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.
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
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
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.
I agree with this sentement. The problem is that our laws were written with the assumption that they couldn't be enforced 100% of the time, so better to make them too broad. There are far too many laws on the books that simply aren't enforced; it is inevitable that someone is going to break one without even knowing about it.
The scary bit is that we're entering a time when technology will make 100% enforcement of certain laws feasible. Photo radar is a good example of this, many cities are on their way towards detecting every time someone runs a red light or accelates beyond the speed limit.
The point is, we can't be applying modern technology to broad laws or we really will be in trouble. I think technology can provide some nice improvements in how laws are enforced, but the laws themselves will have to rewritten first.
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
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.
Here are some things that are legal (in the USA), but many people wouldn't want generally known about them:
Having an abortion.
Viewing pornographic videos.
Being an athiest.
Being a homosexual.
Seeing a psychiatrist.
Being a member of the communist party.
Needing Viagra.
I'm sure you can find other examples.
There are other things you might not want generally known. Again, I'm sure this is an incomplete list.
Being arrested for drunk driving.
Being a recovering alcoholic.
Having served time in jail.
Having AIDS.
Not being able to read.
Having had a sex change.
Having been bankrupt.
Most people don't like this because they believe, as do I, that as long as they don't break any laws it is (with few exceptions) nobody's damm business how they live their lives.
Steve M