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
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!
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
#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
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
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?
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.
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....
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