Slashdot Mirror
Strong Online Privacy Bill Introduced
Masem writes "Senator John Edwards (NC) is introducing a strong privacy bill to Congress, as reported by CNN. While CNN's details are sketchy, the bill would require commercial web sites to ask permission from the user before a cookie can be set or personal information collected. Needless to say, this is an ideal time to snail-mail your representative or senator and ask them to vote in favor of this bill. Of interest that I cannot locate is if this allows 'grandfather' protection of existing data, or will all commercial sites have to start anew by erasing their databases and recollecting the information."
Suppose a site wants to use cookies. They can get around this by having users register with the site. After filling out the forms that the site wants the user to fill out, they can put in their Terms of Service (TOS): "By agreeing to the Terms of Service, you acknowledge that (site name) can send "cookies" to your computer. If you wish not to have (site name) place cookies on your computer, then press 'Cancel'."
This way, anyone who registers with the site will have given the site permission to set cookies, because the permission was given in registration, and there was a clause placed in the TOS.
Because some guys are too lazy to do their own work.
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.
I really hope that this bill does something because after reading an article on what "Big Brother" (read:government) did at RJS in Tampa. I would be scarred that if the government wants to photograph everybody going to the superbowl in order to run background checks, where, in a rational sense, could this lead to? We as Americans have a resonable expectation of privacy whereever we go. I would be very wary in assuming that this bill will add teeth to anything given the past abuses of State and Federal Government
Brian Rubright
While this might seem commonsense to most of us, companies like Doubleclick, who have a strong incentive to track and use information like this, find it much easier to give in to pressure unless they are told not to through explicitely written laws. That's why I think measures like this are necessary; not everyone plays by the unwritten rules.
For now I, like many others, simply keep cookies.txt read-only, but what I really want is the ability to save specific cookies and forget all others. And, naturally, the read-only 'trick' doesn't work with MSIE (I have to use both brands as part of my job and I've come to hate both).
I want a browser that lets me accept the "remember my login" type of cookies and reject the "let me track which pages you've visited/ads you've seen/where you came from/where you're going" cookies (among other things -- mostly I want a browser that lets me configure everything, not just the few things they deign to let us configure).
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
--
We already give permission. Netscape allows a warning before cookies are accepted. This isn't perfect, but it does the job. Lynx (and a few others) ask before accepting cookies and give a yes/no/always/never option. IE allows a trusted sites, untrusted sites distinction. Added to this are a huge number of third party cookie blocking solutions.
We just need to be warned that people are using cookies and how they're using the things.
Cookies to save login id is not bad. Cookies by doubleclick to track across sites is another story.
But, isn't someone leaving data on your computer and picking them up without authorization a form of computer tresspass? Just because it can be done does not mean it is authorized. Leaving a window open on a house does not mean that a person is allowed to climb through it and take a nap.
Fight Spammers!
So now, every web site will add a boiler-plate disclaimer and an "Enter" button. Ok, you've been informed, you consented, now we'll get down to tracking.
Or alternatively, they will move to a different regulatory jurisidiction, say, Anguilla.
Unless the people care about their own privacy and take steps to protect it, there is little the state can do that will matter. The most important thing the people need to do is stop divulging personal information for any purpose.
How is this a loophole? Seems to me this is how it ought to work.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.