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.

4 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Anyone interested in retaining their rights by The+Slashdolt · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  2. Ongoing concerns by jgman · · Score: 3, Informative

    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...
  3. Re:He's gonna stop SPAM!!! by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Informative
    > I'm unaware of how any of these things destroy his credibility - note that the national list is opt-in, and participation in it is totally voluntary on the part of the consumer.

    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.

  4. Re:Who you give the info to... by Pope · · Score: 3, Informative
    Their civil liberty rights were not trampled because of a knee jerk reaction, but for their own safety. I'm not saying what happened was a-ok, but there was definite good motivation behind it.

    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.