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.
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!
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.
#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)
In a round about way that could be a good thing. A maze of conflicting local legislation, while a pain in the rear for business, could actually benefit the consumer. If businesses are unsure of what state's privacy laws apply in a particular case, they may have to adhere to the strictest ones by default in order to protect themselves. Thus resulting in better privacy for the public.
Or maybe it's just the evil side of me that enjoys seeing life made difficult for companies that want to share my personal information with the world. ;)
A decision to not seek furthur legislation protecting privacy does not represent the erosion of existing freedoms, but rather an decision to maintain statis quo. In this political environment, this seems a sound decision.
In politics, running your agenda against stream can tarnish it for many years to come or kill it completly. It makes sense to wait until a more opportune political atmosphere exists before going on the grab.
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
It's funny how no-one is talking about "citizens" anymore. We are all "consumers" now.
The government loves what happened on September 11th. They've been drooling and secretly wishing for an event just like that for decades. I wouldn't be surprised if they knew about the attack and decided not to interfere because the catastrophe would "show the public why we need them to give up their civil rights".
It physically makes me sick as if I were standing on a ledge a thousand feet above the ground in a strong wind, every time I hear some idiot (and they are the majority here) say that we shouldn't be so selfish as to worry about our rights when there are people dead or, worse, people who say "I don't mind giving up my civil rights right now - it's the least i can do. and if it turns out to be a bad thing, we can revisit it in a few years and see if we should get our rights back".
Sure... And maybe after a dictator usurps power (even though he was only an elected official), I'm sure he'll eventually say "you know.. this dictator thing isn't working out as well as we thought... her eyou go - take your rights back... have fun"... sure...