Slashdot Mirror
FTC Abandons Call for Stronger Privacy Laws
Anonymous Coward writes: "Found this article on CNN explaining that the FTC has decided to not seek stronger consumer privacy laws in the wake of the events of last month. The article also details how several companies broke their own privacy policies by voluntarily giving customer data to federal authorities." The NY Times has an article about this as well, with a couple of good comments from interested parties.
Rob Malda is an AKA for "Obr al Mad," a known homosexual Islamic extremeist.
Regard him with extreme caution... he believes that by promoting lies about Linux he will be greeted by 69 homosexual boys in heaven, each of which have been molested by Allah!
How do they (the government, security agencies, etc) expect to spy on everyone to find terrorists, etc. While forcing businesses to not even share customer info between their own departments? Crazy... Just plain crazy!
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Given that the majority of these terrorsts were able to take advantage of exsiting flaws in the protection of privacy to travel under stolen identites, this is complete idiocy.
Poor pricay does not equal greater security. Poor privacy means that authentication becomes more difficult.
What kind of privacy isues were the FTC trying to push? I know right-to-know how personal data would be used was one, but what else?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/10/03/technology/ 03PRIV.html
Enjoy!
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
The NY Times, which requires the annoying free registration, has a piece about privacy laws. I also find it interesting that they have this quote on the reg page: Immediately after the events of September 11, we temporarily removed our registration/sign-in requirement to permit as many readers as possible to access developing news stories quickly. We have now restored our registration process. Guess they don't want all those readers anymore.
Scott Plumlee
"If the speech was delivered on September 10, it would have been viewed as a negative event in the privacy community," Ponemon said. "Now that it's delivered after the 11th, it's a crisis. It looks like we've lost federal government support."
Never a more true statement than that one. It really is a shame that the end result of the terrorist attacks will be not only loss of life and property but also the loss of some important freedom. Dubya said it best himself when he said the terrorist attack was "an attack on freedom itself," and it seems as if the September 11 tragedy is only going to be used as a weapon in continued attacks.
~ now you know
From the article:
In many cases, Ponemon said, the companies sent the information on their own initiative in order to assist the terrorism investigation. Some firms, such as airlines and car rental agencies, are breaking their privacy policies by sharing data to analyze suspicious activity.
I'm no expert on corporate privacy policies, but isn't there some sort of force majuere clause about giving information to law-enforcement authorities under extraordinary circumstances? Unlike info sharing between companies, law enforcement will not sell the data, spam or make marketing calls during dinnertime.
Sharing data between corporations though should be a violation of privacy, since they are not proper law-enforcement authorities.
And what will they do with those lists when the companies are done investigating?
I like fire ants. They are very spicy!
It's quite easy to see in recent events what happens when privacy gains too much power in society... but let us not forget that too much of anything is bad..and the giving away of too much privacy can very easily create a very different but just as dangerous problem.
Paperz Pleaze!
Mr. Muris's privacy interests also include [...] finding ways to cut down on unwanted e-mail
advertisements, or spam, by creating a national "do not call" list of people who do not want to be contacted by online marketers.
Ok this guy's credibility is now shot.
Move along to the next article.
Should read this and sign the petition.
Stand up for your rights!
I have been trying to submit this article for the last few days and it's been rejected every time. Please take the time to read it. It is an important piece.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
In the case of the supermarket chain it's pretty simple: "Hi. You know that personal information you were stupid enough to give us? Well, now the feds know how many ho-hos you ate last month. Fatty."
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
Bush constantly describes the terrorist attacks as being "attacks on freedom". Apparently, what he envisions as a free state is a 1984-esque totalitarian society, except that one can vote between two candidates who barely waver on the issues, and carry a gun. Is this really the only freedom we should be fighting for, and should we be prepared to give up all our other freedoms to try to kill bin Laden?
Never mind that some people are ugly naked.
It isn't a public safety issue. People would learn to deal.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
The Federal Trade Commission will abandon efforts, begun during the Clinton administration, to get new laws to enhance online consumer privacy and will concentrate its efforts instead on enforcing existing laws, according to sources close to the commission.
Timothy J. Muris, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, is scheduled to present his views at a conference on privacy in Cleveland on Thursday.
In that speech, Mr. Muris will announce plans to increase funds for enforcement by 50 percent in the next year. The commission would focus efforts on getting companies to abide by their published privacy statements, on fighting identity theft and on prosecuting violators of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Mr. Muris's privacy interests also include cracking down on what private investigators call pretexting, the practice of gathering private information under false pretenses, and finding ways to cut down on unwanted e-mail advertisements, or spam, by creating a national "do not call" list of people who do not want to be contacted by online marketers. He also wants to build on earlier initiatives to educate consumers on the ways that they can safeguard their privacy.
According to those close to the situation, Mr. Muris plans to leave the door open for future legislation, saying he does not plan to seek new laws "at this time."
Elements of Mr. Muris's speech were first published yesterday in The Los Angeles Times. The head of the office of public affairs at the commission, Cathy MacFarlane, said that Mr. Muris would not comment before his talk on Thursday. "We have a commitment to Cleveland," Ms. MacFarlane said.
Mr. Muris, a senior trade commission official for five years during the Reagan administration, had criticized the agency under his predecessor, Robert Pitofsky, as being too tough on corporate mergers and on issues of antitrust.
Mr. Pitofsky had proposed that Congress grant the trade commission new legal authority to protect consumer privacy when the industry's efforts at self-regulation failed. The commission official who spearheaded privacy efforts under Mr. Pitofsky, David Medine, said that the proposal came only after five years of working with online companies on self-regulation initiatives.
"The F.T.C. proceeded very incrementally and cautiously, based on data" that suggested "self-regulation needed a boost," Mr. Medine said. "So far as I know, there's no new data" that would indicate the situation has changed, he said.
Mr. Medine said that because of a lack of new legislation requiring companies to post policies that outline their privacy practices, the easiest way for a company to avoid trouble with its privacy policy is not to have one in the first place. "Those who are silent about their privacy practices won't be subject to enforcement," he said.
Privacy advocates said that they were disappointed to hear that Mr. Muris would be reversing the course on privacy set under Mr. Pitofsky. "We're surprised," said Sarah Andrews, research director for the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. "It kind of smacks of ideology."
A lawmaker who has encouraged the government to refrain from regulating the private sector on privacy issues said he was pleased with the new direction on commission policy. "I'm impressed by the effort Chairman Muris has put into understanding the nuances of the privacy issue," Dick Armey, Republican of Texas, the House majority leader, said in a statement. "The chairman rightly recognizes Congress is often unable to keep up with the fast- changing online world."
The head of an industry trade group agreed that the move was justified. "This is a victory for the economy and privacy," said Jonathan V. Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology in Washington. "We want to protect consumers from choices they can't make, rather than the ones they can."
Without the trade commission's support for legislation, several bills that are awaiting Congressional action are likely to lose momentum -- although, in fact, all legislation not related to the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington is getting little attention. That could open the door for stepped-up regulatory efforts in the states, many of which have moved aggressively on consumer privacy issues. That could create the very situation that some companies supporting regulation had hoped to avoid: a patchwork of conflicting state legislation.
So, companies were voluntarily giving data to the government in contradiction to their own policies. How comforting...I'm sure all of the terrorists were frequent bidders on eBay.
Anyone who needs or wants privacy *must* be a terrorist after all. What's a terrorist I hear you ask? Well son, a terrorist is anyone that doesn't agree with Ashcroft, Bush, or his Daddy. In fact, if your political leaning is even slighty less than far right, you're a terrorist. Furthermore, if you won't allow us to install a camera in your home, or if you won't accept our hand-dandy biometric-recording national ID card- then you're a terrorist. In fact, you will know if you are a terrorist when we tell you, as we are currently updating the definition.
Thank you for your cooperation. Now go buy something and watch TV.
Their idea of a national "do not call" list for people to opt out of spam and telemarketing is a great reductio ad absurdum argument.
Effectively the list would be a form of voting against spam and telemarketing.
Obviously just about everyone would put their names on such a list, if it is convenient and effective to do so - effectively a majority vote against unsolicited bulk emailing and calling. So why do we even need the list? Just make bulk email/phone solicitation over "personal communications media" illegal.
Now, here's what I'm wondering:
I think a web privacy policy is no more binding than any other claim a company might have, from "tastes better" to "less filling". IANAL, but about the only thing you can do if you don't like the execution of the privacy policy is....don't buy the product or go to the web site.
Opt-in lists + Large fines payable to spamee for violation of spam laws
#define PRIVACY(information) HANDOVER(information)
Seriously, this isn't going to solve any problems. The only reason the September 11th stuff plays into this at all is that it allows sales departments to pressure the US Government into abandoning any attempt to protect privacy.
(There is nothing better than an exploitable tragedy to persuade people that the unacceptable is not only acceptable, but actually desirable.)
Potential consequences: Isolation of the US, which would be in violation of EU privacy law. Decreased trust in the political system, even though this kind of move really only benefits commercial organizations. Security forces have no means of handling the information flow they DO have, already. Nor is that likely to change for the forseeable future.
Long-term results: The US will be ruled by spammers, the RIAA, the MPAA, AOL, Microsoft and other corporate entities with the money to blow on trading other people's private lives. The Federal Government can't exist in such a space, and given that the voting is so abysmal, it might well fade to black within the next 10-20 years. All trade will be internal US or with Japan. All ties to Europe will be cut, over time, as the little privacy that exists in the US vanishes.
Eventual results: The US, having essentially destroyed itself, will become largely wasteland. Ironically, the people most likely to survive such a catastrophic collapse are members of the Taliban in the US. In short, in 3001, America may well become Talibania, all through short-sighted money-grabbing (but unquestionably skilled) manipulation of public opinion, in a purported effort to defeat the very people we're handing the country over to by going with it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The aftermath of the Sept. 11th tragedies will be felt by the United States for years to come. My greater concern at this point is the effort Attorney General Ashcroft is exerting to pass an anti-terrorism bill. His requests would give considerable leeway to the gov't regarding electronic surveillance and wiretaps, continue the use of secret evidence and give much more leeway in obtaining warrants. Under his proposal immigrants could be detained without judicial review or consent. The requests which he has made would put a considerable dent in the 4th amendment and other parts of the Constitution.
While steps need to be taken to ensure terrorism does not occur in the United States, to do so at the expense of our civil liberties is unacceptable.
This is not the sig you are looking for...
Terrorists all over the world are now rejoicing, since their primary objective was achieved: put and end to the civil liberties of the free world.
sad...
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds !"
Could you try and find a link to an accessable web page.
These laws seem to be obscured by "what if"'s.
If eliminating privacy would have prevented all those deaths and brought world peace, is it worth it? Maybe, maybe not...but in lieu of that:
If cameras and biometrics would save us, should we use them?
If sticking feathers up our asses and dancing to Cumbaya would stop terrorism, should we do it?
If goatse.cx would stop terrorism, should we look?
If separating white laundry from dark laundry would stop terrorism, should we do it?
They really need to stop asking "if/would/should", and start concentraing on _could_ this do anything to prevent mass-murder. The "what-if"s generally get everyone in agreement, but noone stops to ask if the new law du'jour could realistically do anything to help anyone. I really don't see a guy willing to smash a 2ton tube of jet-fuel into a giant building full of people at 455mph worried about crypto laws, or a criminal mastermind buying C-4 on Shop@AOL with his personal credit card. Consumer privacy protects consumers, not terrorists and global menaces...this doesn't even dent terrorism, unless you count people who buy stupid crap on eBay as terrorists..
i'll be the first to admit that i break laws occasionally, and if you think about it, you probably do too. now, who wants the government to be able to spot you every time you speed, or forget to include something on your income taxes, or pay that auto mechanic cash to avoid the sales tax, or the warez you've got, or the mp3's of copyrighted music you didn't pay for, or whatever...
i don't see how the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide" argument can hold weight with anyone, possibly excluding some of the clergy, because 99.99% of the population is probably doing something illegal fairly regularly.
NB - this semi-rant is my opinion only. i have absolutely no facts or information from any kind of recognized source to back this up. :)
sigs are for suckers
There go some more of our rights.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
From the article:
Muris will instead increase the staff working on privacy issues by 50 percent, according to sources familiar with the chairman's plan. The extra people is to enable the commission to police more Web sites and bring lawsuits against violators.
He also plans to target mass e-mail, also known as spam, sources said. The FTC will create a national list of companies that are bothering consumers by sending excessive amounts of unwanted commercial e-mail.
Sounds like he's more interested in taking action than messing with bureaucratic legislation that will get thumped apart by lobbying forces. It may not be the best course, but it's better than doing nothing. It's also most assuredly better than saying he's laxing up on privacy issues at all. I know we're all eager to scream and yell about privacy laws or the lack thereof, but I interpreted the article in a different light. Sometimes it's best to analyze a statement before going off half-cocked on how the world's going to hell.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
Im no lawyer, but I thought privacy laws no longer apply in a criminal investigation. I always thought that doctors/shrinks, etc had to spill the beans on anyone who is under criminal investigation, so why should it be different for businesses
Since the FTC has caved in to pressure from al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to attack the rights of Americans, will the Defense Department be considering commando raids or bombing missions against FTC headquarters?
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Where I live the old white trash skanks start to wander around when they get horny and their "hubbies" have already passed out or can't get it up anymore.
Just hang around in the neighbourhood and you're bound to get eh... lucky.
How about a(n empty) "do call" list? Everybody belongs on the "do not call" list for spam and telemarketing.
We never had it! Certainly not from the Bush administration. They were just looking for an excuse to give their donors what they wanted, and now they have found such an excuse.
sulli
RTFJ.
We have to destroy the village to save it.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
The big question is:
What is Jon Katz opinion of this?
People want to know and puke.
Thanks and have a marijuana-filled weekend.
no... It just means they are a bunch of cowards... or... it could mean they really DIDN'T care about our privacy in the first place...
By that same logic, if I pay you to fix my car, and you then walk over and break my windows, i just shouldn't pay you to fix my car again.
The point is that when i enter my personal information on a website, i'm entering into an agreement to provide them with personal information on contingency that they use it in the stated manner. If they state that they can retroactively change the licence at any time, then anything's fair game, as long as they include it in the licence, but if they don't, then they have no right to use the information for any other purpose.
The reason there are any laws governing commerce is because of situations like this, where "buyer beware" doesn't apply.
ben.c
we would, however, give you this none_too_secret, set of URLs, including a year's free Linus hosting, (if you can follow some simple directions, & are not aFraUD), so that you too, may conduct business, in the brave gnu world, without having to force folks into hunting for your work, in some subdirectory, with that of millions of others' (not that that's that bad).
looks LIEk the "bull" has reincarnated itself, & is stampeding on wall street of deceit. whatever. fud is STILL dead, as far as we're concerned, especially after viewing these face scans of the REAL .commIEs.
Fundamental to the American philosophy is that the United States was born from the chaos of feudal, tyrannical European governments. That governments (by nature) are predisposed to tyranny and that we must be ever vigilant to insure our Great Experiment never falls to it.
The problem it seems most of us have with all this anti-privacy legislations and initiatives, is that we are all dubious as to how these new laws would/could be applied to protecting this nation from harm. Moreover we are conditioned by our history and by our civics education that all invasive legislation is by default, suspect.
So what our lawmakers need to remember is our Ben Franklin. Benjamin Franklin was of the opinion that the public would not scoff at higher taxation as long as the government demonstrated where and how the money was spent. (i.e., better roads, lighted streets, etc... etc...)
Honestly, if I were presented with data that clearly and comprehensively demonstrated how new electronic surveillance/internet snooping laws would protect and save thousands of American women and children. Well I would have no recourse as a good citizen not to support it fully.
Show us how this legislation will protect our liberties instead of supplanting them. And it better be a fine presentation. Assure us that like, wire tapping of phone, the Constitution and the Supreme Court will be intrinsic to the exercise, constantly monitoring for abuse.
Then demonstrate boldly and inarguably how without these laws we are vulnerable.
Only then will the specter of George Orwell and Joe McCarthy be dispelled.
My guess is that they can't do it. They cannot demonstrate clearly how the lack of these new laws imperils our citizens. It is momentum that is driving this train. I resent as well as we all do that the fed are using FUD to ram these laws under-inspected and under-debated.
No one should believe a word Bush says, considering that he has lied about when he quit drinking, lied about his favorite book, and told numerous other lies--all that just to get elected. His inheritance will continue to grow as long as there is plenty of cheap oil to keep Americans' SUVs full of cheap gas.
Most Afghanis are extremely poor and have no idea what the hell this United States of America is. Shall their introduction be a bombing campaign?
Easy--it's just like getting a younger woman. Be careful though, because girls under the age of 30 have no idea what to do in bed but older ones are sexual dynamos--imagine the body of a woman combined with the will of a horny 18-year-old male. I've had the good fortune of getting my hips bruised a few good times lately. Best of luck to ya, cowboy!
Gee, who is surprised? After all, protecting privacy might get in the way of some company making more money. And items 1 through 10 on Bush's list of priorities are all "See that companies can make as much money as possible."
Alaska environment vs. ability of companies to make more money? No contest. Arsenic in drinking water vs. ability of companies to make more money? No contest. Anti-competitive practices of Microsoft vs. their ability to make more money? No contest.
Has there been ANY decision that the Bush administration has made that hasn't come down on that corporate side of things? Individual rights and the environment are not only taking a back seat, but they're back there in the trunk, locked up tight. The next 3 years are going to seem like a really long time, people....
Or less, and someone could find your social security number.
:P I'd love some real privacy laws even more though.
Your address. Your phone number. Et cetera, et cetera.
Our privacy laws don't exist; we have no privacy. Seriously - everyone and their mother wants to know and wants to sell your name and SSN. Hell, my last college thought it'd be a great idea to use student SSN's for the student ID number.
Don't get me started on credit cards. You subscribe for some hot online porn (Woohoo!) and suddenly, everyone knows you subscribe to hot online porn services. (But hey, you shouldn't care, should you? Screw the right-wing sex-is-bad zealots!)
Everyone will eventually know anything they want to know about you, it's just a matter of a few well placed searches.
Can we prevent it under existing 'laws'? No, not unless we live in a box.
Frankly, I'd rather people know I like porn than living in a box.
thats it
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
If you think about it, if GB was REALLY interested in windfalls for corporations, he'd have gone right ahead with the tighter regulations on arsenic in drinking water.
As I recall, most (all?) public water supplies are government run. Imposing harsher restrictions on the water quality means local governments having to PAY corporations to test the water, upgrade the water processing facilities, etc. etc. (You didn't think that there was a government facility somewhere injecting arsenic into the water intentionally, and the new regulation just commanded them to inject less, did you? I don't have a great deal of trust for the US Government, but I'm not THAT paranoid...)
How is it that you worry more about a company making money than about the fact mentioned that the companies, from the sound of it, handed over personal information to government agencies AND other corporations (no indication in the article that this was done in exchange for payment, either [from the article - "Since then, many companies have been sharing their consumer data with law enforcement agencies and each other" in a fishing expedition for suspicious activity]? Essentially - "We know we promised we wouldn't share your private information, but this is important, since you might be a terrorist, so we don't care WHAT our privacy policy said...")
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
The land of opertunities, or the land of opertunists?
It seems to me we have lost several opertunities and gained many opertunists.
It can be seen right after the WTC buildings came crashing down, from the people looting, to the people commiting fraud about donations, to the people selling tiny flags for $25, even to the politicians using this to stiffle political oposition by saying "now is not the time", or for taking away freedom "now is the time". Politics has gone to hell, not because of the terrorists but because of the opertunists in our government, they have been sitting and waiting for this opertunity. When they said it was an attack on our freedom, they were not saying it was the terrorists, they were threatening america, our freedom after all is strongly in their hands, the terrorists dont have the power or the resources to take over america and its government to take away our freedom, only the politicians of our government can do this. They are threatening us because over the pass couple of years, the internet has allowed for so much information about them to be spread around. Hell, dubya himself has said and I quote "There ought to be limits to freedom", in reference to www.gwbush.com and freedom of speech.
disclaimer : My views do not represent those of every one else in slashdot.
I understand and am sympathetic to the concerns about losing freedoms but I can't help but to notice that most of the people on this board can't seem to imagine ANY legitimate intrusion by government on someones privacy. Such an extreme position is untenable (not to mention silly) since there are obviously legitimate government intrusions into peoples privacy. The debate should focus around the checks and balances on legitimate government intrusions to guard against abuse.
Most of the provisions of the terrorism bill certainly expand the federal governments powers of surviellance but that surveillance still requires a warrant and probable cause. It seems primarily a move towards more efficiency rather than a jettisoning of constitutional protections (admittadly inefficiency may be a practical protection from abuse of our rights by government but it is also a loss of protection by government from the abuse of our rights by agents other than government - like criminals, terrorists & foreign governments). I'm not sure what you mean by the use of secret evidence. Could you clarify? I looked over the bill but IANAL and legalesse makes my brain hurt.
I'm much more concerned about indefinite detention of foreign nationals. Our government does not have the same obligation to foreigners as it has to citizens but foreigners still have human rights we are should respect one of which is liberty. There is however no basic human right to reside in the U.S. - perhaps a suspect who is a non-citizen should be given the choice of continued detention during the investigation or deportation.
Folks, time to stop thinking: Republicans = Pro Business, and Democrats = Pro Government, and start thinking: Those in Power = Global Multinational Corporatism. It's going on now, it was going on during Clinton, etc.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Remember the shooting at Columbine High School outside Denver Colorado, with 15 dead? The next school year, only clear plastic backpacks were allowed. Wonder what would happen if someone brought their normal backpack or bookbag to school. I forget if they also banned trenchcoats or not. It's not far off of what you say.
Has there been ANY decision that the Bush administration has made that hasn't come down on that corporate side of things?
Well, he's rejected a national ID card, which surely disappoints Larry Ellison. I disagree with your implication that things would be better under Gore. Clinton and Gore presided over the Clipper chip, Carnivore, Know Your Customer, CDA, DMCA, COPA, etc, etc. Anybody looking to Democrats for civil liberties is going to be disappointed, because they recognize no limits on government power. At least some Republicans grasp the concept of limited government, even if they don't always apply it.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Since all these "bad guys" dictators & terrorists have been trained by the CIA in the past when they were deemed useful, should the CIA be classified as the terrorist training organization and be shutdown ?
Yeah, knee jerk reactions really suck. Take, for example, the one on Slashdot. You are all too worried about jerking to attention to defend privacy at all costs to consider whether or not this is actually a good thing. I have never seen any good debate on the topic on Slashdot, only debate over how to secure more of it for individuals.
Well guess what: it's not a black and white issue. One of the main side effects of increased privacy is decreased accountability, which is itself a factor that could actually stop quite a large amount of negative things that happen today.
At the same time stop and consider what privacy you really have and where it might go. With technology today you can already plant all the listning devices and cameras you want undetected, assuming you have the money to pay for it. No amount of laws will stop this; if it's undetectable who is going to be able to file suit?
So throw all this privacy legislation stuff out the window. As Larry Ellison (I think) said, "You have no privacy, get over it." Focus instead on shaping who gets to do the watching, as information is power.
Do you want only the people with money and those already in government being able to watch everyone without the cameras being turned on themselves too? Well that's where things are going now with all of the footdragging people like those in this community are doing. A much better state of affairs is one in which the whole population embraces the cameras and is able to gain their benefits, such as monitoring those who are already in power. Just imagine what could happen to police brutality if at any instant someone could tune in to the camera in the police officer's car.
Everyone, I'm sure, would agree that cameras could cut down on activities that are frowned upon by society. Well, if you have just the powerful watching the cameras you'll have a very few people dictating what's frowned upon. This only increases their power and control. If, on the other hand, you get cameras to be a part of everyday life things will be very different. A whole new level of respect will be reached for each other as people can figure out that we're not all that different and we all have faults. Of course there will still be the issues about people leaning away from social norms, but this is much easier to fight when there is no driving force behind it.
In any case it's an all around better situation than allowing the rich and powerful to monitor us all without the recprocation, which is where it's goign right now.
I realise this post is not very structured or well supported, I'm just throwing it off the top of my head. The supportive reasoning is definately there to back it up, though.
Think about it.
Often it is easy to take a short term look at things, like when driving and seeing a gap in the lane to the left. A wise and patient driver will make sure he/she has complete situational awareness at first before changing lanes. And of course would consider others, by looking and signaling FIRST and not forcing their way in. However, more important is to look up ahead and behind. A beginning driver could even tell when situations up ahead would present a much slower travel experience if you changed lanes, not to mention a seasoned driver that has learned from experience that indeed it is often the spontaneous lane changer that either ends up later than normal or causes an accident.
Here, we are ALL the seasoned drivers. We have plenty of history to learn from and should not foolishly reinvent the wheel every time a new implementation comes along that we arrogantly and illogically assess as being a new idea. Also, if you are an American that enjoys quoting the founding fathers as sources for your ethos and claim to be a 'Real American' then you had DAMNED BETTER MAKE SURE YOU ARE CORRECT IN YOUR DEFINITION OF REAL AMERICAN.
Our founding fathers knew that selective rights and freedoms where simply a burning fuse on the bomb of tyranny planted squarely in the middle of freedom. Stop picking 'sides' and proving how foolish you are. I am tired of the left and right, the up and the down that all compete to beat their chests and say they 'care'. If you care about results, then you will not love processes so much that you would refrain from eliminating or altering them in order to achieve better results. Plus, if you state you are for something like freedom or liberty, then be for it. Don't add little qualifiers on the end of it like, "I am open minded... except towards those I disagree with".... guess what? you are closed minded. Period!
The same goes here. Don't expect to be taken seriously if you make a statement about the good of America, freedom, liberty and peace if you then advocate a selective granting freedom, liberty, peace and the extension of what is 'American' only to those you agree with and/or like. There is absolutely no validity and truth behind the theory that certain rights and freedoms must be given up for the 'good of the state' That should sound familiar. Whether it is community, state, country, government or people's republic, it is still tyranny. Extend freedom and peace and it shall be in turn granted unto you. THAT is the American Way. THAT is what the REAL Founding Fathers wanted.
For those who see themselves as the displaced 'heroes' of the Cold War against communism, then Brace! Because your new enemy is not in front of you with a gun aimed at your head... he is behind you with a pen of law aimed at your spine. Question is, will you turn coat against the ultimate law, the Constitution? Will you get so wrapped up in rhetoric and hypocritical and emotional reactions that you become the very enemy of freedom you took arms up against? Will you 'Save us all' from ourselves by protecting us from ourselves through force?
To those who see themselves as the 'open minded' crowd... you know who you are. The limousine liberals that look upon society as both a pathetic child to be punished and destroyed, yet at the same time held back from true growth and enlightenment. You liberals are your own worst enemies. You liberals have done more to harm open mindedness and true enlightenment than any slave beater or censor mongering politician has EVER done. You have proven that you care nothing about peace and prosperity, but would rather encourage sloth and hate, bigotry and apathy, violence and self victimization, slavery and domination over others.
Stop the foolish and pointless semantic wars. Start reasoning in order to make decisions, and stop justifying after them in order to make your self feel and look better. "A wise man knows others, but an enlightened man knows himself"
You're all blinded by self-serving myths peddled by a corporate-sponsored political elite.
The U.S. is governed by a few capitalist owners whose holdings cannot be sustained except by violence, veiled if not open, and that therefore your wars will NEVER ensure safety for democracy.
The U.S. and Israel are the greatest purveyors of violence in the world today.
A stupid idea just occurred to me... Is it possible to use the DMCA to restric the distribution of personal data?
The idea would be that when you buy/do something requiring you to disclose your personal data, instead of giving it in clear text, you provide it "encrypted" with a stupid algorithm and together with a decryption program using a proprietary algorithm. The program comes with a non-transferable license.
Now, the company can access your data as much as they want, but they can't transfer the cleartext (you own the copyright on it). They can distribute the cyphertext, but they cannot distribute the program, since it's copyrighted and they can't reverse-engineer and distribute the algorithm, since then result would be distributing a circumvention device.
Also, by encrypting the data with different keys when you give it to different companies, you can prevent them to exchange cyphertexts successfully.Then you start including some "marks" (like typos, or initials) in the data to track it and threaten to sue under the DMCA if they distribute it.
Would this work? (I'm not saying it's practical, mind you)
you can`t judge what is being done by what is happening now, you have to look at the whole picture in how it can be used in the future. in other words, yeah, if they combined all technology and laws to overide our liberty in whatever cause or treaty they could use, then everybody would cry fowl. but, if you go about it a bit at a time and give your reasons and so called promises that it would only be used for the entended purpose then you can slowly put together a controlled and monitored police state over time. once they have all the tools in place(wire taps, servailence cameras, face id, biometrics) even a cashless society with gps embedded in the cards, cars, clothes, shoes and anyplace else they want it. you then have the power to control and monitor everything people say or do. if you don`t think it will happpen then why give them the tools that could make it all become a reality. you can`t trust human nature history has proven this time and again. one person uses technology to save lives another will use the same technology for greed, power and control. if you live long enough you will see it happen, mankind does not learn from history he only repeats it and if this is not true why has not the world put an end to hatered, torture, suffering, or war? you cannot stop hatered by passing laws to make it a crime.
I'm a U.S. citizen, but my wife isn't. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has complete power over her. They can kick her out of the country any time they want without even giving a reason. The fact that we're married gives her more credibility when requesting to live in the U.S., but no rights.
Don't you think that I carefully consider everything I say and do? If some hotshot in the INS sees my name attached to a political piece he doesn't like, do you think he'll have the decency to live and let live? Sure, chances are that nothing I say online or offline will ever be flagged, but would you risk endangering those most dear to you?
All the more reason, of course, to post as an Anonymous Coward.
I hope the European Data Ombudsman is taking note. Dont do business with US firms who don't do things properly, because the us privacy laws are a joke.