to look up criteria used by these studies?
The scary part is that most people don't and they will happily believe what they see in print or watch on the nightly news -- without question.
We don't need big-brother. We have CNN.
-jhon
I live in France, I OWN my personnal datas (I can ask any company owning some to delete it or not resell/give it). I can sue any company not following this guideline.
Every web site has to register with a gov. agency what datas are collected and how they are used.
Now I'm curious to know how a privacy policy on a US web site can give me more protection than that...