Slashdot Mirror


Former DoubleClick Exec Named Privacy Czar

tsu doh nimh writes "A former executive for banner ad giant DoubleClick has been selected to be the first ever privacy czar for the Department of Homeland Security, says this Washingtonpost.com story." Just leaves you speechless ....

410 of 570 comments (clear)

  1. Puh-lease by ChaoticChaos · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will we start getting Homeland Security updates through banner ads? Will popup banner ads now be government endorsed? ;-)

    Surely they could find someone with a better resume than that? Surely?

    1. Re:Puh-lease by k-0s · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Surely they could find someone with a better resume than that? Surely?


      Yeah lots of better resumes out there but those people may not have donated to the Republican party.
    2. Re:Puh-lease by bsharitt · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now when you see a flshing red banner, it won't mean that you have won something, it just means a terrorist attack is immenant.

    3. Re:Puh-lease by fubar1971 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's kind of like appointing Tommy Chong as the new Drug Czar.

      Interviewer: Mr. Chong, what can you bring to this position?

      Tomy Chong: Like.....Man....I know alot about....Hey, who's hungry?

    4. Re:Puh-lease by outsider007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Will popup banner ads now be government endorsed?

      yup, and not clicking them will be considered an act of terrorism.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    5. Re:Puh-lease by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      Those are nice jokes man, but this is serious business. Its a slap in the face. One day the *majority* group in America will realize whos the real threat to our way of life...

      This is as bad as the data gathering department hiring the iran-contra guy a few months ago. Are their heads really that far up their asses, or are they really just trying to piss us off!?

    6. Re:Puh-lease by ciphertext · · Score: 1

      Did O'Conner Kelly donate to the Republican party?

      --
      To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
    7. Re:Puh-lease by crazyaxemaniac · · Score: 1

      > Surely they could find someone with a better resume than that? Surely?

      No, who better to protect privacy than someone who is skilled at undermining it?

      And don't call me Shirley.

    8. Re:Puh-lease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I don't think Tommy Chong would qualify for the job - he's Canadian. Cheech Marin OTOH ...

    9. Re:Puh-lease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Surely they could find someone with a better resume than that? Surely?

      Of course they could have found someone better. They just wanted to tweak the public's nose... conciously adding to the general, fear, dispair, and resignation which they love and feed on. The sooner you learn that what motivates them is different than what they CLAIM motivates them, the better off you'll be.

      Oh, and stop calling me Surely.

    10. Re:Puh-lease by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      Although not in your case, so would the removal of AC posting.

    11. Re:Puh-lease by Ponty · · Score: 1

      We get such quality government officials as Dr. Kissinger.

    12. Re:Puh-lease by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "yup, and not clicking them will be considered an act of terrorism."

      I'm blocking pop-ups through Mozilla and my hosts file has doubleclick pointing to the 127 subnet. I can hear the black helicopters coming now...

    13. Re:Puh-lease by anthroboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Don't think of these microchips that we're implanting in your neck as a 'tracking device'. That's a very ugly term. We prefer to think of them as 'Cookies'!"

    14. Re:Puh-lease by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      .... Has done just about everything he could to distance himself from what made him famous.

      Like Robin Williams.

    15. Re:Puh-lease by dogfart · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dave's not here!

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

  2. Asking the burglar to guard the house by dtolton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a related move Osama Bin Laden has been appointed as the
    first ever Terror Czar. Bin Laden was not immediately available
    for comment.

    From the article it sounds like this post will be more of a
    public relations position than anything. Rather than appointing
    someone who worked for a company notorious for trampling
    people's privacy rights, IMO they should have appointed someone
    who has a record of protecting an upholding our right to
    privacy. Had they appointed someone with that type of track
    record maybe the cabinet could have had an honest dialogue about
    privacy rights in general, rather than simply a discussion about
    how to phrase the wording of a news release so it doesn't freak
    out the privacy rights groups.

    --

    Doug Tolton

    "The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
    1. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by Amiga+Trombone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rather than appointing someone who worked for a company notorious for trampling people's privacy rights, IMO they should have appointed someone who has a record of protecting an upholding our right to privacy.

      That's a little harsh. After all, DoubleClick hired her to address the complaints that were coming from users. Her job was to help DoubleClick clean up their act. She isn't the worst possible choice.

    2. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      This isn't insightful at all! I guess even moderators don't read the article :-( Shame on you, Slashdot, for posting such misleading alarmist crap (although you'd think I'd be used to it by now)

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
    3. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Who cares about the banners, now if it was a spammer then I would yell and scream!

    4. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by Hard_Code · · Score: 4, Funny

      This one's expectations have been lowered. The program is working. Excellent.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    5. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by Neck_of_the_Woods · · Score: 1


      Kind of like Kevin Mitnick doing network security....WAIT A MINUTE!

      --
      Neck_of_the_Woods
      #/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
    6. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      a company notorious for trampling people's privacy rights

      Exactly which "rights" has doubleclick violated? Do you really want the government to regulate how and when sites can use cookies?

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    7. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Competency is the operative word here. If she is competent then irrespective of her previous work then there is no reason that she can not do a good job.
      It's not unusual for someone in today's economy to have to switch hats (think outsourcing). I know that I have had to switch myself. A former employer is now a client. What was readily performed as part of my job for my former employer is now questioned. Without funding it no longer gets done.

      The fact that she worked for DoubleClick could be seen as a positive. She should be aware of all the tricks.

    8. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by platypus · · Score: 1

      Are you aware how much information a company like DoubleClick can/could use cookies to track everything about you?

      I'm not interested to regulate their use of cookies, I'm interested in regulating how they can use _and_ store that data.

    9. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wrong, her job wasn't to help DoubleClick Clean up their act, her job was to publicly help DoubleClick clean up their act, there is a differnce, and this is why she is PERFECT for the job. Read between the lines or you'll never understand.

    10. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Her job was to help DoubleClick clean up their act.

      No, her job was to help DoubleClick look like they were cleaning up their act.

      In other words, she's the perfect choice for an administration that wants to look like they're respecting people's privacy.

    11. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Insightful
      > Kind of like Kevin Mitnick doing network security....WAIT A MINUTE!

      I'd trust Kevin Mitnick with my network before I'd trust anyone from Doubleclick with my privacy.

      The difference between Mitnick and Doubleclick? Only one of 'em is a lying shitweasel whose sole reason for existence is to the invasion of your privacy through clever social engineering.

    12. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by Capt.+DrunkenBum · · Score: 1

      OK, if that is how you feel about Mitnick, I can't wait to hear what you think about DoubleClick.

      Note for the humour impared: The above is a joke.

      --

      Not everyone deserves a 320i

    13. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by cheezedawg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, I'm aware.

      Are you aware that nothing they are doing is against any laws? And IMO it should stay that way. There is no constitutional right to surf the net anonymously.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    14. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      This was an interesting story today.

      "Hacker hiring session morphs into Mitnick melee"

      Should we hire "hackers" in enterprise?
      I like the the qoute ""It's really easy to hack computers. It's the lazy thing to do," Winkler said. By contrast, developing legitimate computer skills is much harder."

    15. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by Ironica · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that nothing they are doing is against any laws? And IMO it should stay that way. There is no constitutional right to surf the net anonymously.

      Just as there is no constitutional right to go to a shopping mall anonymously. If I go to the local Westfield Shoppingtown and buy items at Victoria's Secret, Robinson's May, and Pets-R-Us, and then browse at Bath and Body Works and Bebe, it's perfectly legal for the mall to keep records of my transactions, and also report where I went but didn't buy. Then they can sell that information to The Body Shop and Casual Corner, who know that I'm interested in similar products to theirs but haven't bought anything. They can now target me with advertising mailed to my home address (which is easy to get if I used a store credit card anywhere).

      That is all perfectly legal, right? It is infeasible, but there's no *law* against using information that way. On the other hand, there doesn't need to be. No matter how bad an idea it is, or how violated people would feel if companies used their information this way, it doesn't need to be made illegal because it isn't worth the investment to do it.

      But this is what Doubleclick does. They don't just set cookies; they examine all the cookies they can on your computer to find out where you've been and what you did there. Then they sell ads to companies on the premise that, since they know so much about you, they can advertise to you more effectively.

      Does it still seem like something that should be legal? Especially in a country where people raise holy heck if the government dares to use the information they broadcast voluntarily from their cars for their own convenience for a purpose like measuring traffic speeds? We're so incredibly paranoid about how much information people can get about where we go and what we do, it seems that we would naturally find Doubleclick's practices revolting. Especially since now the Federal government is going to use them "to find terrorists" (or anyone else they don't like... McCarthyism anyone?).

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    16. Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      The only reason to hire a hacker is a political one.

      Hacking is like breaking into a building, you can break the door, pick the lock, break the window, convince someone to give you the key, etc. And programming/administrating is like designing/cleaning a building. The programmer (builder)/admin (janitor) will probably know about all the "flaws" of the structure, but they don't usually have the incentives to uncover any of them because those "flaws" can only mean thankless (and potentially limitless) additional work.

      So that's why, I say the decision to hire a hacker is a political one. If the management really wants an honest comprehensive audit of all the risks they're facing, I think a former hacker would be much more forthcoming about that kind of information than a former programmer, or a former administrator.

  3. Bizzaro world. by scrotch · · Score: 5, Funny

    This whole presidency is like opposite day.

    1. Re:Bizzaro world. by forrestt · · Score: 1

      Thank you for my new sig.

    2. Re:Bizzaro world. by Afrosheen · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      True, I'm just waiting for Myxlplyx to be Dubya's running mate in the next elections.

    3. Re:Bizzaro world. by sharkey · · Score: 3, Funny
      This whole presidency is like opposite day.

      Is it just me, or does anyone else want to bonk this guy with the Calvinball?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    4. Re:Bizzaro world. by Teknogeek · · Score: 4, Funny

      I bonked him oppositely by NOT bonking him.

      Start singing.

      --
      I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
    5. Re:Bizzaro world. by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for the Government to create the "Ministry of Peace" and NightWatch.

      Yes... I've watched too many Babylon 5 Episodes ;-)

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    6. Re:Bizzaro world. by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      That reminds me -- apparently Knight Rider is coming to the big screen...

    7. Re:Bizzaro world. by amembrane · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Chad Ghostal

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    8. Re:Bizzaro world. by Fishstick · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'll say,

      The pop-under that came up with the washpost page was strange in that it was a doubleclick ad page that errored on 404:

      http://ad.doubleclick.net/www.washingtonpost.com /w p-adv/advertisers/popunders/reliaquote2_april03.ht ml

      Error 404 Not Found

      What are the chances?

      I'm sure there's a IN SOVIET RUSSIA joke there somewhere, but I'm too tired to give it much effort this afternoon...

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    9. Re:Bizzaro world. by JasonUCF · · Score: 1

      I'm Ice Stormy! I'm regular Stormy! I'm Ice Stormy! -=-iamnotlameiamnotlameiamnotlame-=-

    10. Re:Bizzaro world. by zaphod110676 · · Score: 1

      That's been my thought for months. The parallels to Pres. Clark are astounding. Now all we have to do is wait to be liberated. =)

      --
      To Do: 1. Take over world 2. Pick up Milk and Bread on the way home
    11. Re:Bizzaro world. by sharkey · · Score: 1
      Start singing.

      I would, but you're posting from a Boomerang Zone. You have to sing.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    12. Re:Bizzaro world. by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      That would explain the time when "THE SHRUB" appeared with his pants on backwards. This whole time we thought he was an incompetant idiot- he should've just told us it was Opposite Day! But then again, I guess as a part of OD, he had to say "Hey folks, it is a Normal Day today!" Asshole.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    13. Re:Bizzaro world. by EricWright · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, ads cannot find you!

      Really? Damn... might have to move there!

    14. Re:Bizzaro world. by Nightpaw · · Score: 1

      I hate the Bizzaros.

    15. Re:Bizzaro world. by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

      OH-MY-DEAR-LORD, Noooooo!!!!

    16. Re:Bizzaro world. by Ponty · · Score: 1

      You've made it to my quote of the day. Well done.

    17. Re:Bizzaro world. by Ponty · · Score: 1

      They'll start by liberating the colony worlds.

      My suspicion is that Cheney is the real Clark. Alas, that makes W Santiago, and he didn't end up so well. Nevertheless, the parade of yahoos that keep coming into the administraiton really do remind me of the assorted preposterous Earth officials who were trying to assure everyone that things were perfectly fine.

    18. Re:Bizzaro world. by hobbesmaster · · Score: 1

      Its not like they're remaking Casablanca or anything...

    19. Re:Bizzaro world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, popups block YOU!

      or...

      In S.R., ads popup under YOU!

      or...

      oh, god.

    20. Re:Bizzaro world. by megabulk3000 · · Score: 1

      No, he was like "Warm it up Chris," and I was all "Yo, I'm about to."

    21. Re:Bizzaro world. by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      It is Bizzaro!

    22. Re:Bizzaro world. by zaphod110676 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. There were plenty of bureaucrats spinning things to look all nice and happy there too. I remember specifically the politocol officer that was sent to Sheridan.

      Let's just hope that Cheney or Bush or whoever doesn't redirect the planetary defense grid back onto Earth.

      --
      To Do: 1. Take over world 2. Pick up Milk and Bread on the way home
    23. Re:Bizzaro world. by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      haha,

      C: Fuck it up Bush!
      W: I'm about to!
      C: Fuck it up Bush!
      W: That's what I was born to do!

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  4. No, she sounds like a great choice. by Welsh+Dragon · · Score: 5, Informative
    O'Connor Kelly sounds like a good choice for this position. DoubleClick was one of the most grevious privacy offenders on the internet, probably the absolute worst. They were so bad that even the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) got into the act. They're banner ads would abuse bugs in browsers to set cookies that would be able to track you from everywhere by using subdomains of base domains such as .co.uk (most browsers assumed you could set a parent if it was a high level domain like example.com or example.net just by counting the number of dots, but you can't register example.uk, only example.co.uk, so you could effectively set cookies for every purchasable domain) and other nasty tricks. They claimed that they didn't store personal data, but it was obvious that they were monitoring and corrolating everything they could, and the wide number of websites that used doubleclick meant they had a huge repository of data to mine.

    O'Connor Kelly came in after DoubleClick was shown to be, well, evil when it came to privacy, to clean things up. Many changes have occured at DoubleClick to fix some of the problems. Given the amount of data DoubleClick had and what they did with it, O'Connor Kelly should have an excellent idea of what abuses you can do when you have that sort of information.

    Hopefully she can step in and help prevent that sort of thing from happening at this level too.

    1. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by DogIsMyCoprocessor · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks for a voice of sanity. But you forgot to flame the submitter and and chrisd for not bothering to RTFA.

      --

      "And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."

    2. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      After reading the article, I'm inclined to agree. I haven't had any problems with Doubleclick lately.

    3. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by sdavid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your point is well taken, and she may well have been effective at improving Doubleclick's behaviour. However that doesn't change the fact that she comes from an industry that uses private information for their own profit. No matter how personally beyond reproach she may be, she's still a wolf amoung sheep.

    4. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course, when you read the article you also get a popup ad... :-(

    5. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1, Troll
      well, you kindly provide refutation in the title of your post: SOUNDS like a great choice. literacy that stops at swallowing PR is almost worse than no literacy at all. try to think critically, eh?

      oh i forgot, land of the consume[rd], home of the marketeers...

      let's just jump to the conclusion while we can still express it publicly. any psychologist versed in modern western culture will tell you: when a woman fronts for a man's dirty work, the perception (of dirt) is lessened. when a man fronts for a woman's dirty work, the perception (of dirt) is enhanced. in this case, the woman is the government corporate (think about it), the man fronting that is the government, and the woman fronting all of that is this "privacy czar".

      another bit of irony: isn't the "drug czar" supposed to "fight drugs"? what does that make the privacy czar? so you see it's very easy to confuse the issue at both the general and specific levels: criminalize the legitimate and legitimize the criminal. in this way the society destroys its honor.

    6. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's killer is a slashdot editor insulting doubleclick for privacy issues.

      Ever checked the slashdot banners?

      Yup, you'll find doubleclick there from time to time. Guess that shows what they think of their readership....

    7. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by zdislaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And further...anyone who would expect the government, or anyone really, to hire someone to a position like this who would not simultaneously consider personal privacy issues and and public safety, is crazy. She is called a consensus builder by the personal security crowd. Hopefully she will build consensus that can help protect us from our enemies (and I use that term with no small amount of confusion as to who they are) while still protecting us from our own government.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    8. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

      Of course they put someone from one of the few companies I have in my hosts list as 127.0.0.1 in charge of protecting privacy.

      Sure, she's got experience working for the Satan of privacy violations. I don't give a rats what she did for them. This is like recruiting someone Microsoft to be in charge of internet security ..Oh yeah, they already did that too.

      Tomorrow they will define peace as war, darkness as light, and cats as dogs.

      What will they do next week? Put Pol Pot in charge of the Human Rights Commission?

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    9. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by lamename · · Score: 1

      I haven't had any problems with Doubleclick lately either. Of course, I blocked access at the firewall to any traffic to or from them long ago.

      To be honest, I don't know about this person, and she might be just great. However, when the government decides both who to spy on, and if their rights are being protected, I don't hold out a lot of hope.

    10. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by pergamon · · Score: 1

      She was brough in so that DoubleClick wouldn't go under, not so consumers would have better privacy protection.

    11. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, the Washington Post's website was not run by the government (even if it is in Washington) nor by DoubleClick. What's your point?

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    12. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by ciphertext · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All industries use private information for their own profit. Who would you suggest they use?

      --
      To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
    13. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by sdavid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, but if this is to be a watchdog post then someone representing consumer or citizen interest is a more appropriate choice to head it. This doesn't mean that industry people shouldn't be represented, just not in the watchdog role.

    14. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by Broodje · · Score: 1

      What's a popup ad? ;)

    15. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by peretzpup · · Score: 1

      Uh, maybe somebody not from industry?

    16. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by theCoder · · Score: 1

      True enough... though I don't know the last time I actually saw a DoubleClick ad either :)

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    17. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by PostConsumerRecycled · · Score: 1

      I don't think there needs to be a distinction. I don't think there's much of a correlation between personal privacy and public safety. We're not going to be safer by giving up privacy.

      --

      There is no dark side of the moon really, matter of fact it's all dark
    18. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by blate · · Score: 1

      Excellent point -- even if she managed to curtail Doubleclick's evil activities, their fundamental purpose is still evil, i.e., tracking one's web usage, clicks on banner adds, and so forth. Whether or not they collect specific "Personal" information, e.g., name, rank, serial number, etc., if they are using my web activity for their benefit without my knowledge or consent, that's bad and anyone associated with these activities should be considered unfit for the position in question.

    19. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by DogIsMyCoprocessor · · Score: 1

      Ooops, I should have modified my previous comment to "You forgot to flame the submitter, chrisd, and all the other commenters for not bothering to RTFA."

      --

      "And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."

    20. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Also, while numerous geeks here will tell you that a former black hat makes the best white hat... Apparently that can't translate well elsewhere. Or probably just when it doesn't fit their narrow-minded agendas.

      It's a good choice. She knows the tactics that are used, and is going to be well prepared to combat it.

    21. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by zdislaw · · Score: 1

      Agreed completely. My use of the words "personal safety" were, I think a poor choice. I do feel that there is a distinction between "information," and "personal information" (duh, right?) and someone who can walk this line responsibly while still being a member of our government, can't be an extremist on either side. I'm hoping she does her friggin' job and clearly defines the "personal" as totally hands-off. I do not, however, believe that Tom Ridge or John Ashcroft will allow her to do that.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    22. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by reinard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While you make a good point, the term of choice today ("cleaned things up") can be interpreted either way. It can be seen in such a way that she made DoubleClick be non-invasive, delete information they weren't supposed to have etc., OR it could also mean she figured out how to do what they want to do without breaking laws and calming down the privacy groups at the same time. My personal feeling is that it's probably a mix of both, but I would bet the the heavier side is on the latter interpretation. That's what scares me about someone like this getting into a position like this. Yes, she 'cleaned things up' at DoubleClick.. but that doesn't really say which side she's fighting for. It's a dubious choice at best.

      --
      Reinard
    23. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All industries use private information for their own profit. Who would you suggest they use?

      Someone anti-industry, like Ralph Nader

    24. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Actually this is a role very well suited to him. I would have liked to see that, and I am by no means a Nadar fan (as far as his presidential run was concerned)

      Finkployd

    25. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by teeters · · Score: 1

      Or it's like giving the position of Drug Czar to Ed Rosenthal - oh wait, that would be a good thing.

    26. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Interesting
      > > All industries use private information for their own profit. Who would you suggest they use?
      >
      > Someone anti-industry, like Ralph Nader

      Or someone pro-industry like Bruce Schneier, Phil Zimmerman, Eben Moglen, or Lawrence Lessig. (My dream picks: Schneier first, Lessig second.)

      I don't care if my Privacy Czar is pro-industry or not. I care if they're pro-privacy or not. Unless "Privacy Czar" one of those backwards honorifics like "Drug Czar", in which case, yeah, someone from Doubleclick is perfect. :-)

    27. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't care if my Privacy Czar is pro-industry or not. I care if they're pro-privacy or not.

      Absolutely, but those people you mentioned are pro-privacy first and pro-industry second. Industry and privacy do collide, and it's important that a privacy czar have the proper priorities in mind.

      Unless "Privacy Czar" one of those backwards honorifics like "Drug Czar", in which case, yeah, someone from Doubleclick is perfect. :-)

      Or like the Ministry of Peace or Ministry of Truth? Is it merely a coincidence that Doubleclick shares so many letters with Doublethink? :-)

    28. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      This is the United States of America, not the Socialist Republic Of America.

      That's exactly why it's important to have both sides of the issue represented.

    29. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      If you want fair and balanced journalism you should be watchnig FOX news, not reading this site

      I think listening to the president's speeches direct would be less biased...

    30. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Insightful
      > Absolutely, but those people you mentioned are pro-privacy first and pro-industry second.

      Exactly. As you say - if her mandate is to protect citizens' privacy, industry concerns should come second.

      (Regardless of who's in power, there'll never be a shortage of pro-business, anti-privacy lobbyists to counterbalance any excesses on the part of even the most radical Privacy Czar :)

    31. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by PSaltyDS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quote: "What will they do next week? Put Pol Pot in charge of the Human Rights Commission?"

      No. It was not the US, but the UN, that put Libya in charge of Human Rights, and put Iraq in charge of Disarmerment!

      Karma: Low - Moderation bullies keep stealing my lunch money.

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
    32. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by rleibman · · Score: 1

      This is the United States of America, not the Socialist Republic Of America.

      What? You didn't get the memo?

    33. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by pileated · · Score: 1

      That's a mighty big HOPEFULLY, considering John Ashcroft and the administrations privacy abuses so far.

    34. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by doggo · · Score: 1

      "This is the United States of America, not the Socialist Republic Of America."

      In Socialist Republic of America WE TELL YOU what country you're in!

    35. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by Ironica · · Score: 1

      O'Connor Kelly sounds like a good choice for this position.... [She] came in after DoubleClick was shown to be, well, evil when it came to privacy, to clean things up.

      Your statement is correct... she is a "good" choice for the job. She has experience in negotiating the delicate line of privacy invasion, and she can get people on her side. She did a good job for DoubleClick, by finding out exactly where they had to draw the line... so they could keep toeing it.

      Her job there, and probably here, is NOT to protect privacy. It's to protect her employer. Trouble is, this time, her employer is the government... and their job is to protect us. Not to hire people who can protect them *from* us. When that happens, we know someone's trying to get away with something we might not feel is in our best interests.

      From the Human Resources resumé review perspective, she's an excellent choice. From the perspective of those who want a watchdog protecting our privacy rights, not a troubleshooter who figures out exactly how much the agency can get away with, she's a horrific choice.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    36. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by JCallery · · Score: 1

      "Whether or not they collect specific "Personal" information, e.g., name, rank, serial number, etc., if they are using my web activity for their benefit without my knowledge or consent, that's bad and anyone associated with these activities should be considered unfit for the position in question."

      The idea that collecting anonymous information is "bad" is absurd. When you walk into a store, there are often devices that register you passing through their entranceway. This helps them gather statistics - evaluating everything from advertising campaigns to employee effectiveness - in order to help them improve their business, i.e. for their benefit. Visiting a website can be viewed the same as entering a store. You are accessing something that someone else created and made available to you, and they are able to anonymously collect information in order to help them make their site more effective.

    37. Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. by srowen · · Score: 1

      If only DoubleClick could do half of what it seems people think they are doing... they'd be the most amazing and profitable company on the planet. It's really hard to live up to all that sneakiness.

      I think 99% of the people blabbering about privacy catastrophes don't actually understand what DoubleClick and companies like it do. It's tremendously harmless.

  5. Its a little late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    For april fools jokes...

    Oh.

  6. Elvis was a NARC. by RatBastard · · Score: 2, Funny

    And Richard Nixon made Elvis a special narcotics officer. Gave him a badge, too.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  7. Wrong department. by mcgroarty · · Score: 4, Funny

    Shouldn't this be "from the-foxes-guarding-the-henhouse dept." -- ?

    1. Re:Wrong department. by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      Not to be confused at all with making the Governer of New Jersey head of the EPA.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Wrong department. by kramer · · Score: 1

      That's not just putting the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse -- It's putting him in charge of the henhouse while giving him a Foreman grill and a book entitled "1001 ways to steal and cook a chicken".

    3. Re:Wrong department. by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I tend to think that the best person to do the job probably IS someone who has abused the shit out of the system.

      Who is better at helping you make your house burgular proof, a novice, or an ex con?

      This guy may be somewhat of an ex con, but he has to work in the public view, so I say give him a chance. He is going to know more tricks about privacy violations that the rest of us put together. Its better to have him working FOR us, than ON us.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:Wrong department. by n3bulous · · Score: 1

      Regardless of Whitman's qualifications (which never seem to matter in politics anyway), outside of Newark, Camden, Trenton, and NYC medical waste dumping, NJ isn't doing too bad environmentally.

      A large portion of South Jersey (we did try to secede a few decades back...) is protected forest, the NW corner is part of the Appalacian Trail, and there are still farms all over the place (hold your nose near the turf farms, though).

      The tree cutting has gotten worse, but what do you want?, NJ is stuck between the second largest city (NYC) in the world and Philly (which has little going for it).

      --
      "The area of penetration will no doubt be sensitive." ~ Spock
    5. Re:Wrong department. by Spellbinder · · Score: 1

      na they obviously trying to make a fortune out of this ... and he has to sell the data....
      hope they will use the money to recover public finances

      --


      stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
    6. Re:Wrong department. by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      If this wasn't the Office of Information Awareness, I would agree with you.

      Not to mention, John Poindexter, head of the department, was a key member of the Iran-Contra scandal.

      You should see some of the internal letters written by him during that period (retrieved by the FOIA). They are frightening at best.

      Of course, no one cares about that.

    7. Re:Wrong department. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      You should see some of the internal letters written by him during that period (retrieved by the FOIA). They are frightening at best.

      Oh, Im not saying have blind trust for sure, and I see potential pitfalls. I can't say who or shouldn't be in that position, but I tend to think people who were good at developing technology to violate your privacy would be better than say, Ned Flanders. ;)

      I am not ready to trust my privacy with much anyone, but if I have to, I would prefer someone who has been in the commercial world, and better if they have some history LIKE this.

      To me, putting an inexperienced person without a full understand what they are up against is potentially more fretful, or at best ineffectual.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    8. Re:Wrong department. by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with you on this at all -- I clearly stated that in my post.

      It's the people and the circumstances that bother me. We've been crying about electronic privacy (despite telephones) ever since the early 80's, and *now* they're going to "give" it to us? Doubtful.

      Poindexter is a convicted government criminal that got a presidential pardon. Take a guess who did it (It wasn't Bill Clinton, although he gave his fair share of his own). People are comparing Kelly to mitnick... This is the guy you compare to mitnick.

  8. In other news.. by grub · · Score: 3, Funny


    Ron Jeremy has just been named as successor to the pope. Unbelievable.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  9. Big Bad Wolf by SerialHistorian · · Score: 1

    And now, the new head of the avian agriculture department... the big bad wolf!

    --

    --
    Vote for your hopes, not for your fears - Vote Third Party

    1. Re:Big Bad Wolf by carlos_benj · · Score: 2, Funny

      And now, the new head of the avian agriculture department... the big bad wolf!

      So, in your world is the story called, "The Three Little Chickens"?

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

  10. Hehehe by Bendebecker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Click on this banner for information on protecting your privacy!

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
    1. Re:Hehehe by CFrankBernard · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or this flashing banner: "WARNING! Your computer is being monitored! Click here to find out anything on anyone."

  11. Kevin Mitnick by hey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... or like hiring Kevin Mitnick as a security
    consultant - ha ha. Oh wait that's not a joke.

    1. Re:Kevin Mitnick by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ... or like hiring Kevin Mitnick as a security

      I assume you mean a computer or electronics security post? I would most certainly consider him an excellent candidate for the job. He simultaneously understands how bad security is, the potentially disastrous consequences that has, and more than most anyone else, the need to keep tech-law legislation and enforcement grounded on _this_ side of reality.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    2. Re:Kevin Mitnick by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Yeah right, and I bet we could also hire Saddam Hussein as a human rights cop because he knows all about mass murdering his own people.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    3. Re:Kevin Mitnick by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      Minor difference here. Any fool can kill people, and many do. But generally speaking, the skills and experience needed for breaking into computers also happen to be amazingly useful for keeping those same systems from being broken into.

      So if you insist on using violent conflict analogies, how about long-term special forces veterans (that is, professionals in close-up killing and destruction and general mayhem) being slightly better suited than the average Joe for positions in law enforcement and jobs maintaining physical security of buildings and people?

      Now if we absolutely _had_ to give Hussein a job in the peace corp... How about if there's ever a decision to be made that is split right down the middle by the people involved, they pose the problem to our friendly neighborhood dictator. Tthen whichever choice he opts for, do the exact opposite.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    4. Re:Kevin Mitnick by SageLikeFool · · Score: 1

      Plus, you would have a pretty good idea of who is stealing information/money/etc from you...

    5. Re:Kevin Mitnick by JCholewa · · Score: 1

      > Yeah right, and I bet we could also hire Saddam Hussein as a human rights
      > cop because he knows all about mass murdering his own people.

      Yeah, except Saddam never cared about the consequences of his actions and how they affected others, whereas Mitnick never really applied his skills towards knowingly hurting anyone or knowingly causing actual palpable damage. Huuuuge difference there.

      -JC

    6. Re:Kevin Mitnick by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      He took stolen credit card numbers, and you are saying he never applied his skills towards hurting anyone?

      (this world is FULL of rocket scientists. *sigh*)

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    7. Re:Kevin Mitnick by playagame · · Score: 1

      Nice try. Are you suggesting that it is a good idea to hire people involved in chronic offenses of anything to police those offenses? Mitnick is your rare execption. And even still, if I was the head of a large corporation (or government) I would not hire Mitnick, if you were Bill Gates you would probably not want to take your chances trusting Mitnick as a consultant.

      I think your blind following of all things "dubya" has led your imagination astray my friend.

      And will you people shut up about reading the story? Do you expect the Wall Street Journal to put a negative spin on this story?

    8. Re:Kevin Mitnick by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Drink Kevin.

  12. Well, slashdot should know by sulli · · Score: 1

    since slashdot subscribes to doubleclick!

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  13. Is this really that ludicrous? by Snowspinner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Before the huge storm of criticism starts, let's ask ourselves:

    How would this be different from hiring Kevin Mitnick to handle security issues?

    The we like Kevin Mitnick more than we like ad agencies is not sufficient grounds for an objection. What I want to know is, why shouldn't we hire knowledgable people away from doing what we don't want, and into doing what we do want?

    1. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, this doubleclick exec came in after the wrongdoing, and straightened the mess out.

      She could be the one to straighten the TIA mess out, as well.

      This is a position that requires someone who knows about the fields of information collecting, data mining, and personal privacy. Not someone on a soapbox.

      I'd be more concerned if it was some know-nothing anti-gub'ment clown from the EFF in a position of power, in the end. They'd make it illegal to write down someones first name, if they had their way.

    2. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Xerithane · · Score: 5, Funny

      This DoubleClick exec doesn't think the things his company did were wrong. That's the difference.

      Hi everybody, it's time to play, spot the idiot. The idiot has several characteristics, the most notable one is the inability to form a sentence without being absolutely wrong. For example, "...the things his company did..." is exceptionally wrong, because this DoubleClick exec happens to be a woman.

      Proof that they don't know what they are talking about, nor that they know who this person is.

      The second sign of an idiot is the ability to peer inside of others heads and illustrate what it is that they are thinking. For example, "This DoubleClick exec doesn't think ..." Aside from their actual lack of ability in doing such things, this is nothing of the case. As she was brought in to clean up DoubleClicks act after the FTC started coming down. After she came on board, DoubleClick cleaned up their privacy violations. This would illustrate that DoubleClick does care about privacy, after enforced to do so, and this executive happens to care very much about it, as it is her career.

      There are many other signs to point to an idiot, these are just the most prominent. Stay tuned for next weeks, "When Idiots Post"

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    3. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 1

      Wow, look at all these fucking useless posts. Did anybody bother to read the article? Look, it's really short. Just read it for once.

      Firstly, this DoubleClick exec is female, not male. Secondly, she helped clean up DoubleClick. She ran the division responsible for appeasing the privacy advocates/watchdogs/etc.

      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    4. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      Best.Troll.Ever!

      Now I will have to change my .sig

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    5. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by setag · · Score: 1
      What I want to know is, why shouldn't we hire knowledgable people away from doing what we don't want, and into doing what we do want?

      Ummmm. How do you know she wasn't hired to do what we don't want?

    6. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Best.Troll.Ever!

      Well, thank you, thank you very much.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    7. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Eric+Savage · · Score: 1

      why shouldn't we hire knowledgable people away from doing what we don't want, and into doing what we do want?

      What does this have to do with Mitnick? :P

      --

      This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
    8. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by broter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a position that requires someone who knows about the fields of information collecting, data mining, and personal privacy. Not someone on a soapbox.

      RTFA. From it, you'd read:

      "The privacy rights community generally views O'Connor Kelly as a consensus builder, but it is too soon to say how much influence she will have in protecting Americans' privacy rights, said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "

      Though she is a self proclaimed geek at heart, there isn't much record on her personal stance. She brought Doubleclick back in line, and patched the major gaps in its public relations. This could be seen as a minimum to saving the company; so was it a strong privacy move, or simply providing good counsel for a client? Too early to tell.

      I'd be more concerned if it was some know-nothing anti-gub'ment clown from the EFF in a position of power, in the end. They'd make it illegal to write down someones first name, if they had their way.

      First of all, O'Connor Kelly won't be making law. That's a job for congress and the president (remember highschool government?). Secondly, an extreme privacy advocate in the whitehouse would probably do wonders to offset the DoJ influence that's there now; but then anything that GWB doesn't want to hear already probably won't be said.

      --
      "One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
      - Mick Travis, "If..."
    9. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      How would this be different from hiring Kevin Mitnick to handle security issues?

      The difference is that it's in the best interests of a company to have good security. It's not in the best interests of the Bush administration to have good privacy laws.

    10. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

      No, you are farther off then your parent.

      She came in and cleaned up a PR nightmare.

      She came in and changed policy to comply with FTC.

      There is nothing else that she did. Nothing to fight for privacy. She did the bare minimum to get doubleclick compliant with FTC regulation, and then spun it like it was a fucking godsend. In other words, she whored her words to the public, and did exactly opposite (as much as legally possible) behind their back.

      This is exactly what she will be doing for the department of homeland security. And in fact, the article explicitly mentions that she is going to have to "defend" programs introduced by Bush to congress as not being privacy intrusive.

      So your telling me that she is going to help privacy for the public, but at the same time DEFEND a privacy intrusive program? Get Real. (and read the rest of the article)

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    11. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by broter · · Score: 1

      You're my hero(ine?)

      --
      "One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
      - Mick Travis, "If..."
    12. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by danlyke · · Score: 1
    13. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

      "Secondly, she helped clean up DoubleClick. She ran the division responsible for appeasing the privacy advocates/watchdogs/etc."

      And you don't see 2 conflicting ideas in that statement?

      Let me examine each part individually:

      If by "clean up" DoubleClick you ment "clean up PR nightmares" for DoubleClick, then your statement is correct, but inconsistant with your first statement.

      If by "clean up" DoubleClick you ment "cleane up DoubleClick for real", then your statement is contradictory, but at least consistant with your first statement. Too bad the final sentence goes agaisnt this

      Either way, your entire post is contradictory.

      This person either "cleaned up" doubleclick, or she cleaned up their PR nightmare. But your final sentence says her job was to appease the privacy advocates. Obviously, that has nothing to do with cleaning up sick and screwball policy of a company(that had already been ordered by the court to comply with FTC regulation). It has everything to do with reducing public outcry caused by this sick and screwball policy.

      In other words, she ran the department that was in charge of doing damage control so privacy invasion wouldn't look as bad.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    14. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by hotchai · · Score: 1

      > because this DoubleClick exec happens to be a woman.

      Technically shouldn't the title be "Privacy Czarina"?

      Yes I am nitpicking. I hate people who `nitpick' but start their posts with "Not to be nitpicking ..."

    15. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by JCholewa · · Score: 1

      > Hi everybody, it's time to play, spot the idiot. The idiot
      > has several characteristics, the most notable one is the
      > inability to form a sentence without being absolutely wrong.

      Ironically, the above two sentences are grammatically inaccurate.

      -JC

      PS: Commas should, be used, rather, ju,di,ci,ous,l,y, in a, se,,nte,nc,,,e.

      ,

    16. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

      If Saddam Hussein surrenders, does that make him an American, because only a true American would agree with the US' actions.

      Idiot, n. one who lives his life in a dictionary. Example: One who cannot parse a conversation for meaning.

      "Think" can mean "believe" and we can infer what people believe or think regardless of superficial acts pretending to make amends.

      Or do you really think everyone whoever resigned for health reasons, resigned for health reasons?

      I've got a new and improved bridge to sell you. Man, if only I had bid higher than Taco Bell on the Liberty Bell.

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    17. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      If Saddam Hussein surrenders, does that make him an American, because only a true American would agree with the US' actions.

      Uhm, what in the hell are you talking about? I think you are in the wrong thread. This is about a DoubleClick executive, that was in charge of Privacy policies, being appointed as the Privacy Czar(ina) of the United States.

      Idiot, n. one who lives his life in a dictionary. Example: One who cannot parse a conversation for meaning.

      So, your comment is an example of this.

      "Think" can mean "believe" and we can infer what people believe or think regardless of superficial acts pretending to make amends.

      This is the only part of your comment that even makes sense, congratulations. I was reading through this, struggling with all my might to contain some shred of rational and reasoning located within. One shimmering sentence, amidst 5, the rest bleak with remorse and idiocy.

      Does it hurt to be you? I mean, when you think, does it hurt? I can't imagine it not, otherwise you probably would do it.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    18. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Ironically, the above two sentences are grammatically inaccurate.

      That isn't ironic. I do not think that word means what you think it means. They also aren't grammatically inaccurate. Perhaps they are structured wrong with the incorrect usage of punctuation. Grammar refers to the words as they join together in a sentence. While read aloud, these are completely fine and adhere to the linguistic standards for English.

      Change the punctuation and it is correct. I tend to butcher punctuation when I'm typing relatively fast, and don't proof-read.

      I'm much happier as a person knowing I can think for myself, without writing with proper punctuation, than follow the crowd and be a fool.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    19. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

      Natalie's Hot Grits is just a slashdotism. I'm not trying to pretend to be female. Hope that clears it up :P

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    20. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      How would this be different from hiring Kevin Mitnick to handle security issues?

      Personally, I would trust Mitnick, and I wouldn't trust Kelly. Trust is the difference.

    21. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by broter · · Score: 1

      Then you're my hero!!

      --
      "One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
      - Mick Travis, "If..."
    22. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it hurts to think, so I get the endorphine kick I need from sarcasm.

      Go look it up.

      I was merely taking your logical construction and replacing the variables. Okay so I stretched it.

      Like so:
      You said that the poster was claiming some sort of extrasensory perception because he used the word think, when in fact the word think can easily mean believe or something similar. Even my kids know that.

      So I said that going by that logic, then Saddam Hussein's surrender would come becuase he somehow suddenly saw the light of truth_ver_1.0-US (does that hurt?), and not because of other reasons.

      The bit about a true American yada yada, that's just me picking on Big Brother Bush and his otherthinkisbadthink (ouch!).

      You know I'm still mad at you for calling that guy an idiot when you couldn't even parse the use of the word think. That kinda sticks out like a sore thumb, don't you think?

      See now you made decompress my earlier post into this boring rant. Bad poster, bad, bad poster.

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    23. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      You know I'm still mad at you for calling that guy an idiot when you couldn't even parse the use of the word think. That kinda sticks out like a sore thumb, don't you think?

      Uhm, he was an idiot. I do parse the word think exactly as it should. He has no way of knowing what that person thinks, or believes, and claims he does know. He was a fucking idiot.

      I was merely taking your logical construction and replacing the variables. Okay so I stretched it.

      Did you even read what you wrote? It made no sense what so ever. It was like giving an autistic lemur some crack after getting it drunk and putting it in front of a chatterbox and recording the conversation.

      See now you made decompress my earlier post into this boring rant. Bad poster, bad, bad poster.

      Well, you really need to learn how to rant. That wasn't even a rant, it was a few disjointed sentences with no common thread that didn't convey any meaning clearly. Don't worry, practice more and someday you can become just like Dennis Miller.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    24. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

      He has every right to infer what another may think and post his inferences.

      Are you saying he should have said "I think that think that..."?

      Ew, that phrasing leaves such a bad taste in my mouth, nevermind all the English teachers who said never say/write "I think ..." because it's obvious that "I think ..."

      If, yes then are you saying it takes no more than that to qualify as a non-idiot. Don't you think that's a bit silly?

      Anyway, Dennis Miller Dennis Leary. QED.

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    25. Re:Is this really that ludicrous? by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      He has every right to infer what another may think and post his inferences.

      Sure, and I have every right to call him an idiot for claiming to know what another person thinks, or believes.

      Are you saying he should have said "I think that think that..."?

      Why not? All I criticized was his statement of knowing what the DoubleClick exec was thinking, and what the board was thinking.

      If, yes then are you saying it takes no more than that to qualify as a non-idiot. Don't you think that's a bit silly?

      As I stated in my initial post, the signs of the idiot is vast. He nailed two major points, right on the head, with no cause for debate. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  14. In other news... by japhar81 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hoffa named Organized Crime Prevention Czar, and Hose, the neighborhood crack dealer has been dubbed War on Drugs Czar.

    That is all.

    1. Re:In other news... by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      Oh goody, I just can't get enough "in other news" posts. Bring them on.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    2. Re:In other news... by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      "Hose", like "long rubber hose"? Never buy any drugs from a punkass whiteguy named that. :)

      I think the name you're referring to is "José".

      And aren't neighborhood crack dealers usually named "Jesus"?

    3. Re:In other news... by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      In other news...
      Patrick Doyle makes a sarcastic request.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
  15. why so speechless? by jlusk4 · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the article:

    The privacy rights community generally views O'Connor Kelly as a consensus builder, but it is too soon to say how much influence she will have in protecting Americans' privacy rights, said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology.

    "One of the things we liked (about her job) at DoubleClick was that she worked hard to build relationships with the privacy community and to vet their new policies with these groups," Schwartz said.

    Why would this leave you any more speechless than hiring Kevin Mitnick to do security for a large corporation?

    Get some balance in your outlook.

    John.

    1. Re:why so speechless? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Because she's an apologist. She works with someone who doesn't respect your privacy and tries to convince dissenters that everything's peachy keen.

      Her job at Doubleclick was to make sure that Doubleclick respected your privacy just enough to keep people quiet. To believe that it was any more than that contradicts the fact that Doubleclick paid her.

      Why would this leave you any more speechless than hiring Kevin Mitnick to do security for a large corporation?

      Bad analogy. The corporations best interests are aligned with the interests of the shareholders in terms of security. This would be more like hiring a former Andrew Fastow to manage the finances for a large corporation.

    2. Re:why so speechless? by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are inherantly getting the wrong idea of the quote...

      "One of the things we liked (about her job) at DoubleClick was that she worked hard to build relationships with the privacy community and to vet their new policies with these groups,"

      The point of her job was to sell new (slightly less) invasive policy to privacy advocates. She did nothing to improve privacy within the company. She did damage control for predetermined policy decided upon by other people. Policy was forced upon the company by the courts. This has NOTHING TO DO with fighting for your privacy, and EVERYTHING TO DO with selling invasive and barely legal policy to the public.

      According to the article, this is EXACTLY what she was hired to do for the government. In fact, near the end of the article, they explicitly state that she will likely be trying to sell potentially illegal government programs to congress for the bush administration.

      She is effectively a lobbiest, hired by Bush appointed people, to sell illegal government programs like TIA and CAPPS II.

      If you don't see anything wrong with this, I'd like to ask you wtf planet are you from? Now your tax dollars are going to a lobbiest that is trying to defend privacy policy that is illegal.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
  16. Well, by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well It depends on what the meaning of word "privacy" is..

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    1. Re:Well, by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      No. That is more in line with the previous administration. Uh... depending on your definition of 'is' that is....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

  17. In other news... by BlaKnail · · Score: 3, Funny

    Alan Ralsky has been appointed Postmaster General.

  18. Okay, so I'm going out on a limb here... by numbski · · Score: 1
    "One of the things we liked (about her job) at DoubleClick was that she worked hard to build relationships with the privacy community and to vet their new policies with these groups,"

    Alright, let it be known in advance that I think is is a bad idea, however, just to play angel's advocate for a moment...

    Who better to protect our privacy than those who know how to completely decimate it?

    blink, blink

    Okay, so you don't buy it, neither do I. :)

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    1. Re:Okay, so I'm going out on a limb here... by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

      You're quoting the article -- in most contexts that would imply that you read it. Considering what you quoted together with what you said, though, you can't possibly have.

      Did you read what her job was at DoubleClick? Yes, DoubleClick is evil, and was much worse -- but she's almost single-handedly responsible for every decent thing they've done.

      Who better to protect our privacy than those who know how to completely decimate it?

      Nobody else would even possibly have a chance -- it's exactly the same situation as security, for exactly the same reasons. The people who can protect you are in both cases the people who at least KNOW how to destroy you -- the knowledge is the only way to have the ability. Anyone without the knowledge will be wasting their time protecting things that don't need protection while ignoring things that do.

      This doesn't prove that she's going to do the right thing, of course. But it should silence
      the knee-jerk condemnation.

      -Billy

  19. Why's this bad? by MojoMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article:

    "She joined DoubleClick in February 2000 after the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into complaints that the company was improperly storing and sharing private user data. DoubleClick also was embroiled in similar investigations by 12 state attorneys general and several class-action lawsuits.

    DoubleClick settled most of those lawsuits, and created a division specializing in privacy compliance, which O'Connor Kelly ran. "


    Sounds to me like some changes were make by O'Connor Kelly and privacy was improved. I'd say it takes a pretty strong person to go into a company as deep in it as Double Click and improve it.

    --

    ----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
  20. Privacy Czar by Anonymous+Canard · · Score: 1

    The title of Czar seems lately to have taken on some of the same connotations as buffoon.

    --

    --
    BitTorrent in C -- LibBT
    http://www.sf.net/projects/libbt
  21. ...and the list continues. by Jedi+Holocron · · Score: 1

    It was accounced today that Bill Gates stepped down as head of Microsoft to become the new Cyberspace Security Czar.

  22. Doh! by MerlynDavis · · Score: 2, Funny
    That's just sad. Is this the same guy who was responsible for the plan to merge all of DoubleClick's databases together?


    Somehow, I'm really not comforted by this choice for "Privacy Czar".


    Next thing you know, Jeff Bezos will be running the Patent Office and Bill Gates will be in charge of the DoJ case against Microsoft.

    --
    -merlyn
    1. Re:Doh! by donutello · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's just sad. Is this the same guy who was responsible for the plan to merge all of DoubleClick's databases together?

      No, this is the gal who joined DoubleClick after they were caught by the FTC and worked to get it into compliance, vetting new policy with privacy groups. Privacy groups actually like this choice.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    2. Re:Doh! by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      That's just sad. Is this the same guy who was responsible for the plan to merge all of DoubleClick's databases together?

      No. This guy is a girl, something that was revealed in the article. See if you can spot any other 'hidden' information....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    3. Re:Doh! by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

      "Privacy groups actually like this choice"

      They did? According to the article, they are skeptical as to wether or not she will be defending TIA/CAPPS II anti-privacy agendas, just putting a PR spin on what the government says, or actually fighting for privacy (which is the least likely).

      In fact, at her last job, she put a PR spin on new (yet intrusive) privacy policy, and worked to get it accepted by privacy groups. Nothing she did changed anything within the company for the better..

      Promoting a product doesnt make it better. It only makes its value better. Same goes for privacy policy. Promoting it doesn't make it better, it just makes it easier to sell.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    4. Re:Doh! by MerlynDavis · · Score: 1
      Hurmph....I was at work and the firewall there blocks half the interesting websites...

      and 90% of the useful ones.

      --
      -merlyn
  23. Whatever... by wally · · Score: 1

    Should be pretty damn obvious at this point that the Bushies don't give a hoot about your personal rights or privacy. Unfortunately most people are too stupid and/or uninformed to care.

    Thanks again to all those nice folks who voted for Nader. You sure made a huge difference.

    1. Re:Whatever... by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      So you didn't follow the news after the election? They recounted the votes and it wouldn't have made a difference. Perhaps you could lay some blame on the designers of the Florida ballots as that does seem to be a factor (or maybe on the ability of retired New Yorkers to follow instructions for anything more complex than a pair of Depends).

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    2. Re:Whatever... by Cecil · · Score: 1
      Hm, which of these is the root cause of Bush getting elected?

      1. "Unfortunately most people are too stupid and/or uninformed to care."
      2. "Thanks again to all those nice folks who voted for Nader."


      Oh. Clearly it was the silly people who thought democracy was about having a voice and a choice, they are to blame.

      Hooray for misdirected anger.
  24. Truth in Advertising by alizard · · Score: 1
    While on the surface, this appears to be as inappropriate a choice as hiring an openly declared Nazi as Ambassador to Israel and sending in in a uniform with swastika to the US Embassy, I think this was intended to send a message as to the Bush Administration's regard for its subjects' privacy.

    In other words, nobody can say we weren't warned. We have been informed as to what to expect. They are being honest for a change.

    1. Re:Truth in Advertising by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      ...hiring an openly declared Nazi as Ambassador to Israel

      Or a good buddy of Ariel Sharon as the interim military governor of Iraq.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    2. Re:Truth in Advertising by eyeye · · Score: 1

      Or hiring him to be the leader for the local Pacifist Weight Watchers club.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
  25. Re:Sickening by Gaijinator · · Score: 1

    Quoth the parent: There MUST be people out there who can make good decisions?

    I'm sure this is a great decision, depending on whose point of view you're using. I mean, I'm sure the politicians' wallets are very happy now....

    --
    "For success, it is essential you have Thunderball Fists." "I can have such a thing?" "That's right. Thunderball Fists."
  26. Did the editors even read the article? by devphil · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Of course they didn't.

    The privacy rights community generally views O'Connor Kelly as a consensus builder[...]

    "One of the things we liked (about her job) at DoubleClick was that she worked hard to build relationships with the privacy community and to vet their new policies with these groups,"

    But hey, it's the /. editor's professional duty to not pay attention to any positive side of the story.

    The story later mentions the infamous Total Awareness Office, and notes that "Congress said it will suspend funding for the Defense Department project unless the administration can demonstrate that it will not violate constitutional privacy rights." Naturally, that runs counter to the /. rule that "every privacy-related story must be in alarmist mode" so the editors always reject my submissions regarding Congress' threat to put TIA on hold.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    1. Re:Did the editors even read the article? by chrisd · · Score: 1
      Yes, I did, I was unimpressed. "The Privacy Rights Community" as represented by one person? I don't think so.

      chrisd

      --
      Co-Editor, Open Sources
      Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
    2. Re:Did the editors even read the article? by devphil · · Score: 1


      You don't get any points for the one-sided editorializing in the article body. It's extremely unprofessional, and is the major reason why I'm too embarassed to point friends and family (unaware of current issues) at /. news stories.

      You (chrisd) do, however, get mega points for actually reading and responding to the /. comments. Most of the editors operate in a fire-and-forget mode. Seeing at least one editor actually participate in discussions is refreshing.

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    3. Re:Did the editors even read the article? by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 1
      "every privacy-related story must be in alarmist mode"
      As it should be. There are countless examples of why we shouldn't trust such corporations/govt. agencies; if we trustingly fall asleep, do you think you will have any privacy left to speak of?
    4. Re:Did the editors even read the article? by devphil · · Score: 1


      Who the fuck said anything about falling asleep?

      When I point out that (for example) Congress is threatening to block funding for TIA, I'm expecting that a discussion site that was truly concerned about privacy would welcome the news, post it, and encourage readers to write letters to their Congressional representative, saying, "yay, this is good, funding SHOULD be blocked unless they have these guarantees, keep up the good work."

      At no point anywhere did I suggest that /. should post the news and say, "well, that problem's solved, everyone go to sleep now." It's dishonest of you to presume such a thing. And I would expect nobody on /. would be stupid enough to fall for it.

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  27. In other news... by Penguuu · · Score: 1

    L. Ron Hubbard was put in charge of Department of Free Speech and Bill Gates for Department of Information Technology Purchases.

    --
    The problem in the world today is communication. Too much communication - Homer Simpson
  28. article reads.... by manifest37 · · Score: 1

    First paragraph of article reads: The former privacy officer of Internet advertising giant DoubleClick will be the Department of Homeland Security's first privacy czar, Bush administration officials said. Seems to me like the person held a position before that upheld privacy.....

  29. Anyone have more details? by aengblom · · Score: 4, Insightful
    She joined DoubleClick in February 2000 after the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into complaints that the company was improperly storing and sharing private user data. ...
    DoubleClick settled most of those lawsuits, and created a division specializing in privacy compliance, which O'Connor Kelly ran.
    Anyone have more details about what her involvement was here. From this article, I'm not sure I can jump to the conclusion that she's evil. Just curious, this certainly makes you think anyway.
    Thanks for answers! ;-)
    --


    So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
    1. Re:Anyone have more details? by moncyb · · Score: 1

      I don't know exactly what her involvement with DoubleClick was, but a quick search turns up some interesting information.

      This site gives a little more information about her. ...and a picture too.

      A quote from this page seems to indicate she may not be as evil as many assume:

      O'Connor Kelly addressed consumer information security and the delicate balance between security and civil liberties.

      In the search, I also saw an interview with some women's group. I didn't find much, but I didn't look for very long. Kind of eases my worries though--at least in terms of why they hired her. She doesn't seem to be a shill intented to fool the public, but it's hard to say from the information.

      I do know I want to date her. She's really hot and seems to be a cool person. I wonder if she's a lesbian? ;-)

  30. Privacy Czar? by Ryu2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even the title of Privacy Czar for the Homeland Security department seems oxymoronic. Isn't the direction the USA is taking with Homeland Security towards giving up your privacy rights, with all these new laws passed?

    --
    There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:Privacy Czar? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Even the title of Privacy Czar for the Homeland Security department seems oxymoronic. Isn't the direction the USA is taking with Homeland Security towards giving up your privacy rights, with all these new laws passed?

      The chance of privacy violations does not infer actual loss of privacy. Having a bureau at Homeland Security dedicated to preserving the privacy of innocent americans--i.e., preventing information from being ungeneralized or distributed, at the very least--is a HUGE step in the right direction.

    2. Re:Privacy Czar? by Catiline · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, it makes perfect sense. We have a Drug Czar (John Walters) and a Terrorism Czar (Tom Ridge), both of whose jobs are to eradicate the things they are Czar "of". Therefore, the Prizacy Czar's job is to eradicate privacy. Ergo, the title makes perfect sense.

  31. I think they misquoted... by wynlyndd · · Score: 1

    He's the new Lack of Privacy Czar

    --
    "Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
  32. Do people still read articles around here? by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the article in the Post, a guy from the CDT gives her a pretty positive review. I don't think this is worthy of a Chicken Little-style panic attack.

  33. So.... by elmegil · · Score: 1

    When is Cheech Marin going to be named drug czar again?

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    1. Re:So.... by thebatlab · · Score: 1

      Well considering Cheech has gone dry and on to bigger and better things than Cheech and Chong movies, I'd say it wouldn't be so bad. Chong on the other hand.... :)

  34. Just Like buying a security appliance from Cap'n by netsavior · · Score: 1

    I dont see the problem with this... lots of "reformed" hax0rs come over to the net security business... This is the exact same thing only on a political playing field.

  35. Come on now people. by Geekenstein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Once again, we have another /. double standard. How many times have I watched people here applaud when a former cracker gets appointed to a top position in security?

    But God Forbid someone who knows the ins and outs of privacy abuses, a person who would know BEST how to protect against them, gets the chance to do so. They're evil and will always be evil!

    1. Re:Come on now people. by darnok · · Score: 1

      > How many times have I watched people here applaud
      > when a former cracker gets appointed to a top
      > position in security?

      I think the main issue in this case is the combination of the Bush government - not a leader in the protection of individual privacy - and DoubleClick - ditto - being put in charge of the shop.

      Unlike e.g. employing Kevin Mitnick as a security guy for a private company, people don't have the choice whether they deal with Bush Inc; there is no competition across the road where they can take their business. I'm sure if Kevin Mitnick was put in as security head honcho for the US Govt, then similar concerns would be voiced as in this case.

  36. moreover by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

    She'll be moving to Russia, and time-traveling back a hundred years, so she can coincide in a time where people actually used the word 'Tzar'.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  37. You are now entering a new dimension by PyrotekNX · · Score: 1

    where down is up, up is down, right is wrong, wrong is right.

    You are now entering the Twilight Zone

  38. reminds me of something... by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    ...ministry of peace,...ministry of truth...ministry of love...ministry of privacy...

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    1. Re:reminds me of something... by crazyphilman · · Score: 2

      Attention citizens of New York!

      This is an update from the ministry of truth. You may cease your labor for two minutes to enjoy this announcement. Ignite your Freedom Cigarettes now.

      The war with Eurasia is near an end, with several more cities having fallen to the allied armies. The downtrodden people of Eurasia are welcoming us with open arms, and Big Brother assures us that the war will be over shortly. Support your government! Buy Freedom bonds today.

      Several agents of the terrorist Goldstein were apprehended as they tried to purchase toilet paper in the East Village today. It is not known for what purpose the toilet paper was meant, but it is suggested that the use of outdoor toilets be suspended until the scope of this problem is fully evaluated. The Terror Alert Level is as of this moment raised to FUSCIA.

      Literacy rates in Sector IV have risen by 25%; malnourishment in Sectors I through VI has been reduced by 12%. Students have reported that belonging to the Freedom Scouts has increased their overall skill level, and had a direct effect on raising their IQs. Big Brother will visit the Scouts in New York this afternoon for a motivational speech and a nap.

      The Ministry of Privacy announced a new initiative this morning, which will end the plague of net divers who do not permit Freedom Cookies to be registered on their machines. It is now considered an act of treason to bar cookies from your browser. The consequences for such activity are doublePlusUngood, citizens. Enable Freedom Cookies today!

      FOR THE COMMONWEALTH! FOR BIG BROTHER!

      Citizens, extinquish your cigarettes, and resume your labor.

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    2. Re:reminds me of something... by biobogonics · · Score: 1

      ministry of information?

  39. Gee by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 2, Funny

    This seems like Grandma asking the wolf to babysit Little Red Riding Hood.

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
    1. Re:Gee by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 1

      His 1st move:
      Place Axiom in charge of storing said privacy informtion.

      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    2. Re:Gee by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Next thing you know, Arthur Anderson put in charge of the Fed.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Gee by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      You mean kinda like hiring former hackers and crackers to write software security code?

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    4. Re:Gee by texaport · · Score: 1

      America hasn't been so safe since J Edgar

      protected us from Hollywood in the 50s...

      since foxes stopped guarding henhouses...

      and Donald Rumsfeld stood guard on Sept 10th 2001


      PRESS "POST ANONYMOUSLY" TO CONTINUE . . .

    5. Re:Gee by arevos · · Score: 1

      Or a former microsoft exec in charge of "cyber" security?

    6. Re:Gee by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, former Information minister for Iraq has been selected to be the first ever truth czar for the Department of Homeland Security.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  40. Re:Just more proof by Zico · · Score: 1

    You didn't bother to read the article, did you? Go ahead, admit it: you're a fucking moron.


    Hysteria and hot air...Oh, the irony!

  41. He's perfect! by TopShelf · · Score: 1
    Since this guy already knows everything about everybody, all the secrets can be kept in one place!

    *sarcasm OFF*

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    1. Re:He's perfect! by ciphertext · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually O'Conner Kelly is a gal, not a guy. The article clearly states this with the pronoun "she" being repeated often. While the article doesn't say that the privacy community endorses her as a choice, it does say that they viewed her as a consensus builder. Not a negative connotation.

      --
      To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
    2. Re:He's perfect! by richmaine · · Score: 1

      But you have to read the article to notice all those occurances of the word "she".

      This is the 3rd independent post about this article where she was referred to as a guy.

      The conclusion is?...well, but we knew that already.

  42. are we really surprised? by terryrobbins · · Score: 1

    after all, the Bush administration is known for such brilliant ironic humor, like when they appointed a lawyer for a lead paint manufacturer to be secretary of the interior or when they picked a dude with close ties to Philip Morris and no particular health knowledge to be Health Secretary.

    1. Re:are we really surprised? by calbanese · · Score: 1

      This isn't at all unprecedented. Theodore Roosevelt was the Assitant Secretary of the Navy (and basically was the Acting Secretary of the NavY) with no naval experience. Dean Acheson was a Washington lawyer with no diplomatic experience before becoming Under Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of State. After resigning from the Air Force as just a Lieutenant Colonel, Robert McNamara became CEO of GM, before becoming Secretary of Defense. Alexander Hamilton had no finance experience (he was a lawyer) before founding one of the few and efficient government agencies, the Treasury Department.

      And for more recent examples, Clinton's Secretary of Agriculture was a lawyer (who had little agricultural experience), Secretary of Defense (Cohen) had no military experience. There were others in his cabinet with little experience, but I'm bored.

      This isn't a new phenomenon, or even a bad one. Roosevelt, Acheson, and Hamilton were excellent. McNamara, well, thats another story.

  43. Well... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Making Christie Todd Whitman head of the EPA was a tough act to follow... they had to do something to top it.

    What, everyone at the EFF has the grip? I know JP wouldn't be caught dead as a government agent, but there's gotta be SOMEONE who could at least bridge the sides...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:Well... by grondu · · Score: 1

      Making Christie Todd Whitman head of the EPA was a tough act to follow

      Making Gale Norton head of the Interior Department was worse.

      --

      I'm the urban spaceman babe, but here comes the twist... I don't exist

  44. DoubleClick affiliation by ih8apple · · Score: 1

    She has already suffered because of her affiliation with DoubleClick:

    "DoubleClick's appointment in particular tends to make privacy advocates suspicious, since the company's selling point is using logging data generated as users wander around the Net, to serve ads targeted to their interests.

    The company's new chief privacy officer, Nuala O'Connor, appearing at the same conference, found herself bearing the brunt of years of resentment against her company. The logical question: what do these people actually do?"

    and she deserves more...

    Ad- and Spy-ware are the worst thing to happen online in the last 2 years and it just keeps getting worse...

  45. Not his, but her company by systemapex · · Score: 1

    Whoops...the exec is O'Connor Kelly. She may not be so bad after all then as she came to "clean" things up at DoubleClick.

    1. Re:Not his, but her company by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      There you go. See what fun reading can be? Now your posts can actually be about the article instead of /.'s misleading intro....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    2. Re:Not his, but her company by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

      except for the fact that if you did read the article, and know the history of doubleclick and this woman, you would already know that she didn't clean up doubleclick. She brought their policy into bare minimal compliance with FTC (something the court had already ORDERED the company to do) and then spun it to the press.

      This soman is in PR, not policy. There is nothing she did at doubleclick that helped any of you, except maybe made you feel better about getting assraped. Maybe she put some lube on the stick and used a smaller one so you didn't know you were getting assraped. That doesn't change the fact that you still got assraped.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    3. Re:Not his, but her company by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      That's fine. But I have no way of weighing your opinion except against my own. The article indicated that she was, to some degree, respected by those involved in privacy advocacy. I'd weight those opinions more heavily than your own.

      By the way, loved the .sig except the word you're looking for is 'former', not 'latter'. You should have a better handle on your own ignorance/stupidity/strengths/whatever than that of others....

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

  46. Selective editorializing.... by Orne · · Score: 4, Informative

    In the cutting and pasting, the submitter clipped an important word from the opening paragraph...

    "The former privacy officer of Internet advertising giant DoubleClick will be the Department of Homeland Security's first privacy czar, Bush administration officials said. "

    Yes, she once worked for DoubleClick, but she only started AFTER the FTC sited them for privacy abuses. So she went in, cleaned them up, settled their lawsuits, and moved on. She now works for the Department of Commerce.

    So, she ran the privacy clean-up for DoubleClick, and now she's picked to do the same thing, monitoring privacy for the government's latest fad, Homeland Security. Is this a problem? Or is it only a problem because she was picked by a conservative?

    1. Re:Selective editorializing.... by pergamon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, its still possibly (and IMHO, probably) a problem.

      She ran cleanup, meaning she got DoubleClick out of the FTC doghouse. Her job was to save DoubleClick because they did things they shouldn't have, not to save the privacy rights of consumers.

      I sincerely doubt her position is there to protect the privacy rights of US citizens, but rather just to tell the Homeland Security Department how far they can go according to the law. If someone is trying to push through new legislation that encroaches on privacy rights, don't expect this person (in this position, not this woman in particular) to lobby to stop or even challenge it.

      To directly address the most common analogy I've seen in the comments: This is less like calling in Kevin Mitnick to help beef up security, and more like a hacker/cracker calling in Mitnick's lawyer to advise him on ways to stay out of trouble even though his goal is still to try to get away with hacking into systems.

    2. Re:Selective editorializing.... by smiff · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Or is it only a problem because she was picked by a conservative?

      People are apprehensive because she was picked by Bush. She now joins the ranks of:

      • Sec DOE: Abrahams, only former experience was proposing in congress to eliminate the DOE.
      • Sec Interior: Gail norton, fromer mining industry lobbyist
      • Head of SEC: former lobbyist/lawyer for big 5 accounting firms.
      • Sec EPA: Christie Whitman, former governor of NJ, reportedly accepts donations from chemical industry.
      • Sec Labor: Can you even name the sec labor, do we still have one?
      • Sec Army: Former Enron top official, accepts free ski vacations from ENRON, then proposes to outsource the Utilities on Military bases to enron.
      • Head of TIA: Admiral Poindexter, convicted of destroying evidence and lying to congress.
      • and so on....

      Thanks to goombah99 for the list.

    3. Re:Selective editorializing.... by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > To directly address the most common analogy I've seen in the comments: This is less like calling in Kevin Mitnick to help beef up security, and more like a hacker/cracker calling in Mitnick's lawyer to advise him on ways to stay out of trouble even though his goal is still to try to get away with hacking into systems.

      Amen.

      To address the original poster's question - no, it has nothing to do with the fact that she was selected by a conservative administration. (And for the record, I speak as one who happens to support much of what that administration has done in both foreign and domestic policy over the past couple of years, even at the occasional expense of karma points :)

      HomeSec's charged with, well, keeping our sorry asses safe. I suspect they're doing so to the best of their ability, without any particularly evil intent. Alas, I also suspect that they Just Don't Get It when it comes to privacy.

      Personally, I see no conflict between that mandate and privacy - indeed, I would argue that better privacy protections make for a more secure citizenry. (The scariest threat to My Sorry Ass would be an economic destabilization scenario based on a widespread DTOI - "Distributed Theft of Identity" - attack; in an economy heavily reliant on consumer credit and accurate risk assessment by lending institutions, a DTOI could do to our banking/credit system what a DDOS does to border routers).

      Regrettably, I believe the new Czar's job will be as as the poster said - to do the same things for HomeSec that she did for Doubleclick. That is, to advise how far they can push it before running afoul of the law, and to suggest what sorts of new laws ought to be lobbied for in the future to permit things to be pushed further.

      That's HomeSec's right - to accomplish their mandate as they see fit, and to request (through the bully pulpit of the Executive branch) that Congress pass new legislation that will enable them to accomplish said mandate. My concern is that with a worldview that ignores consumer privacy, they may well end up bringing about the very sort of problems they're charged with guarding against.

      Frankly, I like the "split mandate" approach chosen by NSA. Half the organization is out to 0wn all their base. The other half is out to make sure all 0ur base are secure, because the Bad Guys are trying to 0wn it.

      I think the same approach could work in HomeSec/Privacy issue. Half the organization is out to implement TIA on "them", and the other half exists to make sure "our" information is secure from compromise and leakage, because the Bad Guys are trying to compromise and leak it.

      But hey, I'm not in Cabinet, so I'll help myself to a nice steaming cup of STFU now :-)

  47. Re:who were you expecting, the BonziBuddy?? by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Informative

    First, he's a she.

    And she's the he who came into doubleclick and made peace with the privacy community by changing operations there to protect privacy.

    But of course, you have to read the article and generally have a clue what you're talking about to know that. I realize this is slashdot, so carry on ranting.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  48. Privacy Czar does not mean _FOR_ Privacy by dsmoses · · Score: 1

    This makes sense. The government has been trying to gain access to any and all information about citizens as part of anti-terrorism initiatives. As well as build national databases.

    Who better to protect the administrations privacy (or lack thereof) initiatives than the expert at a company with similar privacy philosophies that has been at the forefront of these issues for so many years.

    From the article "O'Connor Kelly is well acquainted with the often bitter debate over balancing privacy rights with other interests." (Emphasis added)

  49. Punch the monkey and win your freedom by infonography · · Score: 1
    Finally a way to make internet web advertising profitable. Click or we throw you in the Clink.

    Watch Ad-Aware be ruled illegal under Patriot Act in the first month. Steve Gibson will need to watch is back. Mandatory Spyware in the name of national 'defense'.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    1. Re:Punch the monkey and win your freedom by AndroSyn · · Score: 1

      Now people are just being plain old retarded. Get a fucking clue and read the article. Sheesh..Its like a collection of chicken littles running around screaming the sky is falling.

      And for something like Ad-Aware to be 'ruled illegal', a ruling generally entails a court case. To me it seems to make sense to have somebody who has seen both sides of the privacy fence. Somebody who has seen abusers and has worked to at least attempt to get them to clean up their act.

    2. Re:Punch the monkey and win your freedom by infonography · · Score: 1

      More like people need to clue up and learn that this isn't who we need to run it. What you call Experianced I call Tainted. It's like giving Ken Lay of Enron fame the job of running Iraq's oil supplies (which may happen anyway). You are welcome to believe the PR job, go right ahead. But you better hurry as The Walrus and the Carpenter are expecting you.

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  50. humorous by painehope · · Score: 1

    that when you go the story, the second cookie that your browser warns you about ( if you choose to be asked about cookies ) is from .doubleclick.net

    will Galeon be telling me about cookies like ".pornwatch.bigbrother.gov" and ".findtheheathens.ashnet.usdoj.gov"?

    --
    PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
  51. Predictable by drgroove · · Score: 1

    Well, considering the Bush Administration appointed Gale Norton (whose environmental record is questionable, at best) to head the EPA, is it any surprise that they would appoint a 'privacy' executive from the web's largest spam-ad agency to head their privacy office in the Homeland Security Dept.?

    Norton was appointed to help the administration push development in ANWR (& other anti-environmental causes), not to protect the environment; likewise, OConnor Kelly was appointed to help push Total Information Awareness, not to protect privacy.

  52. Attention Citizens by YetAnotherName · · Score: 1

    Attention Citizens:

    All citizens will be issued an opaque identifier known as a cookie. You will be responsible for maintaining your cookie. Your cookie must be relinquished to a government official for inspection on demand. Loss or altering of your cookie is a felony offense.

    That is all.

  53. I dont WANT a consensus builder in that job! by alispguru · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Consensus" is what got us into the current privacy mess! The current "compromise" on most personal financial data is that data holders have to tell you what their sharing policy is (in dense legalese text which usually has "we will share with basically anybody who will pay us for it" buried in it) and give you the chance to "opt out".

    If the regulations had been made with consumers in mind at all, the default would have been to not share data and to only allow sharing when people opt-in. This would make private data a liability rather than an asset.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
    1. Re:I dont WANT a consensus builder in that job! by Taldo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Having a 'consensus builder' in this job would be a good thing. EXCEPT that the other side has no valid or legitimate position.

      I refuse to accept a consensus with evil.

      How about we come to a 'consensus' with spammers? 'Well we'll only send you ads we think you want.'

      How about with abortion clinic bombers? 'Well we'll be more careful about which buildings we bomb.'

      How about with technophobes? 'Well... you can research this but you can't do any actual experiments or release actual products.'

      Let's not just have a knee-jerk reaction that 'consensus is good.' It isn't always. Consensus is good when it accomodates people who have reasonable goals and expectations. The Gestapo doesn't fall under this category.

    2. Re:I dont WANT a consensus builder in that job! by Catiline · · Score: 1

      Hey! You forgot one!

      We need to bring this centuries long debate to closure and create consensus with the Flat Earthers!

    3. Re:I dont WANT a consensus builder in that job! by Taldo · · Score: 1

      I actually thought of several others after I posted that but you get the idea... ;)

    4. Re:I dont WANT a consensus builder in that job! by (void*) · · Score: 1

      Why don't we want a consensus builder in that job? Let her do her job, and make sure your opinion gets put on the table. Don't polarise the debate!

  54. Deserves a second glance... by keller999 · · Score: 1

    Yes, I admit that at first look this sounds like the dumbest of all decisions. However, take a look at history. In 1934, President Roosevelt appointed Joseph P. Kennedy (JFK's old man) as the first chairman of a new regulatory agency to tidy up the nation's stock market: the Securities and Exchange Commission. The most notorious stock market player ended up reforming the exchange with regulations that stopped his own actions. I hope that Kelly will be able to fill the privacy roll in the same kind of way.

    The Dept. of Homeland Security has the power to really advance the fight against domestic terrorism, but it's going to need experts in the malicious activities it's trying to block in order to effectively (in this case) make sure the job is done right. Kudos to the Dept. for choosing an expert in the field of Privacy Compliance.

    1. Re:Deserves a second glance... by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Thomas Becket?

  55. Whoops... by roothorick · · Score: 1

    Looks like something she did broke the ads...

    ftp://andersonfamily.ath.cx/incoming/doubleclick wh oops.gif

  56. Re:Orwell must be laughing his ass off.... by RealTimeFreeAgent · · Score: 1, Troll
    Right...as if they couldn't find thousands of more qualified choices who actually work with real, honest-to-god privacy advocacy groups....

    ...whose foam-mouthed zealotry would instantly get him and his office ignored and marginalized in the halls of power, if the parent poster is of any indication.

    --
    "You get what you pay for after all." --
  57. Orwellian by mcgroarty · · Score: 1
    Businesses hire PR people and give them reassuring sounding positions all the time. If you've ever dealt with someone in "customer assurance," you know that all you get is a dead end with a happy face painted on the wall.

    A company like DoubleClick makes its money by leveraging personal information, which means compromising your privacy. You can bet that they didn't install someone to obstruct their core business, which means you can assume that a privacy assurance position is another nicely titled PR position. This gal is going to be someone who's good at deflecting arguments with ambiguities and word games, reframing situations in a positive light and altering vocabularies in ways that make it impossible to express concise complaints such that popular media can digest them.

    So what was the government looking for if she got the job? You can be pretty sure that they didn't hire her because she was good at stopping DoubleClick from watching you. The found someone who's very good at spinning privacy violation to look like something else. Be prepared to hear a lot of Orwellian doublespeak and creative twists of the tongue.

  58. Fight Slime with Slime by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

    Actually he would be perfect for the job. Imagine a slime ball that knows all the tricks. Fight fire with fire and all that..

    1. Re:Fight Slime with Slime by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      You are correct, thank you for pointing out that very small and insignificant detail, since once people sell their souls to the corporate pagan gods they tend to be all the same small twisted person on the inside regardless of whether or not they have tits.

  59. understanding the importance of the preview button by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 1

    particularly, that it's not the submit button.

    doh... I think everyone knows what I meant, despite the mistakes I accidently left in...

    --
    "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
  60. Makes a sense to me by JamesSharman · · Score: 1

    After all:
    A drugs Czar is charged with reducing drugs,
    A terrorism Czar is charged with reducing terror,
    So a privacy Czar is presumably charged with reducing privacy.

    I'm guessing the DoubleClick director was an obvious choice.

  61. This consistent with current strategy by tundog · · Score: 1

    Read "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore. He goes on to enumerate Bush's cabinet. It's loaded with picks like this.

    For example, Christie Todd Whitman was named Environment Czar. In case you were wondering, she's the former Govener on New Jersey, the toxic waste capital of the US.

    --
    All your base are belong to us!
    1. Re:This consistent with current strategy by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Not so much. It's pretty good at pointing out how far to the right the center's moved in the past few decades, and what the Democrats need to do to stop being so Charlie Brown. Mostly it's just a liberal answer to Bill O'Rilley or whoever's big this second. Strictly for entertainment purposes.

      Honest to god, as much as I hated Reagan, I wish he was still ambulatory enough to keep his dogs tied up. I can't help but think that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and these guys were just waiting for the guy to go away so they could jump up on the couch. Reagan as a moderating influence? We're all screwed! Or maybe I'm just getting old enough to start pretending the 80s weren't a disaster.

  62. well you can look at it two ways by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    1)this is a sham and will not provide any privacy due to the fact he was a double click executive

    2)he knows how to thwart companies and individuals who try to invade people's privacy becasue he was an executive at a company that did this.

    wait and see is all I can say.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  63. Yeah... by pdbogen · · Score: 1

    The "Department of Homeland Security" always did remind me of McCarthy. . .

    Mock trials, anyone?

  64. This just in... by PerlPo8 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Keith Richards to be appointed new drug czar.

    --

    --
    "I'm don't know exactly what an AS/400 is, but I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want one up my ass" --Lou

  65. First act on the job... by DailyGrind · · Score: 1

    Declares that all server operating system source code must be private... oh wait... client operating system source code... oh wait... thanks for coming out!

    --
    You will have to pry my proprietary software $$$ from my cold dead hands!
  66. Depends on the point of view... by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the reason why she was chosen is because she knows how to tread the line between legal privacy and illegal privacy. However, this is not what I would want in my government. Because it means, yet again I cannot trust the government....

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    1. Re:Depends on the point of view... by zaphod123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In case you missed your history classes, the US "Founding Fathers" didn't trust government. In fact, they felt that government was not trustworthy.
      That is why there was the attempt to put all the checks and balances in place.

      --
      :q!
    2. Re:Depends on the point of view... by Skiboo · · Score: 1

      That is why there was the attempt to put all the checks and balances in place.

      Unfortunately, now they're cash checks and bank balances.

    3. Re:Depends on the point of view... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      In case you missed your history classes, the US "Founding Fathers" didn't trust government. In fact, they felt that government was not trustworthy.
      That is why there was the attempt to put all the checks and balances in place.


      And in case you missed the news, the current government are busy removing all those checks one check at a time...

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  67. Thanks, America... by pixel_bc · · Score: 3, Funny

    You keep making the property value of my land in Canada just keep going UP and UP. Keep up the good work!

    1. Re:Thanks, America... by mfrank · · Score: 1

      That's because the value of your property in Canada is measured in Canadian dollars :).

    2. Re:Thanks, America... by breon.halling · · Score: 1

      Now if only the same could happen to our dollar! =)

      --
      "Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
    3. Re:Thanks, America... by Blimey85 · · Score: 1
      Just wait until we decide that your harboring terrorists... then your property value will be going:

      down, down, down, in a burning ring of fire.

      --
      How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
  68. Probably because people didn't research... by Trillan · · Score: 1

    I have to admit, my first instinct was to make a joke about it until I went through a few of the replies.

  69. She didn't do very much for DoubleClick... by GhettoFabulous · · Score: 1

    She joined DoubleClick in February 2000 after the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into complaints that the company was improperly storing and sharing private user data. DoubleClick also was embroiled in similar investigations by 12 state attorneys general and several class-action lawsuits.

    Maybe they think that a magical "privacy invasion" aura will radiate off of her and help the Department of Homeland Propaganda... errr I mean Security.

  70. Playing devil's advocate... by geekwench · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Having read the article, I can't find anything that leads me to believe that Ms. O'Connor Kelly is guilty of anything othere than being employed by a company that was guilty of privacy abuses. It was stated, in fact, that she came on-board with DoubleClick after the investigation, and was responsible for cleaning up the company's act. How utterly reprehensible! :)
    My actual worry is that this will be nothing more than an "honorary" posting; something that Ashcroft can point to and say "See? We've got someone working on privacy issues," while carefully not pointing out that she's not allowed to actually do anything about privacy protection. Although, the mention that the "Total Information Awareness" program has been - at least temporarily - derailed has me breathing a little easier.

    Of course, if it does come down to a worse-case scenario, I'm going to have to unblock DoubleClick's cookies, or I'll be in big trouble!

    --
    Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
    1. Re:Playing devil's advocate... by hoser · · Score: 1

      Having read the article, I can't find anything that leads me to believe that Ms. O'Connor Kelly is guilty of anything othere than being employed by a company that was guilty of privacy abuses. It was stated, in fact, that she came on-board with DoubleClick after the investigation, and was responsible for cleaning up the company's act. How utterly reprehensible! :)

      Whoa, whoa - you read the article? I'm sorry, you must be new around here.

      On Slashdot you're supposed to quickly scan the writeup and post a completely uninformed comment as quickly as possible. At least, this seems to be the system the editors encourage.

      You seem to have read the article and thought things through before posting. Admirable, but completely out of place around here. If the above sounds like I'm trolling, well, it is. I'm tired, and I'm sure a lot of other people are too, of the editors throwing whatever comes their way on the front page without first checking to see if the story's been discussed recently or making sure the writeup accurately describes the link. This is typically sloppy editing from the Slashdot crew.

      The writeup may have left chrisd "speechless", but the Washington Post article itself is a different story.

      --


      hoser: Slashdot reader since 1987.
    2. Re:Playing devil's advocate... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Having read the article, I can't find anything that leads me to believe that Ms. O'Connor Kelly is guilty of anything othere than being employed by a company that was guilty of privacy abuses.

      Isn't that enough?

      It was stated, in fact, that she came on-board with DoubleClick after the investigation, and was responsible for cleaning up the company's act.

      If you believe that DoubleClick has completely cleaned up its act, then that's legitimate. But if on the other hand you believe that DoubleClick has done the minimum necessary to get out of trouble, that's a completely different story.

      The public's best interest directly contradicts the best interest of DoubleClick. If Ms. O'Connor Kelly were anything more than an apologist for DoubleClick, she wouldn't have kept her job very long.

  71. If we only had an "Actually Read The Article" czar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... we'd be all set.

  72. Orwellian perhaps? by mendax · · Score: 1

    Is it any accident that the new "privacy" czar made it his business to intrude on your privacy in order to sell you stuff or sell this information to others for "other" purposes? What would Orwell have called this bureaucracy? The Ministry of Freedom?

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    1. Re:Orwellian perhaps? by ciphertext · · Score: 1

      The new privacy czar made it her business to clean up DoubleClick's abhorrent behavior. You should read the article before commenting, it will prevent errors such as the one you have made.

      --
      To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
  73. how ironic is this? by destr3 · · Score: 1
    i get the following javascript error four times when i go to the washington post article:
    Error: syntax error
    Source File: http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/wpni.technologyartic le/techpolicy/security;VS=2;dir=securitynode;dir=t echnology;dir=techpolicy;dir=security;page=article ;kw=;pos=ad2;sz=468x60;tile=2;ord=57553.2284426862 ?
    Line: 1
    haha, maybe Nuala O'Conner can help the Washington Post fix their user tracking problems...
  74. Re:This just in: by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "Yes, congress, not michigan. "

    I've heard a couple of references to Michigan lately, but not clear on what I missed. What's the story?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  75. And in related news ... by munkinut · · Score: 1

    A convicted cracker of computer systems was appointed Chief Security Officer of Acme Inc.

    Double standards are a terrible thing ain't they.

    --
    re-invent wheels ... you never know
    1. Re:And in related news ... by Mr.Phil · · Score: 1

      Would have been a chance to put Kevin's name back on the front burner.

      "Kevin Mitnick to be appointed Computer Security Czar for the Cabinet of Hopeless-Security.

  76. Takes one to know one.... by batura · · Score: 1

    I guess it takes a privacy evasion expert to catch privacy evaders.

    Wolves protecting sheep?

    1. Re:Takes one to know one.... by tetro · · Score: 1

      kinda spooky how many people where thinking the same thing at the same time...

      --
      .smell my feet.
  77. Takes one to know one by tetro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well this is obvious. Having a huge privacy violator take on other privacy violators is probably the best thing. The DoubleClick guy should know all the tricks of the trade of privacy violations.

    --
    .smell my feet.
  78. Not so crazy... by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least "the Hedgehog" wouldn't tell poor people with 10 kids in countries with 40% HIV infection that using condoms is a sin.

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  79. Typical slashdot hipocracy by nochops · · Score: 1

    I agree that this person is probably not the best choice for the job, but why don't we all whine and complain when stories about Kevin Mitnick's new IT security company, or Cap'n Crunch's Telecom consulting firm come out?

    --
    "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
    1. Re:Typical slashdot hipocracy by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Coz most US citizens can choose NOT to be involved with Kevin Mitnick's new IT security company - plenty of alternatives.

      And what did the lady _really_ do at Doubleclick? What was her real stand and goal there?

      --
  80. RTFA by phyxeld · · Score: 5, Informative
    As bad as slashdot has made it sound, after reading the article I think this is actually a good thing. From the text:
    O'Connor Kelly is well acquainted with the often bitter debate over balancing privacy rights with other interests. She joined DoubleClick in February 2000 after the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into complaints that the company was improperly storing and sharing private user data. DoubleClick also was embroiled in similar investigations by 12 state attorneys general and several class-action lawsuits.

    DoubleClick settled most of those lawsuits, and created a division specializing in privacy compliance, which O'Connor Kelly ran.
    chrisd is either intentionally trying to stir shit up with sensational misrepresentation of facts, or he just skimmed the article before posting it and didn't bother to get the whole story. In either case, I think this is definitely worthy of an Update: on the front page, noting that the individual in question was responsible for cleaning up DoubleClick's privacy catastrophies, rather than causing them.

    I'm really glad I read the article on this post, because after only reading the slashdot version I had a very different opinion on the matter than I do now!
    --
    __
    Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
    1. Re:RTFA by KDan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yup, totally right. Mod the parent up and empty the article poster's karma for bad posting!

      From the article, O'Connor only joined DoubleClick after they had become the privacy big bad wolf, and actually helped sort all that shit out. Notice you haven't heard that many DoubleClick horror stories recently...

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    2. Re:RTFA by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      why don't you read my fucking post. I in no way stated that as my opinion....infact I am partial to the second position.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:RTFA by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just finished reading the article, and I had simmilar feelings, but perhaps not to the extent of yours. The article doesn't say she neccesarily "cleaned up" DoubleClick, or that she was hired by DoubleClick to do anything other than whitewash the company in the face of federal scrutiny. Perhaps she has been chosen to do the same for the government now? I don't really know one way or the other, all I have to rely on right now is the history of both DoubleClick and the Bush administration, neither of which are remotely good in the face of privacy. REMOTELY. All I know is, if the Bush administration is looking for a privacy advocate, there's plenty of places they can go other than DoubleClick that would make MUCH MUCH more sense. Like, say, the people who raised the suit against DoubleClick in the first place.

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    4. Re:RTFA by platypus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, and the exec from microsoft who cleaned up microsofts anti trust catastrophes should lead the departement of justice.

      Please, the more data a company like doubleclick is can grab from/about people (legally), the more profitable they are. Do you really think the most important criterium she had to meet was being a privacy evangelist???
      She just had to play one on TV.
      OTOH, that probably make her a perfect fit for her new job.

    5. Re:RTFA by phyxeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You raise valid points.

      Considering the number of convicted criminals appointed to important offices lately, it's difficult to believe anything that the administration does is in the public's best interest. I hope your suspicions are incorrect in this case, but I fear they're probably not. Time will tell...

      --
      __
      Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
    6. Re:RTFA by rcathcart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe there should be an Update: on the first page, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that chrisd isn't valid. The point remains that the chosen leader of the privacy division is not a privacy advocate, but rather someone who is good at cleaning up mistakes and doing what is necessary to comply.

      Instead of choosing someone who is viewed as a consensus builder it would be better if the agency chose someone who zealously defends the privacy rights of citizens.
    7. Re:RTFA by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 1

      Wow, Mr. Coward, you seem to know a lot of important people. I've even read your claims in other threads of having a 212 IQ and starting up several successful consulting firms. You also seem to post on slashdot quite frequently. I've been wondering why I can't access your profile, though.

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    8. Re:RTFA by Treeluvinhippy · · Score: 1
      Ummm. . . I did read your post, as a matter of fact I quoted half of it, Dumbass.

      Were did you state your opinion? In your original post you did not show any sign of preference at all.

      In a nutshell.

      this is a sham and will not provide any privacy due to the fact he was a double click executive

      Translation: This is a bad person who worked for an evil company.

      he knows how to thwart companies and individuals who try to invade people's privacy becasue he was an executive at a company that did this.

      In other words: It takes a thief to catch a thief.

      So you see I did read your 'fucking' post and found it uninformative and ignorant. Except now instead of just recommending you actually READ, I suggest you sign up for some night english courses at your local Adult Education Center and learn about such things as.

      1) How to get your point across without sounding like a buffoon.

      2) Capitalization! It works wonders! Did you realize that you in both posts the only upper-case letters you used were the two I's in your second post?

      3) Spelling. Ah yes what snot-faced, pimply /. cannot point out the fact the you my friend (or adversary) not only
      post before you read , but you lack the knowledge that most people in a computer literate society have.
      How to use a fucking spell checker!

      --
      >
    9. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      O'Connor only joined DoubleClick after they had become the privacy big bad wolf, and actually helped sort all that shit out. Notice you haven't heard that many DoubleClick horror stories recently...

      You know, this CAN be interpreted in at least two different ways...

    10. Re:RTFA by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's only because DoubleClicks market collapsed out from under them.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    11. Re:RTFA by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Look at it this way: As someone who came from a company that at least historically had a serious privacy problem, then she quite likely knows the dirty little secrets of the trade, and hence, can root out and prosecute violators. It's a two-edged sword; the important thing is in which direction it is swinging (which is, of course, the great unknown in this case).

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    12. Re:RTFA by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      you fucking moron. try reading my entire god damn post.

      read number two...or can't you count past 1. your so hung up on spelling errors on /. that you probobly can't even add.

      I hope you work for a tabloid because you are realy good at taking part of a statement and siting it as being the only thing that was said.

      it must hurt to be dumb.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  81. Next... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    We will make Marion Barry in charge of the "War on Drugs". What a fox in the hen house this is.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  82. Re:This just in: by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 1

    I was mostly thinking about this , but in searching for it I found this
    too. I also remember hearing some stuff a couple months back that was related to the first link. It seems that michigan is becoming a pretty scary place for geeks, or most computer users, really.

    --
    "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
  83. Irony with a capital "I" by mnemotronic · · Score: 1
    And let's not forget that Moammar Khadafi, Libia's terrorist-in-charge, is heading the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

    Right......

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:Irony with a capital "I" by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Really, he's only gotten nicer since we killed his wife and kids.

  84. RTFA by Treeluvinhippy · · Score: 1
    )this is a sham and will not provide any privacy due to the fact he was a double click executive

    He? C'mon I can understand making that mistake when Hillary Rosen is the subject, but clearly your just shouting the ./ party line instead of reading the article.

    By the way SHE is credited for turning Doubleclick from a reprehensible company to a . . . well . . . ok they're still reprehensible but not as reprehensible.

    --
    >
  85. Re:like having Kissinger head the 9/11 panel... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Or like having somebody from MS in charge of Software security. Oh, wait, that is the case.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  86. Get your facts right by Mr.Phil · · Score: 1

    Gale Norton is the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

    The EPA Administrator is Christine Todd Whitman, past Governor of New Jersey.

    Where did you get all that information about Norton pushing ANWR and such? At best, Norton would have influence on the rights of Native American tribes to ANWR through the BEA. (Bureau Indian Affairs)

    1. Re:Get your facts right by drgroove · · Score: 1

      My bad. You're right. Had 'em switched.

  87. Well, this just makes perfect sense... by blate · · Score: 1

    You see, fellow geeks, the best way to ensure privacy and security is to collect as much information about as many people as possible. That way, the government has all your vital information, and can keep it safe for you.

    Yeah. Right.

    This is the dumbest thing I have seen in a while from the Shrub administration, and that says a lot. Bush seems to have a real nack for grabbinb up the facists and losers out there and making them important figureheads in his administration. Then again, there's that old saying about birds of a feather... perhaps that should be revised to vultures... ... Off to clear my cookie cache before Big Brother uploads it to some database...

  88. In other news... by Rai · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bill Gates named Open Source Czar, Jack Valenti named VP of Consumer Fair-Use, and John Wayne Gacy named Director of Child-Protective Services.

  89. These are fictional times by F.O.Dobbs · · Score: 1

    Maybe we could get David Duke out of jail and assigned to the Justice Department to work on Civil Rights cases. Sometimes I feel like Bush is trying his damndest to not get re-elected. Poindexter, Kissinger and now this? Incredible.

    F.O. Dobbs

    1. Re:These are fictional times by ccoder · · Score: 1

      Don't have any mod points today, but I agree! :)
      Poindexter is just one of many I am aware of... I encourage any of you reading either of these posts to go research more. Spread the word.

      --
      "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" -- George Orwell
  90. It depends... by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    ...on how backwards you happen to be.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  91. Re:Just more proof by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

    Maybe you didn't read it. But since you didn't give any detailis against why your parent is incorrect, uninformed, etc.. then you look even stupider.

    The facts are that a person from doubleclick, the worst privacy company in all of internet history, is being put in charge of privacy for the department of homeland security. In other words, someone who was brought into doubleclick to PR their customers into thinking privacy was improving significantly, is now the person who will try to PR the US population into thinking the homeland security database won't be used for privacy invasion.

    No, I think it is YOU who didn't read the fucking article. Moron.

    --
    Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
  92. Hurray!!! by bogie · · Score: 1

    Every teddy bear who's been good, is sure of a treat today.
    There's lots of marvelous things to eat and wonderful games to play.
    Beneath the trees where nobody sees,
    They'll hide and seek as long as they please.
    Today's the day the teddy bears have their picnic.

    What? You'd rather read more about GW & Co dismantling our citizens rights?

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  93. Hacker Logic. by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    A hacker will be the first to say "who better to defend angainst computer intrusion than a hacker?" Hello, white hat system analyst.

    Well, who better to be named Privacy Czar than someone who has a specialty in breaking away privacy?

  94. this is no weirder than the fact that.... by wuchang · · Score: 5, Funny

    the best rapper is white
    the best golfer is black
    the tallest NBA player is chinese
    the swiss hold the america's cup
    france is accusing the u.s. of arrogance
    germany doesn't want to go to war
    and the three most powerful men in america are named "bush", "dick", and "colon".

    1. Re:this is no weirder than the fact that.... by j_f_chamblee · · Score: 1

      Funny, except that the most powerful men in America are actually named "Donald," "Dick," and "Paul."

      --
      The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman
    2. Re:this is no weirder than the fact that.... by datatrash · · Score: 1

      funny except you forget to credit chris rock for saying it

    3. Re:this is no weirder than the fact that.... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Did you forget John?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:this is no weirder than the fact that.... by JCholewa · · Score: 1

      > Did you forget John

      What about Bill? I mean, his company probably could have *bought* Iraq....

  95. Reasonable choice by flakac · · Score: 1

    But then again, why not? Former prosecutors actually tend to make the best defense lawyers... and if anybody is going to know anything about how privacy abuses work, it's someone who worked for a noted abuser.

  96. She's perfect for the job... by hpa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you look at the article, it's pretty obvious that her job is all about defusing criticism due to privacy concerns without actually doing anything to stop the march towards an Orwellian society. For that, she's perfect... she successfully defused public criticism about DoubleClick without significantly hampering their effort to collect every little bit of information about you.

    1. Re:She's perfect for the job... by moncyb · · Score: 1

      ...she successfully defused public criticism about DoubleClick...

      Either that, or everyone just doesn't bother talking about it anymore, and are firewalling out doubleclick servers like I am.

  97. She's a bad choice. by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 2, Insightful
    And yes, I did RTFA.

    I will automatically assume that she does not (or soon will not) have the public's best interests at heart, and it has nothing to do with DoubleClick.

    It has to do with the current Administration. I know, flame away, but the cronyism I've seen on display is... staggering. Absolutely staggering.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  98. Probably a good choice by decep · · Score: 1

    The reasoning behind this is the same as a company hiring a black-hat h/cracker to secure their systems. A person that knows how cause a problem is the best person to fight the problem.

  99. switching sides by rzuwik · · Score: 1

    and what about Kevin Mitnick being a security expert? rings a bell?

  100. RTFA by rutledjw · · Score: 1

    THEN bitch about who's there any why.

    --

    Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
  101. speechless... by h4x0r-3l337 · · Score: 1
    Just leaves you speechless

    Judging from many of the comments so far, most slashdot readers seem to think she was responsible for the evil things that DoubleClick did. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. She joined DoubleClick when it was already being investigated, and cleaned up DoubleClick's act.

  102. There is quite a similar old story... by JohnnyBigodes · · Score: 1

    Talk about getting the wolf to take care of the sheep...

  103. Yes, totally ludicrous by apankrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How would this be different from hiring Kevin Mitnick to handle security issues?

    Very different. Hacking and security is all about an *expertise*, which ultimately defines the quality of the work at the end of the day. In the privacy domain though the foundation is different - it's all about a *position*, the position of unconditional respect for individual privacy.

    I seriously doubt one can suddenly develop such a respect if she was knowingly affiliated with doubleclick in the past. Too bad.

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
  104. Irony by kinnell · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who says Americans don't have a sense of irony.

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    1. Re:Irony by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Who says Americans don't have a sense of irony.

      Ha! we have a better sense of irony than the rest of the world! Were smarter and better edacated. The rest of the world should learn about sense of iron from our singer Alanis Morissette! Yeah! You suck that up! The world listenes to AMERICAN music!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:Irony by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      Alanis Morissette is Canadian... Or were you being ironic on purpose?

  105. Re:what's a popup ad by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny
    It's
    1. what you see when you're working from a temporary box (not your regular system) that's going to be upgraded in the next few hours ... :-)
    2. an insidious method to improve hand-eye coordination and get all those net-potatoes to burn off extra calories despite themselves
    3. a way to convince people to avoid your product like the plague
    4. browser-based spam
    In this case, it's reason #1 :-)
  106. She's an interesting choice at the least... by ralico · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is a quick bio. She's 34, so she's a young woman in what is still seems very much an old white man's game. Given her acedemic credentials, and where she is today, she's an overachiever. This may be a very good thing if she is has enough moral backbone to stave off corrupting special interests.
    Call me cynical and sterotyping, but I think this is better than having yet another old, corrupt white guy in someones pocket.

    --

    SCO to Hell
  107. Could be a good thing by SamNmaX · · Score: 1

    This is a step up, in the notion that they actually have someone there whose job it is to protect people's privacy. The major concerns, however, are:

    a) Will she be aggressive enough to actually make a difference?
    b) Will the Bush administration kick her out for doing her job "too well"?

    It's a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure it will mean much unless those in power actually believe privacy is a good thing and not just something they need to get around.

  108. he who doesn't study history is doomed to deja vu by js7a · · Score: 1
    Anyone remember back in 1993 when Clinton was trying to appoint a top Mead (owners of Lexis/Nexis) executive to chair the National Information Infrastructure Technical Commission? Pale by comparison, but still, same ol', same ol'.

    Remember 1993, just a decade ago politicians had no idea what the internet was and only one in 20 business cards had email. The "information superhighway" was going to bring us five hundred channels on TV.

  109. Re:time to google his real postal and physical add by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

    Okay /.ers its time to put our efforts to wkr..

    Lets ee how long it takes to find this guys postal address and physical location..

    Post your results in this thread..

    I bet we wil have it done bofre 3 hours is up..


    Seems like a safe bet since you don't know that the target is female and your spelling would render a google search meaningless....

    --

    --

    As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

  110. Re:Orwell must be laughing his ass off.... by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Yet another example of the Bush doubleplusgood government in action! Of course this is right in line with an administration that fakes 'popular' Iraqi support of the American 'liberation' of Baghdad yahoo.com [yahoo.com].

    Now watch as the Bush apologists leap out of the closet to support his choice, citing her 'community building' with privacy groups and whatnot. Right...as if they couldn't find thousands of more qualified choices who actually work with real, honest-to-god privacy advocacy groups.... "

    The beauty of having a karma score far beyond anything you could ever actually need is that you can take a post that's been marked as a 'troll' by some ignorant right-wing looney Bush boot-licker and repost it - with a score of '2'.

    Sometimes, enraging the conservative pricks who prowl Slashdot is enough to put a big ol' grin on your face....

    Check out the article, though. The 'popular' Iraqi demonstration was actually staged by the Bush government, apparently because the Iraqis themselves are in no way celebrating the fact that they've been conquered. Imagine that!

    And this is the government we entrust to watch over our privacy? Lying sacks of shit, scum of the Earth fuckwits who pull crap like this? And then appoint a Doubleclick lackey to 'watch over' our privacy? Wake up, shitheads - our privacy is *already guarranteed* by the Constitution. The only thing an ad company executive can do is find ways to circumvent protections that are more than 200 years old.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  111. Re:Judged by the company you keep... by aengblom · · Score: 1

    That's absolutely correct. You will be judged by the company you "keep" (in fact that's what Slashdot just did), but that doesn't mean it's fair or accurate.

    Anyway, I'm guessing the Doubleclick brought her on because of her credibilty and if nothing happened at Doubleclick during her tenure, she should keep the credibility.

    In other words, give me evidence, not FUD.

    --


    So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
  112. Then why do I still have Double Click Cookies... by NickFusion · · Score: 1

    ...on my drive? Spybot S&D found three from just today's browsing. (Also Avenue A, courtesy of /.)

    Bang-up job with the clean up.

    If you're all about the privacy rights, get your damn cookies off my drive.

    --
    What were you expecting?
  113. You're missing a *very* important point by jtheory · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read the exact same paragraph and it *confirmed* my concerns.

    Look at this in perspective: DoubleClick is a huge organization that is having serious problems with lawsuits because it's trampling all over people's privacy. They bring in O'Connor Kelly, who does a good job settling *most* of the lawsuits (note: settling != defeating) and starts a new division to help keep DoubleClick safe from future lawsuits. DoubleClick continues to do as much data-mining and collection as it possibly can (because that's STILL the core of its business) but now it avoids most of the unpleasant and costly public lawsuits.

    Now substitute "the US Govt" for "DoubleClick". Fits pretty well, doesn't it? It doesn't sound *too* bad... until you consider that they're still planning on doing as much privacy invasion as they can possibly get away with... she'll just help them walk that wavy line.

    Think about the difference if the new privacy advisor were, say, one of the "12 state attorneys general" who were prosecuting DoubleClick, or someone involved in the "several class-action lawsuits" from the other side. Or ANYONE who had privacy advocacy experience from the victims' side.

    --
    There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
    1. Re:You're missing a *very* important point by LilGuy · · Score: 1
      Now substitute "the US Govt" for "DoubleClick". Fits pretty well, doesn't it? It doesn't sound *too* bad... until you consider that they're still planning on doing as much privacy invasion as they can possibly get away with... she'll just help them walk that wavy line.

      Yeah only now that it's the government, that line may be erased slowly and drawn back a few more feet.. Hopefully we'll have people watching for it so everyone will be the wiser...

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
  114. It could be worse... by Kevin+Burtch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bush could name the former chief of security of Microsoft as the Cyber Security Czar... oh wait, he did.

    --
    - Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
  115. chrisd is keeping you honest by mdielmann · · Score: 1

    With misleading headlines like that, it's really easy to tell who RTFA...keep up the good work, chrisd!

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  116. Privacy Czar : Privacy :: Drug Czar : ? by NightParrot · · Score: 1

    All the well-taken comments about her being the 2xclick reformer aside...

    If the drug czar's job is to win the war on drugs, what do you think they're looking for in a privacy czar?

  117. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  118. Real is Life More Interesting by J-Hawker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why spend so much time coming up with absurd possibilities when the UN provides better examples. Libya 'right for human rights job' and Iraq to chair U.N. disarmament conference. Face it, the Dead Milkmen were right, we're all veterans of a f@#%ed up world.

  119. Missing Flame for Dog Brain. by twitter · · Score: 1
    DogisMyCoprocessor says, Thanks for a voice of sanity. But you forgot to flame the submitter and and chrisd for not bothering to RTFA. without having read the fine article or thinking more than his coprocessor.

    If you RTFA you will conclude that the tripple named lady is a pretty face for a nasty company. Doubleclick bought it's way out of the 12 lawsuits and she did her best to sooth everyone. It's not like doubleclick changed what they were doing any more than "real" coke is made with cane sugar. So, yes, she is good for the job but we might not like the job she does. It's like the feds hired a professional liar to run minitruth or Al Capone to run the local liquor licensing office or Kenedy senior to run the SEC.

    Doggie brains might like that kind of talk, so long as they have something to eat. The rest of us should demand a little more.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Missing Flame for Dog Brain. by DogIsMyCoprocessor · · Score: 1
      Ummm ... I did read the article, but I removed my ideological blinders first.

      "If you RTFA you will conclude that the tripple named lady is a pretty face for a nasty company."

      Sorry, but I don't accept that reading a factual article means that I have to agree with your interpretation.

      --

      "And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."

  120. Yes, I did read the article by jtheory · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't say she was evil, and there could be worse choices... but still, the point remains that she did a very good job helping DoubleClick stay *just barely* on this side of illegal. She spoke with privacy groups because she needed to know which abuses would result in costly and public lawsuits, and which wouldn't. DoubleClick's business *still* depends on getting as much personal info as possible, so it's clear that she would not be able to push them farther than they needed to go.

    Look, it's possible that she'd be a good privacy advocate, but she's never done that before... she's moving from helping one massive organization avoid privacy abuse lawsuits to helping another one.

    If she's been the one prosecuting the lawsuits, just once, I'd be happier.

    --
    There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
  121. Quick Question... by Kintanon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is this any different from AT&T hiring someone who hacks their network to be in charge of their security?
    It seems that hiring someone who is good at compromising the system that is protecting you to make that system better is one of the things that the "geek" community recommends. How does this differ? The company she ran was good at compromising peoples privacy so who would better know how to protect that privacy?
    Any argument you use against her can equally be applied to someone who compromises the network security of a business and is then hired by them.

    Kintanon

    --
    Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    1. Re:Quick Question... by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      Actually, she is going to be doing the same job as she was at doubleclick. Now was she good at "balancing" company vs private needs? Or did she just sit there and say that's what they were doing? The attitude of the /. post suggests the later, but somehow I doubt /. is actually informed on this particular persons past record.

  122. in other news... by Shadestalker · · Score: 1

    Popular "news for nerds" site Slashdot has been recategorized as "entertainment / opinion" by online directory maintainers. Reason for the demotion from the "news" category was given as "rampant, unmitigated disregard for the facts at hand."

    Slashdot editors would only comment that they were too busy watching anime and supermodifying computer gear to comment. Presumably, given the site's history, the same story will be reposted until they get it right.

  123. What's up with the czar thing anyway? by wmelick · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know, why do we call these positions "czar" whatever? What, are we living in pre-revolutionary Russia? Who started the whole czar title thing? Wasn't there just one czar in Russia too? Or maybe that's Czar with a capital C? Hmmm....

  124. Not so strange by bsadler · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that yesterdays hackers are todays security experts... knowing the best ways to invade privacy is to know the best way to stop invasion of privacy.

    --
    Stupid sig of the week: Perl Hackers DIIMTOW
  125. Oh and technically.... by wmelick · · Score: 1

    ....would she be czarinna?

  126. In other news... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

    Johnny Cochran named murder czar.

  127. Almost as bad as... by NecrosisLabs · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..naming James Watt as secretary of the interior. Oh wait, that's been done. how about...
    ..having Kissinger head a probe about Intelligence failures. Oh yeah. Ok, let's try
    ..having John Ashcroft head the Deparment of Justice.

    Ok, that's it. I give up.

  128. You've got to be kidding me. (nm) by Twitchy+Itchy+Poo · · Score: 1

    nothin' to see here, move along.

  129. You were supposed to wait a week. by twitter · · Score: 2, Funny
    This would illustrate that DoubleClick does care about privacy, after enforced to do so, and this executive happens to care very much about it, as it is her career.

    Excellent! After smashing someone for daring to guese the intentions of others, you state them yourself. Did you ever consider alternate ideas?

    How do you know that Doubleclick cares about privacy? The indications are that they did not, you know 12 state investigations, a federal investigation and a private class action suit. They settled those suits, but we don't have any real indication they changed what they were doing do we?

    Now what would a company that does not care about privacy have to hire someone for? Perhaps to lie for them? We don't know that, all we know from the article is that she was a "consesus builder". What the hell is that? Someone that convinces me that it's OK for double click to sell my credit history if they keep quiet about my dental records? Hmm. Yes indeed, I suspect someone who could work for a company like Double Click is dishonest. Dishonest or a 34 year old puppet.

    Now what do the Feds want her for? To advocate the Total Information Rape Act? CAPUT? No thanks, I've got better use for my money than another liar.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:You were supposed to wait a week. by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Excellent! After smashing someone for daring to guese the intentions of others, you state them yourself. Did you ever consider alternate ideas?

      Obviously she cares about privacy, or it wouldn't be her job. You have to care in order to do a job, even if it's just to get the paycheck. I'm not guessing her intentions as to why she has the job, all I'm saying is that for her to do her job, she has to know privacy. Was that hard to understand?

      How do you know that Doubleclick cares about privacy?

      I don't. It's supported by a logical chain of events that they do, because of pressure from the FTC and hiring Kelly in the first place.

      The indications are that they did not, you know 12 state investigations, a federal investigation and a private class action suit. They settled those suits, but we don't have any real indication they changed what they were doing do we?

      Just because you haven't noticed they've changed, doesn't mean they haven't.

      Now what would a company that does not care about privacy have to hire someone for? Perhaps to lie for them? We don't know that, all we know from the article is that she was a "consesus builder".

      She was brought into DoubleClick to clean up their privacy policies and make sure everything was in order. There are other sources of information out there, and I'm assuming you are able to read.

      Someone that convinces me that it's OK for double click to sell my credit history if they keep quiet about my dental records? Hmm. Yes indeed, I suspect someone who could work for a company like Double Click is dishonest. Dishonest or a 34 year old puppet.

      I don't recall Kelly ever doing anything remotely close to that. It's a good thing you think that everybody who works for DoubleClick is dishonest. I mean, of course no one could see a good foundation that went astray, and could be cleaned up! Oh wait, Kelly did, and you still bash her without knowing anything about her. Good for you!

      Now what do the Feds want her for? To advocate the Total Information Rape Act? CAPUT? No thanks, I've got better use for my money than another liar.

      You know, I've heard this same type of talk from a lot of people about racism. Interesting how you assume that just because they work as a privacy officer for a company that needed one, you think they're liars. I'd hate to do anything that you don't agree with, because I'd obviously be some evil, wretched, monster. I bet your world is a scary place. Do you have to sleep with the light on?

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  130. Re:criminals in office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Sorry troll. Clinton had one person convicted of anything. Try Reagan. His administration produced 17 convicted felons.

  131. In Other News... by mprindle · · Score: 1

    President Bush started receiving email to earn $1,000,000 in 10 mins and receive your High School diploma with no work required.

    mprindle

  132. MOD PARENT UP PLEASE by atomray · · Score: 1

    come on, that's FUNNY

    --
    take your sig and shove it
  133. Myopia by Havokmon · · Score: 1
    Seems like it would be a good idea to me to hire a woman who 'straightened out' DoubleClick's privacy issues, for a job with a government that is currently pushing laws like the Patriot Act.

    It's a logical assumption that she will bring her DoubleClick experience to the 'Homeland Security' table. Instead of having guys sitting around trying to figure out how to track/spy on criminals, and not thinking about how it might affect the average joe, there's now somebody there to essentailly speak for the privacy advocates before privacy altering laws are drafted.

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  134. Wishful thinking. by twitter · · Score: 1
    So, she ran the privacy clean-up for DoubleClick, and now she's picked to do the same thing, monitoring privacy for the government's latest fad, Homeland Security. Is this a problem? Or is it only a problem because she was picked by a conservative?

    How do you "clean up" acts that have not been implemented? How do you know that her work at Double Click was anthing more than "Cheif Bullshitter"? The lady is not there to protect but to put a nice face on your rape. It's very wishful thinking to expect otherwise. The Department of Homeland Security is working fast and furious to get TIA. They are not hiring someone to tell them not to do it. Get real please.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  135. Re:Just more proof by ansonyumo · · Score: 1

    You're right, I didn't read the fucking article. As I'm a fairly busy person, I rely on pompous asses such as yourself to fill me in with the summary info. But you couldn't even take the time to do that for me. Certainly, this a break in /. etiquette.

    It was a joke, jerk. Turn on your sarcasm filter.

  136. Wanna buy a bridge? by twitter · · Score: 1
    Sounds to me like some changes were make by O'Connor Kelly and privacy was improved. I'd say it takes a pretty strong person to go into a company as deep in it as Double Click and improve it.

    If you think DHS is hiring someone to keep them from implementing Carnivore, CAPPS and TIA, you might also believe that Doublclick cleaned up their act. Why are people making excuses for that nasty company and the DHS?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  137. The old "revolving door" again... by aquarian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a perfect example of what's known as "the revolving door" between industry and government. Traditionally, the big problems have been in the defense and heavy construction industries, so many computer people probably don't understand it.

    Here's how it goes -- an industry bigwig is selected for a regulatory post because of "expertise" in a certain area. After all, they have all this experience, and have risen to prominence, so they must be well-qualified, no? They work for the government for awhile. They make contacts. And if they "play ball" while in their government position, they get a great job offers from private industry when their term expires. Sometimes these offers are innocent and genuine, but sometimes they're outrageous, obvious, and blatant rewards for having done someone's bidding while in office. And there's every shade of gray in between.

    As I mentioned, the most common industry for this is heavy construction. It's most common at the local level -- particularly with construction managers who work as city/county inspectors, and then construction managers, or consultants, again. This is actually illegal in many places, but there are many ways to get around the letter of the law -- shell companies, etc. Sometimes it's so bad that when an inspector gets fired for obvious, intentional lack of diligence, he shows up the very next day on the same jobsite, on the contractor's payroll, making three times what the position would normally pay -- thumbing his nose at his former bosses. Nice "reward," eh, without having to take an actual bribe!

    Of course, construction is an extreme example, being a somwhat bare-knuckle industry anyway. But the same conflict of interest exists everywhere else. And no matter how subtle the conflict of interest may be, the effects of it are felt by us all, and our society suffers.

    Other areas of our society which could be very easily ruined by such conflict of interest are adversarial by design. Our courts, for example -- lawyers don't flip-flop between representing one side then the other. Good journalists aren't supposed to get too chummy with the people they're reporting on. Economist Milton Friedman has often commented on staying out of industry, worrying that it might corrupt his science, or give the appearance of doing so. Likwise, regulators should maintain the same distance from the industries they're regulating.

  138. What GS level pay is her job? by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    Her job was posted right? Federal law right requires the job to be posted. What GS level was her job posted at?

    Also, While we are at it. This is Homeland security, they should have an oversight committee, not a self serving privacy group. (IMHO)
    -
    We are born brave, trusting and greedy, and most of us remain greedy. - Author Unknown

  139. Reminds me of a "Rockford Files" episode... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Everyone remembers the Rockford Files, right? Ok, maybe not, but I digress...

    This show appeared in the later 70's and it concerned a group of business men that wanted to create a "super database" of everyone in this computer system located next to an airport. Rockford busts the case and captures the "criminals" in the end, of course. The show ends with a quick blurb about the dangers of computers and privacy.

    What I find absolutely astounding is something that was considered criminal a generation ago is now accepted as common practice. "Companies and governments keep databases, big deal", is the common attitude now, but in the 70's even the CONCEPT of maintaining a database of personal information was considered criminal, never mind how it was used.

    1. Re:Reminds me of a "Rockford Files" episode... by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      What I find absolutely astounding is something that was considered criminal a generation ago is now accepted as common practice. "Companies and governments keep databases, big deal", is the common attitude now, but in the 70's even the CONCEPT of maintaining a database of personal information was considered criminal, never mind how it was used.

      It's the nature of the beast. Once pandora's box has been opened, there is no shutting it. Computers are designed to keep databases - the belief that nobody will abuse that ability can only be held by people who think that every human is honest and ethical.

      That is why we need someone in an oversight position who can be trusted. Kelley's history with DoubleClick doesn't convince me to trust her - it convinces me that one of her talents is in whitewashing. She was hired to "Get Those Damn Privacy Nuts To Leave Us Alone" and she did it. Now the government needs the same job done, so they've turned to a professional.

      Regardless of who is put in that position, you can trust that they will/are/have/will continue to develop large databases on as many people as possible. I see this as inevitable. The question, IMO, is how are those databases going to be used - for good, or for evil.

  140. So I have to worry about the Federal Government... by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    ..collecting information about me?

    ~4.2million reference URLs snipped.

    Searching the net for references to this is like poking your head in a tigers mount, every where you look teeth.

    ---
    96 superpercomputers can't be wrong! Fincen motto

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  141. There is no such thing as a right to privacy. by twitter · · Score: 1
    You have a rights outlined in the fourth amendment which strictly circumscribe the power of government. The "right to privacy" is a diluted form of that. When it comes to the fourth amendment, there's really no concensus building to be had. The government either gets a time and place limited warrent from an open court by sworn testimony of real criminal activity or you violate it. TIA, CAPP, Carnivore etc. all violate your right to be secure in your personal effects, house and place of business. Kelly is being hired to justify our violation, not to prevent it.

    If they wanted to inspire trust they would have hired someone from the EFF or FSF rather than one of the worst database violators ever who spent her time bullshiting everyone. What do you call someone who takes money to do things they don't believe in? Whore. If there was a single redeeming thing Doubleclick had ever done we might forgive Kelly for working there. Anyone know of such a thing?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  142. More Czars? by BrynM · · Score: 1
    Has "Czar" become an official title of public office? What the hell? It's about as vague a title as "clerk".

    A google search of "united states new czar -russia" turns up some strange results like "IT Czar", "World Trade Czar" and "Federal Homeless Czar" (king without a castle?).

    Can I be the "Stupid Czar Title Czar"? I could work for the "National Office of We Don't Have a Homeland Title for You".

    Does being a Czar mean I get to have people executed?

    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  143. Perfect Sense... by bucktug · · Score: 1

    The national drug Czar is anti-drugs... The privacy Czar is anti-privacy...

    --CJT

    --
    I had a flame... but she had a fire.
  144. :: shakes head :: by neilsly · · Score: 1

    Thats like making snoop-dog the drug czar!

  145. That's always the way they name them by LYM · · Score: 1

    ... like the narcotics squad is actually the anti-narcotics squad, the vice squad is really the anti-vice squad, and the privacy czar, well...

  146. Industry is under-represented in our government by obtuse · · Score: 1

    Just what we need in our democratic government. Another Czar.

    It's good that she's from industry too, but not one of those irritating people who in addition to working in industry, also dedicate personal efforts to changing public policy, like Schneier or Lessig.

    Industry is under-represented in our government. Besides, those people must be fools, since nothing worthwhile is done for free.

    Oh, a sarcasm detector; that's a real useful invention.

    --
    Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
  147. Who's the real threat to our way by Archfeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

    of life....the correct answer is US, and our lack of awareness and general apathy. We've allowed idiots to take control, not because we don't see what's going on, but because it doesn't directly affect me....

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Who's the real threat to our way by psxndc · · Score: 1
      Who's the real threat to our way of life....the correct answer is US, and our lack of awareness and general apathy.

      blah blah blah. words words words. Wait, what'd you say?

      psxndc

      --

      The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

    2. Re:Who's the real threat to our way by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      LOL you got it excatly :)

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  148. Announcement by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Washington, April 16, 2003

    Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer announced today that President Bush has, after consulting with VP Dick Cheney, other members of his cabinet and unidentified experts from the poultry industry that The Fox would be put in charge of The Henhouse.

    "We think The Fox will lend invaluable experience to the management of The Henhouse," said Fleischer. "He has decades of experience with both eggs and with chickens, a breadth of experience that most other candidates just don't have."

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  149. Can I opt-out of this privacy policy? by WillASeattle · · Score: 1

    I'd like to choose the European or Canadian version instead ... What do you mean it's got a region code?

    --
    > --- All Of The Above --- >
  150. Wanna buy a tinfoil hat? by MojoMonkey · · Score: 1

    Conspiracy theories aside...

    Improvements were made, this person made them.

    --

    ----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
  151. New Privacy Compromise Announced by WillASeattle · · Score: 1

    Our new Privacy Czar, recently appointed, has been getting a lot done. First, all flashing banner ads will flash the terror alert color of the day. Second, all pop-up ads will individually be opt-out - just click on the 2-point text that says Opt Me Out I'm A Traitor and you'll be opted out and your Intel chip UID will be forwarded to John Ashcroft to be put on the official Enemies List. Third, all pop-under ads will not contain any pr0n, since kids never look under there anyway and it would be a waste. Fourth, every time you take a book out of the library, you can now opt out of the Totally Insane Prussian Security (TIPS) Act by filling out a 500-page opt-out form. Your name and address will then be forwarded to John Ashcroft to be put on the Suspected Terrorist List and order you a special commemorative American Terrorist pin with a microtransmitter. Thank you for your cooperation, citizen!

    --
    > --- All Of The Above --- >
  152. Coyote Guarding the Hen House by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

    This, people, is the absolute definition of irony.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  153. Re:usama not osama by Ponty · · Score: 1

    If you're a wealthy northerner playing cowboy for votes or his wealthy northerner son playing cowboy for votes, it's SAD-dim.

  154. April Fools! by ces · · Score: 1

    Hey it's April 16th isn't it?

    This reminds me of the administration hiring people from the accounting, banking, and stock trading industrys to as regulators. Don't believe me check the resumes of some of the appointments to the SEC, FDIC, and the new accounting regulatory board.

    I know the new privacy czar comes reccomended by many in the privacy community but this is a tad too "Fox guarding the henhouse" for my taste.

    --
    Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  155. Re:he who doesn't study history is doomed to deja by Ponty · · Score: 1

    Well, that actually makes sense. Lexis-Nexis is a company that successfully created an advanced database system (or technical infrastructure or whatever.) Unless I'm missing some bit of the picture.

  156. That's what I thought too! by corebreech · · Score: 1

    That this just *must* have been a story left over from the April 1st bin!

    Clearly, the strategy of this administration is to pile it up so high that no one can even see the hypocrisy anymore let alone complain about it!

  157. Re:RTFA (convicted criminals in office) by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The real problem is that many of these people broke laws written specifically by congress to tell them to stop or not take specific actions!


    This isn't a "accounting" issue like whitewater, or a "technical purgury" issue like monica. Most of those things for most people with any money would go away with a phone call or two--those were specifically political. Poindexter on the other hand, was specifically banned [by a law just for him!] from helping contras [I believe]. He not only performed the acts, but covered up for the president and vice who ordered it insite of Congress! Again, we're still paying the price for that whole arms-for-hostages thing because at the time much of that money went to people like Saddam! If his testimony was subject to the scrutiny of Clinton's he'd still be rotting in prison!


    Several high-level appointees have specifically broken the law for the white house in the past. These are people that have broken the law and thrown it in the face of congress, specifically after being told what to do! This isn't missed taxes, or an epa fine, it's willful and deliberate. For starts, congress has no place confirming them at all, but these may not be confirmed seats--funny how that works.

  158. misplaced faith by alizard · · Score: 1

    I think that's already been done.

  159. PUNCH THE MONKEY! by BrainGumbo · · Score: 1, Funny

    And we'll consider not whoring out your personal information to the highest bidder!

    --
    -----Buy the ticket, take the ride.-----
  160. Slavery is Freedom by ArchAngelQ · · Score: 1

    The truth is a lie. War is peace. And this man will bring us privacy.

  161. It takes a thief to catch a thief? by BCW2 · · Score: 1

    I hope the title is the way it will work, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm afraid everyone else may be right.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  162. Too Many Czars by buckminster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is anyone else concerned about the increasing number of government sanctioned Czars in America? At what point did we become a Czarist nation?

  163. Re:criminals in office by abirdman · · Score: 1

    So this Chinese "Mata Hari" was a Clinton appointee? Or wait, it seems like she might have had some high-ranking position in the Gore administration? Oh wait, Gore didn't have an administration. Wait, I get it, there's some sort of connection between the FBI agent and the Buddhist Republican fundraisers that the Bubba administration held. Wait, they weren't Republicans. Darn! I just don't get it. Maybe there isn't anything here. Maybe there's just some rote regurgitation of fictitious character creation so we can topple them (straw dog, I think it's called), as well as some slightly racist casting of aspersions on the former administration, and an arrested FBI agent (who was arrested for what?). Hmmmmmm. Does the FBI agent constitute a "high ranking" Clinton Administration official? Is sleeping with Mata Hari a felony? Does this sound like some closely argued Rush Limbaugh argument? WTF? I am dirty. I responded to an AC.

    --
    Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
  164. Re:what's a popup ad by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
    What you see when you want to use a browser that's damn fast, uses the OS's default interface instead of sloooowly drawing its own

    Maybe it's time to retire that 486 on which you're still running Win95 (original, not OSR2).

    forgives the odd small coding error

    If webmasters properly checked their sites, that would be a non-issue.

    supports file formats in, frankly, a much more sensible way than relying on MIME types

    Again, it sounds more like an ID-10-T error on the part of the webmaster if you click a link for some semi-obscure filetype and the correct behavior doesn't happen.

    I don't notice the speed difference between IE and Mozilla, on anything from a dual Athlon MP down to an old Power Mac G3. That Mozilla has had fewer major security blunders that could lead to your getting 0wn3d is, IMHO, a Good Thing.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  165. EPIC by Seth+Golub · · Score: 1

    The story mentions that EPIC was the one to file suit against DoubleClick. Now would be a good time to send them some money.

  166. This is just as good as by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    as the former head of the KGB heading up Homeland "security"

    http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Americans /USSA.htm

    "(March 17) You will be happy to learn that the former head of the KGB (the secret police of the former Soviet Union), General Yevgeni Primakov, has been hired as a consultant by the US Department of Homeland Security. Do you think he will share his expertise in "security" to prepare US citizens for domestic internal passports under the pretense of fighting the never-ending "War on Terrorism"?"

  167. By the way, by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    why do we always use a RUSSIAN word (czar) in the title of an AMERICAN office??

    Or is it AMERIKANSKI???

  168. Now if only Alanis Morrisette could fix that song. by CatOne · · Score: 1

    And use *this* story as an example of "ironic."

  169. NO NO NO by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    You're all missing the BIG PICTURE (hint, it involves Doubleclick). Let me spell it out for you in terms all Slashdotters can understand.

    1. Hire "privacy expert" to "fix" your privacy issues
    2. Have government sign her on as Privacy Czar
    3. Collect much more data than legally possible before
    4. Give that data to Doubleclick under the table
    5. Sell data/use it for marketing purposes
    6. you knew it was coming......PROFIT!!!!!

    well, that wouldn't REALLY happen....well, maybe.....but it makes as much sense as all the other "when pigs fly" news thats been on here lately.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  170. Hey, astroturfer by alizard · · Score: 1
    I read the article. There is no positive side to it.

    How does the PR business pay?

    1. Re:Hey, astroturfer by devphil · · Score: 1


      If you're unlazy enough to read the article, you're unlazy enough to click the link to my homepage. I think you'll find (unless you're determined to never admit your own mistakes) that I'm a programmer, not an astroturfer.

      I find plenty of positive aspects to the article; several other /. readers have already pointed them out. You'll have seen those, unless you're deliberately ignoring all the +5 posts.

      The simple fact is, this is not as bad as it could have been. Or as bad as it could become.

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  171. Spence Abraham by JeffM2001 · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of when George W. Bush appointed former Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham, who lost his seat in the senate, as Secretary of Energy, a cabinate position he voted to abolish the year before. Kinda ironic, aint it?

  172. Re:That's what I thought too! by Wobbly+Bob · · Score: 1
    That this just *must* have been a story left over from the April 1st bin!

    Or maybe the 4-20 bin...

  173. Classic Republican tactics by fanatic · · Score: 1

    ..don't like something, but have the pesky problem that the majority is for it? Thtat's OK, just put in place someone who will undermine it in the postion that's supposed to enforce it. How else does Michael Powell end up chair at FCC? Put someone in charge of EPA that doesn't believe in the environment. Put Harvey Pitt at the SEC so big companies can rob the workd blind. They couldn't get the laws repealed EVER, so they intentionally undermine their enforcement instead.

    --
    "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
  174. A bit of topic but... by Jarden · · Score: 3, Informative

    I just found this page which lets you opt-out of doubleclick storing personal cookie info about you. Most of us probably already block doubleclick cookies but maybe someone will find it useful.

  175. Um..... by Rev+Saxon · · Score: 1

    Czar=Russian, used for rulling Nobility. American = supposed freedom. Privacy = something that dissapered due to Patriot 1 and 2. End result? We are giving up on democracy and moveing to a socialist state? Now lets all join together and say... Oh thank god. What took so long..................

    --
    I am that much more enlightened and proportionally disillusioned
  176. Re:he who doesn't study history is doomed to deja by js7a · · Score: 1
    Lexis-Nexis is a company that successfully created an advanced database system

    ... and charged, back then, an arm and a leg for commercial access to it. The details are complicated, but suffice to say that a decade ago Mead Data (Lexis-Nexis) was terrified of "the internet" (or at least what was then the WAIS part of it) as an encroachment on their profits. If they had known then what things like Google would come to pass, they certainly would have lobbied even harder against public internet access.

    The more things change....

  177. Flights to anywhere ... by DaemonGem · · Score: 1

    Why is it that travelocity.com won't accept my requests for flights from JFK to anywhere?
    -Dae

    --
    "Alle reden vom wetter. Wir nicht." - SDS Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund.
    j00 4r3 3n73r1ng l337 w0r1d.
  178. Unfortunately, there is nothing new here... by edinho · · Score: 1

    ...this is totally consistent with the appointment of Daniel Pipes to the board of United States Institute of Peace. Recall that Pipes is the famous guy who initiated the Campus-Watch campaign not long ago, a campaign to blacklist professors who show sympathy for the Muslims. Kinda like appointing a wolf to herd the sheeps.

    Beautiful, ain't it?

    Cheers,
    e.

  179. Just another nail in the coffiin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You have no democracy (no democratically elected leader).

    You have no morals, except that of the power of the strongest.

    You have no guts to fight what is wrong, you just make it into entertainment.

    Your government is doing whatever it wants and all you can do is tell jokes about it?

    In an civilized nation people would already have rebelled...

    You should wake up and smell the coffee.

    There's only c. 270 million of you.

    The rest of the world is watching and shaking their heads in disbelief.

  180. This is like making ... by Kosi · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... Osama Bin Laden the secretary for religious understanding, tolerance and freedom. ... D. Rumsfeld the commissioner for disarmament ... GWB the the minister for civilian rights and social fairness or international cooperation of equals

  181. Double Click and Doublespeak by yoder · · Score: 1

    1984 has arrived. Actually, it arrived years ago but this administration has decided not to hide it. Instead of denying that they spy on their own people, they bring it out in the open and give it a soothing name (Homeland Security) (Total Information Awareness)(Privacy Czar). They populate these departments with the dregs of society, people you wouldn't allow in your house. None of this gets discussed openly though because the average American cannot be distracted by reality as they are too engrossed in reality TV! More people know the first and last names of the finalists on Joe Millionaire than know the Secretary General of the United Nations. One word describes this...pathetic.

    --
    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)