Slashdot Mirror
Wrangling Over Proposed Privacy Laws Continues
zurab writes "USA Today reports several U.S. lawmakers introduced a long-awaited privacy bill Wednesday that would allow U.S. businesses to share information about customers who have not explicitly forbidden them to do so. And one of the supporters of this bill - the beloved Mr. Boucher."
Because they know NOBODY in their right mind would EVER opt-in to something like this, so they have to open the door to big business somehow.
I mean, otherwise the aforementioned big business would stop paying them campaign contributions and such...
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
I've heard this said about the DMCA too. Ay time businesses talk about balance between themselves and consumers through legislation, I instantly know that it's a terrible idea and I oppose it. They couldn't give a rat's ass about balance or compromise.
Or do they?
Look at your average computer user. He (or she) doesn't use PGP, has insecure passwords, will gladly install spyware in exchange for a P2P client, and is all too willing to help email worms propogate. Now, don't try to tell me that this hypothetical (but all too real) user wouldn't give up his entire purchasing habits to save himself 7 clicks a month on AOL.
He would be delighted if he could be greeted with "I bet you want the new WWF video: click here to order" when he logged in. That's what this information sharing does. And the public is going to eat it up.
Meanwhile, the fraction of us who actually care about this kind of thing pay the price. The only sensible thing to do? Become what we hate the most. Format /dev/hd* and install Windows and AOL. Your browser votes don't count unless your user agent says MSIE, and your purchases don't count unless they're through AOL or MSN. We have to make a choice between Free Software and privacy. Once we've saved privacy, then maybe Linux will come back...who knows? But for now, we need to put Linux aside as we prepare for the real battle.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I fail to see how this will work at statistical levels - it might encourage some people who have abstained to return to the 'net, but the vast majority, those simple casual users? The use of the word much is inappropriate here.
Put it this way: if you were to hold a random sampling of U.S. citizens on internet privacy, you would likely get a lot of semi- or un-informed views on it. The reason is simple: it's not considered important enough by society at large. If/when privacy becomes a big thing in the media and in government, only then will the population at large (who are being spoonfed by popular media, remember) feel that it is important enough to become an issue.
Until then, it remains an issue for the interested parties and the various lobby groups. The average internet user doesn't care, so there will be no upswing, no "much greater level", nice as it would be to believe that Mr. Average Midwestern Suburbian spends as much time as we do reading up on issues such as this.
jer
We may be human, but we're still animals
- Steve Vai
Sure, our customers can opt out. It's right there on our web site. Just click on the little tiny smiley face in the bottom left corner, then follow the 4 subsequent links to the opt out policy page. Be sure to find the little "I refuse this offer" check box, then hit submit. "Oh" the submit button is broke?? Now how did that happen? We'll have our help desk take a look at it. (The web site will be down for a few days while they reboot the system.)
If you have Store A and Store B, both selling the same product, both selling for the same price, both with equally great customer service, but Store A promises never to disclose your information under any circumstances and Store B doesn't have such a policy...where will you shop? Eventually, a lot of other people will shop at Store A, and when they do shop there, it'll be because of guaranteed privacy, thus making it a selling point.
This might work out for the best--getting Joe Public caring about privacy issues, even if it is a small start. I can just see the news story now:
Reporter: Mister Manager of Wal-Mart, how do you explain losing some of your business to Target?
Mister Wal-Mart: Well, they don't offer our customers the opportunity to receive special offers from our sister stores.
Reporter: So you're losing sales because you sell information about your customers?
Mister Wal-Mart: Uhhhhhh
sig--we don't need no goddamn sig
Now, remember: there are three prongs to government: the administration (Bush, your friend) is not the same as Congress, the lads who legislate. Bush's input to this is a simple yes or no. It's up to your representatives to decide what gets through to Bush. So it can't really be his fault.
Also, remember - he's there because you voted for him. (you plural, not necessarily you singular). You want him out? then let democracy do its job, or change the system.
The congressmen in question are still at the suggestive stage, not quite ready to decide what level of privacy to offer, so if you've chosen the right representative last time you voted (you DID vote, didn't you?), then your chosen representative will make the right choice for you. If not, you made the wrong choice. Or you are surrounded by people who made the wrong choice. Or gerrymandering has been in operation in your area (see last week's economist article on gerrymandering in the US). Or your representative is corrupt and takes money from lobbyists to give their way, in which case we're back to square one: choose the right representative.
All in all, Bush cannot be fully responsible for whether or not businesses can share your information. That's down to the ethics of the businesses, and the legislation of the representatives that the American people have said they want to run the country. You want privacy? then use democracy.
jer
We may be human, but we're still animals
- Steve Vai
Privacy issues really get on my nerves. Not so much because I feel the need for my privacy to be protected, but because there is nothing I can do to stop it. Sure, there are petitions and writing to my local representatives, but I don't have the time to read the fine lines of every law that every polititican puts up for a vote.
Then there are the laws that I even take the time to sign petitions for and write to my representatives, like CARP ( http://www.live365.com/carp/ if you've been living in a box ). Hordes of people objected to this law, yet it still was passed.
The government is not listening. You might be able to get someone to listen to you during an election year, if you're lucky. Maybe you could claim to have to pick up can along the highway to pay your CARP royalty fees and Gore could talk about you. But otherwise, it's a sad waste of time.
Then there's the hypocracy of the people that call for these petitions. Example: Right here in Milwaukee, we had a controversy about with our City Pension Plan and a million dollar lump sum payout. The elected offical that signed the bill was forced to resign amidst a recall campaign. Sound like the population taking on their civic duty, right? Well, in the emergency election to fill his position, only 1 in 5 of the people that signed the recall petition actual voted. 4 of 5 just wanted to kick the government were ever they could get a shot in.
In the end, you might catch one bill, you might get someone important to object to it, you might even get enough people on your side to oppose the law, but unless you can give a senator a better hand job than the lobbist, they'll get their way eventually.
I count it as a difference between the personal and professional. Information about things -- software, hardware, science in general, the Law -- is not the same as information about an individual. Things don't vote, raise kids, or have emotions.
Personal privacy != Corporate secrecy.
"The girl makes Godot look punctual." -- Buffy
This is the part of the bill that I find particularly noxious and annoying. I can (with regret) swallow the rest of the bill, as long as the company gives me the explicit choice, whenever they collect the information, about whether I want to prevent them from selling the information to other people.
But this... When a company breaks the law, and they violate my privacy, I have a right to sue their asses off! I have a right (a moral right, not a legal one, IANAL) to publicly punish them and make damn sure they never do this again and get appropriate compensation for violating my privacy. This bill specifically would take away this right from me.
"Oh, I'm sorry, we didn't realize we were violating your privacy! All those magazine companies now know your income level? Whoops, our bad! But we're just going to do it again, because we have no incentive to obey the law!"
Laws don't mean anything without teeth. Remove the teeth, might as well not even have the law.
modern choral music...
I want a law making it illegal to mislead people when naming or describing laws. Putting a little spin on law names is one thing, but calling something a "privacy law" when it's really a "no privacy law" or a "loss of privacy law" is just garbage.
My law, new style, could be called "No False Advertising in Congress". Old style, it could be called, "Misleading People for a Better America" or "Beef Jerky" or something.
Blah.
-Puk