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.
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.
"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
Yes, BinLadden will win if US becomes a military state. And its getting closer every day.
p.
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.
So why do we even need the list? Just make bulk email/phone solicitation over "personal communications media" illegal.
Thats what I used to think, but look at it from the other side.
I own a business, is it illegal to call people that have bought from me before to see if they are interested in a new deal I got for them? Technically it's an unsolicited call.
What about email... is single opt-in solicited? Double opt-in? What about email forgeries? Could I be liable if someone forges a subscription request?
It's a complex matter, think about it for a while.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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?
Have you ever read 1984? The restrictions on freedom that have been proposed don't come close to that. "Totalitarian" is completely the wrong word to use here, America isn't about to become anything like a totalitarian state.
Overstating the case like this does a huge dis-service to those who are making a serious effort to limit any loss of freedom. People out there aren't stupid - they know that the changes that are being proposed aren't leading to a totalitarian state. If you make these kind of obviously false and hysterical statements then it is easy for people to dismiss everything you say as nonsense.
If you want to have a serious voice and to influence the argument, then tone down the rhetoric and focus on the specifics of the proposals. Fight against those that are unneccessary and over-restrictive. Support a few, well-targeted changes to the law that will actually help fight against terrorism (if there are any). Make sure that any changes made have a suitably short time limit built into them, to guarantee that any loss of freedom is a temporary setback not a permanent change to America. That way you will have a real impact.
Flailing madly at windmills is only going make people dismiss all of your views, even the legitimate ones...
Sailing over the event horizon
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
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
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?
Maybe what you say may happen, if you did something wrong. Otherwise, it's "Move along, nothing to see here".
Perhaps you've heard of McCarthyism? If not check it out. Simply because one was suspected of associating with someone who exercised their free speech rights to support communism led to real consequences in one's life. Like loss of their job and inability to find work. Civil rights trampled to fight the red menance.
Perhaps you are aware of the practise during world war two of rounding up American citizens of Japanese decent and putting them in interment camps. If not you should brush up on your history. Civil rights trampled because of a knee jerk reaction.
Perhaps you've heard of J. Edgar Hoover, former director of the FBI? If not you may want to look him up. Kept files on politicians, celebraties, civil rights leaders, and more. Apparently wasn't afraid to use this info to get what he wanted. Civil rights trampled for personal power.
Perhaps you've heard of Richard M. Nixon? If not, do a little research on something called 'Watergate'. Seens Tricky Dicky had no qualms about using any info he good get to further his political ambitions. Civil rights trampled for political power.
Have you noticed a theme here? People who did nothing wrong suffering real consequences of those in power.
Government is made up of humans. Humans tend to focus on their own self interest. The writers of the US constitution recognized this and did tried to build safeguards against governmental abuse of power. Because they knew power would be abused. So they built in the checks and balances of three branches of government. And they penned the bill of rights to limit what government could do to individuals.
Now we again have calls for restrictions on civil liberties. I'm sure that the people asking for them believe that they are doing the right thing. They have a job to do and they want to do it well. They, like you, feel that those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear.
As the examples above show, they are wrong.
I believe it was Ben Franklin who once said, "Those who trade liberty for security wind up with neither."
I'm not willing to trade.
And yes, I know people directly impacted by the events of 9/11/02001.
Steve M
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....
It can also happen to you if you've done nothing wrong. Or even illegal. (The two are not synonymous, you know.)
You need to pay more attention to history. The Fugitive Slave Act. The Palmer raids. Concentration camps for Americans of Japanese ancestry. COINTELPRO. Blitzkrieg-style "no-knock" anti-drug raids. Waco.
Innocence is no protection when governments go bad.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
Democrats were and still are the force behind continuous growth of the governmental powers.
Used to be the Dems were the party of Big Government, and the Repubs were the party of Big Business. But both together are the party of Multinational Corporatism.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
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"