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.
http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/10/03/technology/ 03PRIV.html
Enjoy!
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
"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
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!
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.
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
In the case of the supermarket chain it's pretty simple: "Hi. You know that personal information you were stupid enough to give us? Well, now the feds know how many ho-hos you ate last month. Fatty."
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
You do have a choice, you know. Your local newsstand probably carries the New York Times. You could go there, put down your $0.50 (or whatever it costs) and read the article completely anonymously.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Never mind that some people are ugly naked.
It isn't a public safety issue. People would learn to deal.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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.
So, companies were voluntarily giving data to the government in contradiction to their own policies. How comforting...I'm sure all of the terrorists were frequent bidders on eBay.
Did you actually read my post or just the first part of my obvious run-on sentence.
..and yes I'm quite familiar with the quote from Benjamin Frnaklin... which actually supports what my post was saying.
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)
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...
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
Hmm, that's an interesting viewpoint. Do you care to elaborate on what Bush has proposed which you see as 1984-esqe and totalitarian? Isn't freedom "the condition of being free from restraints"? Wouldn't these privacy laws put more restraints on people who happen to be running businesses? Privacy and freedom are two completely different concepts. Bush never called terrorist actions "attacks on privacy". Again, what freedom is Bush proposing to take away? The freedom to shave on an airplane? That's a freedom I'll gladly live without.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
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.
Yes, we can become just like China, with a "Homeland Security" force of a million police.
FTC Abandons Call for Stronger Privacy Laws
I always thought a military state had more laws, not fewer...
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
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
Since the FTC has caved in to pressure from al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to attack the rights of Americans, will the Defense Department be considering commando raids or bombing missions against FTC headquarters?
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
We never had it! Certainly not from the Bush administration. They were just looking for an excuse to give their donors what they wanted, and now they have found such an excuse.
sulli
RTFJ.
We have to destroy the village to save it.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
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?
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....
thats it
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
If you think about it, if GB was REALLY interested in windfalls for corporations, he'd have gone right ahead with the tighter regulations on arsenic in drinking water.
As I recall, most (all?) public water supplies are government run. Imposing harsher restrictions on the water quality means local governments having to PAY corporations to test the water, upgrade the water processing facilities, etc. etc. (You didn't think that there was a government facility somewhere injecting arsenic into the water intentionally, and the new regulation just commanded them to inject less, did you? I don't have a great deal of trust for the US Government, but I'm not THAT paranoid...)
How is it that you worry more about a company making money than about the fact mentioned that the companies, from the sound of it, handed over personal information to government agencies AND other corporations (no indication in the article that this was done in exchange for payment, either [from the article - "Since then, many companies have been sharing their consumer data with law enforcement agencies and each other" in a fishing expedition for suspicious activity]? Essentially - "We know we promised we wouldn't share your private information, but this is important, since you might be a terrorist, so we don't care WHAT our privacy policy said...")
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
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.
Has there been ANY decision that the Bush administration has made that hasn't come down on that corporate side of things?
Well, he's rejected a national ID card, which surely disappoints Larry Ellison. I disagree with your implication that things would be better under Gore. Clinton and Gore presided over the Clipper chip, Carnivore, Know Your Customer, CDA, DMCA, COPA, etc, etc. Anybody looking to Democrats for civil liberties is going to be disappointed, because they recognize no limits on government power. At least some Republicans grasp the concept of limited government, even if they don't always apply it.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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"