Slashdot Mirror
Senator Prevents Action on Online Privacy Bill
securitas writes "The NYTimes tells us Senator Trent Lott forced the Senate Commerce Committee to adjourn this morning as it was on the verge of adopting an online privacy bill requiring ISPs and commercial Web sites to get customers' permission before they could disclose important personal information. That would include financial,
medical, ethnic, religious and political information along with Social Security data and sexual orientation. I urge Trent Lott's constituents to make your voices heard on this. Same goes for readers whose senators serve on the Senate Commerce Committee." Salon and EPIC have written about
Hollings' bill.
Get the attention of all of the task force members.
http://rpc.senate.gov/httf/fastfacts.htm
I'm a Mississippi voter (shut up), and so Trent Lott is my senator. Right after the hearings for the (then) SSSCA with Eisner et al, I wrote a letter to Sen. Lott saying how much I didn't like that bill. I figured, "Hey, he's one of the top Republicans. This bill is sponsored by a Democrat. As much as I dislike Lott, he's bound to agree with me!"
Not quite. I got a letter back three days ago. It was a bit behind the times, still referring to the SSSCA. It basically said, "Yes, there is a bill. Yes, there was testimony. It was very useful. Your opinion is important to me." Considering how reviled the CBPTA eventually became and when the letter was sent, it shouldn't exactly take a lot of political initiative to stand up against that kind of bill. But from the letter it didn't look like he exactly opposed it or anything.
I realized there are lots of problems with Hollings most recent bill, and maybe that's why he's doing that, but I wouldn't call Lott privacy- or tech-friendly by any stretch of the imagination.
Using this procedural rule is actually quite common for Lott. He has invoked this rule several times over the past year to tie up the business of the senate. He did this after the nomination of Judge Pickering was defeated in Committee.
Of course, Lott also snipes at Daschle constantly for not clearing legislation in a timely manner. Go figure!
This is not the sig you are looking for...
"I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work." -Kent Brockman
I'll just adjust my cynical hat for a sec, and loudly proclaim, "These ^%$#!ing people in Congress consistently vote in favor of large corporations, at the expense of normal people like you and me. A CORPORATION IS NOT A PERSON! Last time I checked, we were by THE PEOPLE for THE PEOPLE, not for the corporations."
This kind of crap just makes me sick.
I am now writing a letter (with a pen, on paper) to send to the committee. I urge EVERYONE ELSE to do the same.
Hello! This is yesterday's news. Today's News.com article has more up-to-date info, and it says that Lott's tactic only delayed things by one day.
"If I could live to be several hundred
I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
Read the Salon article. And remember who is sponsoring this bill. There may be more to this than meets the eye.
And yes, I am a Mississippian, and a conservative, and no, I don't really like Trent Lott.
Contact info for the committee is here.
(Shoulda put this in my rant. Sorry.)
You really should call his office and complain, although it is already 5pm there now.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Likewise with the Online Personal Privacy Act. It is masquerading as pro-consumer when in fact it is pro-business. The new legislation is similar to laws passed in Europe that divide your personal information into two types. The first is "sensitive" information, such as your financial and medical history, race, lifestyle, religion, political affiliation, and sex life. The second is "nonsensitive" information, and among that will include your name, address, and records of anything you buy or surf on the Internet. Under the act, business can't collect or divulge the sensitive bits without your express consent, but anything classified as nonsensitive can be freely collected and sold at will.
I guess anything that Hollings touches is evil.
Heh, maybe lot just uses hotmail and doesnt want his email service declared illegal and shut down.
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
This is not even an issue. The senator knows that every upstanding american citizen is:
- financial: a hard-working taxpayer
- medical: leads a clean life
- ethnic: is from good stock
- religious: is a proud and dedicated churchgoer
- political: supports his president 100%
- social security: skeptical of its goals
- sexual orientation: damned straight
So you see, there really isn't any unique information to keep secret. The proposed legislation is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.Before you get up in arms about the injustice of this move you might want to *READ* the salon article mentioned. Yes, this bill is something that's needed, but just like the Microsoft anti-trust settlement what you have after the fact could be more dangerous than before
This law would make them get you to opt-in for what is considered "secure" information.
HOWEVER, it is very loose on what is considered "secure" information and gives free reign for those same people that it's trying to supposedly stop a legal right to sell and/or give away personal information
I don't have time to look for the article I read, but isn't Hollings' bill actually a pro-business bill in disguise? IIRC, the kinds of data listed in the quote are protected, but other kinds of data, such as what you buy, are not. I think the article I read pointed out that it's meaningless, because with data on what you buy, companies can figure out a lot about you: your religion, your politics, medical information, perhaps your sexual tastes...
Read the bill, or at least the comments WHY he shut it down.
I think that it shouldn't happen. This bill legalizes sharing of much personal information WITHOUT authorization.
It also legitimizes those constantly changing TOS that "by continuing to use the service you agree to"
This is NOT a personal privacy bill, this in an anti privacy bill.
Disagree with me if you want, but at least see what the bill and issues are BEFORE you go off half cocked complaining about this.
The Senator from Disney is sponsoring this bill, which many others have pointed out.
...you can sure i wont be voting for that bastard when his term runs up...
Not voting for Lott could mean that you're voting for an opponent or that you're not voting at all. I hope you choose the former over the latter.
--Jim
Lott may have done 'the right thing' by trying to keep this bill from passing. There was another /. article not very long ago More on Internet Privacy Legislation and a link from it A law to protect spyware that shows how this bill is not all that great for our privacy.
One point that the article makes is that this bill would "place a congressional stamp of approval on precisely the kinds of practices that purveyors of spyware are eager to engage in" and "the nonsensitive clause is a huge gaping loophole through which business will ride roughshod."
Before we blast Lott for this, we should get a good idea of what the bill does based off of something other than its name (which of course was given to it by Sen. Fritz Hollings!)
I'm not saying that Lott is working for our better good, or even that he is thinking of people like us, but we should take a good look at this thing before we complain that someone kept it from passing.
AHP
Now what would be -really- useful is for someone to write a PHP script that goes to the signup page, enters random information. signs you up, then logs in and goes to the page you originally wanted. Then we could just point all the links to mydomain.net/ReferToNyTimes?StoryID=x You mean something like this?
It's true--he had to adjourn to his office to check his list of contributors. How else is a senator supposed to know which vote to cast?
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
"...--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We have prepared on analysis of this bill andit is online here, much easier than reading through the 30 pages, a condensed outline version. We oppose the bill and sent a letter to Sen. Hollings yesterday saying so, we also cc: to all members of the Committee (inc. Sen. Lott). You can also read our press release from our front page here.
We do not want to see the Internet, and Internet commerce treated differently than non-internet commerce. We do not want discriminatory effects placed on the Internet, and wide ranging new regulations and sever legal penalties that will bankrupt many firms. If you conduct any business with a web site, you should oppose this bill!
I wouldn't call Lott friendly period. :)
It voted to require the Federal Trade Commission to develop privacy rules for offline businesses as well, and reduced the maximum amount consumers could win for privacy violations from $5,000 to $500.
This is just absurd. Assuming that a violating company only got 1% of people suing, and a fraction of them winning... this means that the average cost per customer is really about $5. This is an acceptable "cost of doing business".
Seriously, all they seem to need is a perceived threat to privacy ("Senator Prevents Action on Online Privacy Bill"!!) even if the same bill was critized a while go on slashdot, and is sponsored by the senator from disney.
Please, follow someof the links before jumping in to agree with the post ...
Lott against privacy, Lott baaaad !!!
what's next ?
Hollings pro-privacy, Hollings good !?!?
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
Geez, you people make me sick. The Republican party isn't perfect but they sure care a lot more about privacy, the FREE market, and individual rights than the Democrats. Stop being spoon fed what you read in the liberal media. Somebody has to be correct about this matter, why not read up and make your own decision.
Trent did the right thing.
/.ers.
The whor^H^H^H^HSenator from SC is not to be trusted to ANYTHING in the publics interest. He did a nice job naming it though, Orwellian doublespeak at its best. Even fooled some
These days, even the party of Bill Clinton seems willing to trade our rights for a few campaign bucks.
What's the world coming to?
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
I'll have to agree. This is the bill that would explicitly make opt-out legally acceptable everywhere except it's few protected areas. I'd rather it died a horrible death so we can go for better ones at the state as well as Federal levels, than have it become law and trump potentially stronger state-level protections.
Not that I think this is why Lott killed it, but I'll still take it as a good thing in this instance.
You want to know why the politicians don't pay attention to geeks? Because you're clueless. You're no more informed about the issues than your common couch potato sucking in the CNN lies.
Last week you were all rallying around your privacy rights. This week you pan the guy that killed a bill that would have taken away your privacy rights. The geek coalition is just as malleable with ten second sound bites as the soccer moms and suv dads.
Go find out what this bill is about before you start clamouring for its passage. It serves you a bowl of shit and you're happy because there's a doggy biscuit mixed in. Sheesh! Oh boo hoo that filthy republican took away my doggy biscuit...
I'm definitely going to let Trent Lott know how I feel. I'll let him know that I'm glad he kept my best interests in mind in that den of weasels they call the Senate. I want a real privacy bill, not this half-assed excuse for a placebo.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Indeed, the govt overtly- not just implicitly - condones the use of tobacco products - in fact, many state govts have budgets built on the financial foundation of taxation of tobacco use. Consider this sad fact when you state that regulated / taxed / condoned evil is better than a world where one can mount a defense legally. What if Congress decides regulation and taxation of spyware is the appropriate outcome? How hard will it be to get back privacy rights after that?
Additionally, tobacco sales outside the US are essentially unregulated - in fact, they are aided and abetted by the US govt, to improve the balance of payments and ensure that the tobacco companies can make their liability litigation payments ad infinitum. Privacy, in my opinion, should be considered just as much a 'human right' as freedom from predatory marketing of inherently unhealthy (and useless) products. Of course, human rights are usually the first victim in the pursuit of cash flow.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
The scary thing about our representatives is this:
What if they truly do represent the will of the overwhelming majority? In other words, what if we had a clean slate, and could choose again? Would we end up with EXACTLY the same idiots and criminals in office? Or different ones with the same relative characteristics?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
are you kidding me? these congressmen dont give a flying monkey spunk about their constituents, they care about the lobbyists who finance their elections, the ones that keep them in office.
yeah, so i'm negative, but its right
Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
Read more of the article, or, better still, read the bill.
The bill bifurcates personal information into
"sensitive" and "not sensitive."
Oddly, much of the stuff that's "sensitive" is already protected in a variety of ways.
What the bill actually does is eliminate all of your privacy rights while identifying a few categories that aren't included in the gift to business.
Betcha those get added over time.
This is the same bill that would allow most of our information to be shared unless we opt-out and only protects the information that is already protected.
/. was willing to put on a story to get people worked up.
Jeez, I didn't realize just how much of a spin
DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL!!!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Hello folks, is this thing on?
This bill doesn't do much of anything to assure us of privacy. If anything, it ensures that spammers and the like have the legal rights to track us. This bill basically divides all information into two categories (personal/important and non-personal/unimportant) and sets an opt-in for the 'important' information while not even guaranteeing an opt-out for what it considers 'unimportant'.
Of course you're asking yourself, "what's he mean unimportant?" Glad you asked. Your name, address, record of any and all purchases, etc.; important, personal information you're probably thinking. Wrong. Don't feel bad, I made the same mistake at first. Then I looked at who was pushing this thing (Fritz Hollings (SSSCA/DMCA/etc)) and I smacked my head and said, "oh, now I get it." The only information spammers care about is the information NOT protected by this bill.
Gee, I have an idea, let's forward all spam email to Fritz Hollings' email address and see how he likes his own medicine. It amazes me that the citizens of South Carolina would allow such an anti-freedom, anti-constitution, anti-consumer, anti-individual, pro-corporation, pro-media (christ, he's referred to as the "Senator from Disney) to continue representing them. I somehow doubt that the majority of the citizens of South Carolina would vote for most of what he pushes if they knew what he was pushing.
I say we give into Hollings. I mean, all he wants is lots of money, a large plantation, and plenty of people he can humiliate and beat down at will. Can't we get that for him so he'll go away? To me, it's absolutely insane that such a person is allowed to remain in office. We should have some sort of monthly review board for every member of Congress so that when they completely abandon their constituents, they can be removed from office quickly and quietly, making way for a human being with a heat that pumps blood instead of oil.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Both of them are for the desires of the most wealthy .01% of the population who pay for their campaigns. Witness the track record if you don't believe me! We should have finished paying down the debt so that this burden won't fall to the next generation. What did we do? We gave big tax breaks, largely to the weahtly. Both republicans and democrats voted for this!
The Democrats fought Boy George on this issue and did everything they could to moderate the extreme tax cut bill that Bush signed. Most Democrats voted against it and it passed on party lines. The Republicans, unfortunately, controlled both houses of Congress at that time, filling the halls with such mental giants as Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.
It is the Democrats who have worked hard to keep from gutting the welfare programs. They are the ones that have fought for graduated taxes so that those that could afford to pay more taxes did and those who were less able did not. It was under Reagan that the gap between the CEO's salary and that of the workers widened to a chasm.
As to paying down the debt, that was going along quite nicely under Clinton. At the time, the Republican Congress tried to take credit for balancing the budget, but as soon as we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress, we saw the Republican cut-taxes-and-increase-spending take over.
That leaves the bottom 50% paying less than 8% of the income tax. Real equal, huh?
I don't know where you got the idea that taxes should be "equal." If it takes $X per year to adequately support a family and someone earns $X + 10%, they can't afford to pay out 40% of their income in taxes. Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, and Michael Eisner can afford to pay that much and more without it impacting their quality of life in any way, shape, or form. It makes no sense to expect someone who's barely scraping by on a low-wage job, living in the cheapest efficiency they can find, and eating macaroni and cheese every night to pay the same percentage in taxes that millionaires like Goerge W. Bush and Dick Cheney do.
Some people work 60 hours a week, some work 40. Would you suggest that those working 60 should earn less money per hour than those working 40?
No, I'd suggest getting the government to step in and protect workers from excessive hours -- even if some workers are dumb enough that they want to work that many. In France, it is illegal to work more than 35 hours per week. Since we put in more hours, on average, per week than workers in any other industrialized country, maybe it is time to pass some legislation, like the French did, to improve our quality of life.
Suppose we earn the same amount of money. If I invest/save my money, and you buy a car with yours five years from now who has more wealth?
I do. Because we both have a 60+ mile round trip commute and you lost your job because your old clunker car would not get you to work reliably. You kept taking time off to fix your car rather than buying a new one that was more reliable and appropriate for someone of your income. Management was embarassed when customers showed up and parked next to your rusty, orange 1978 AMC Matador. Your coworkers were uncomfortable going to lunch with you when you insisted on driving. People complained about the smoke and smell from the exhaust of your car. And, while my VW Golf TDI averaged 45MPG on diesel, your Matador got 11MPG on premium fuel, which more than ate up anything you made by investing your $17K.
In the course of the five years, I got promoted and got good raises. You were seen as a flake who did not have his life together. You were always taking Mondays off because you'd start a car repair on the weekend, need parts on Sunday, and have to buy them on Monday to finish the repair. Management was convinced you had a drug or alcohol problem because of your absenteeism and the fact that you were obviously having to spend that money on something like drugs or alcohol -- otherwise, you'd have replaced that car.
That's quite different than "equality" consisting of robbing Paul to pay Peter.
No one is "robbing" anyone. The government needs a certain amount of money to run the programs that have been voted into existence by our elected leaders. Would you have them take 33% of the income of a widow that's barely making ends meet just so that she's paying the same percentage as Bill Gates? Would you have her unable to feed, clothe, and house herself just so that you could even out the percentages? Would you have someone from a poor family who is working their way through college drop out so that you could take a higher percentage of their income?
You have a good point about wrongful conviction, which can, however, be addressed by raising the bar for a death penalty -- namely, rock-hard evidence, such as DNA and expert testimony on vaginal tearings, would be required for the death penalty. Also, anyone currently in jail should be able to have a DNA test freely done, if they want to prove that they are innocent. If the test show they're guilty, however, the cost of the test is burdened by them.
Also, another thing I support: any prosecutor who knowingly prosecutes and convicts and innocent person should, upon being found out, have to serve a punishment equaling that the person he convicted served.
That's the practical side of things. On to theory. "People should not kill people". Bleeding-heart nonsense, imo. This class of criminals I'm talking about -- murderers, rapists, child-molesters, sexual-assaulters -- are a permanent danger to society, and need to be neutralized. I don't believe in an eye for an eye. I believe the only way to completely neutralize these dangerous threats to society -- and especially to their victims -- is to execute them. Try to look at it from the victims point of view -- they aren't safe from these people until they're executed.
As for the "honor system" you mention, where a raped-daughter's father kills the rapist because of honor, then the rapists father kills someone else because of honor, etc, this type of "honor" system doesn't exist in the US. Such spirals of death would not occur.
Furthermore, the reason fathers -- and mother's -- kill a person who rapes their child is not because of honor. Its because that's the only way to ensure they're children are safe from them. But, since you think this is "barbaric" perhaps you'd like to put the parent in jail for life, deprive the child of their loving father or mother, and cause further trauma in the child's life? What do you think should be the punishment for such a person? Do you really think we should put parents in jail for doing what comes naturally to parents, protecting their children from dangerous individuals?
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen