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.
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
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.
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...
Against telemarketing, it might work.
Against spam, do a keyword search for "Global Remove List".
It's been tried before - run by the spammers, who used it to find valid email addresses and subject them to more spam.
SafeEPS, by Al Joffee, a DMA guy, but otherwise reputable anti-spammer, who figured out how to do it in a way that was privacy-friendly. But nobody else in the DMA wanted that, because it allowed domain-level opt-out.
The DMA was offered SafeEPS for $1.00, but the DMA decided no, better to do it the DMA's way. Which begat the current One True Remove List for spam, namely e-MPS.
(The full SafeEPS/e-MPS story here)
A "global remove list" won't work against spammers for the same reason that government backdoors in crypto won't work against terrorists - because the terrorists won't use backdoored crypto, and the spammers don't give a rat's ass about a government-required opt-out list. (When was the last time you got spammed for anything that wasn't a fraud, con game, quack medicine, or pyramid scheme? That didn't involve "relay rape", or the unauthorized use of third-party open relays? These people are already breaking laws, one more won't stop them.)
Global Remove Lists have been tried since 1997. Every one has been a spec-fucking-tacular failure.
Anyone who believes that a "national opt out" list for spam" is a viable solution in 2001 - has about as much credibility on the issue as Osama Bin Laden would if applying for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Wrongo! They were forcibly removed from their homes and businesses, and forced to sell or abandon that property. Most returned to their old neighbourhoods and found their homes and businesses occupied by others who had bought them. That, my friend, is the crux of the argument.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
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 ?