Slashdot Mirror
Data Miners Moving to Offshore Data Havens
schwit1 writes "Washington Post has an article about former TIA personnel moving their data mining operations offshore (Bahamas) to escape
U.S. privacy rules, and to make a buck. I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data (financial, medical, legal) of federal officials and their families on an open internet web server out of the Bahamas. Is this what it will take for the US to enact stringent privacy rules?"
Aw, hell. While we are at it, why not privatize all of government? You might be surprised at how much is already privatized. We are well on our way to outsourcing our military to companies such as Haliburton and Computer Sciences Corporation (nee Dyncorp) as well as having our current POTUS wanting to privatize social security, the Dept. of the Interior, the Dept. of Eduation, the Department of Energy, our system of election to corporations like Diebold etc...etc...etc.... So, why are you now complaining about TIA and privacy?
Individuals and organizations that will do anything necessary to accomplish their goals, even if that means skirting the law by going outside the country should not be tolerated. In essence, this approach would violate the law, thus this effort at relocation, so why is he supported by members in the current government?
So, taking this further: Let's say that this company screws up in their data collection......what recourse will you have if the company is an offshore company? By what mechanisms will they be held responsible for errors or violations of the law?
All of this is exactly why you need to vote in this coming election. Get out and vote!
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Washington Post has an article about former TIA personnel moving their data mining operations offshore (Bahamas) to escape U.S. privacy rules, and to make a buck. I'm waiting for somebody to publish the private data (financial, medical, legal) of federal officials and their families on an open internet web server out of the Bahamas. Is this what it will take for the US to enact stringent privacy rules?
Does this make any sense to anyone?
These companies are moving offshore to escape US privacy laws. So the solution is for the US to enact tougher privacy laws? Wouldn't that just encourage even more companies to move offshore?
I would think the solution would be one of those worldwide initiatives that people around here seem so fond of. (That's sarcasm, if you couldn't detect it.) If a company's moving offshore to escape one country's laws, the only real solution is for that other country and all the other countries around it to enact the same laws. Right?
Enact stringent privacy rules? For the US? On Bahamas? Offshore? With the global jurisdiction and universal scope of US law, I presume? How would you want the "federal officials" to do that? Maybe US should "liberate" Bahamas?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
that makes sense, but how do you find someone who exports personal data? and how do you setup a system that tracks the sale of the illegally exported information? it sounds great, just not very enforceable
No, what is needed are laws that prevent the collection of such info in the first place. By the time it's published abroad, it's already been collected here.
No, what we need is for someone to show people the kind of information that's been collected on them already, whether by the government or private companies. Say, collect all the info on the staff of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Faux News, and members of Congress, then send it to them. Sure, some systems might have to be hacked in the process, which I'd ordinarily be opposed to, but things have gotten so bad that maybe people need a wake-up call.
At this point, companies enforce the idea that anything that they can get their hands on is theirs.
Until we recognize that just because I gave you my information it does not mean that it is no longer mine, privacy will always take a second place to corporate interests. And, since corporate interests run America, it follows that it will not change.
What is more important is not what corporate America is doing, but how to get the Federal government back into the hands of and for its citizens; although, I really do not think that is possible. Whether you agree with the politics or not, it is suggestive to say that about 50% of the populace believes that Bush's policies are acceptable, which basically includes allowing businesses to ignore any ethical concerns (Halliburton, Microsoft, etc). You can't change corporate America with only 50% of the vote.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
Trust me, if something originated here and somehow was tranferred somewhere else and the US wasn't pleased with that, it'd quickly be taken care of.
I wish I could agree with your optimism. We have enough troubles with our physical borders let alone digital ones... I doubt we would have much success in curtailing information transfers...
Medical data includes psyc problems, social disease and other things that make you a target for blackmail, job denial, etc. Employer will find reasons to can you if they want. Not having the problem in 20 years does not matter, you had it once, you are a risk. Insurance companies spend more time writing up reasons to deny coverage or claims than they do taking care of the premium payers.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
We control the property that leaves and enters these shores. Shouldn't we also do this with personal data? I'm not talking about a big firewall like China has, but I am required to give out personal information all the time in the course of living my daily life. I would like assurances that when I entrust personal info with, say, my insurance company that the data will stay where the laws protect me. What good are privacy laws otherwise?
There's already a precedence. I don't remember that exact circumstances, but it went something like this: A local newpaper got hold of a list of people who were renting porn from the adult video store. Come to find out, the list included the names of some prominent policitians and judges in washington. The newspaper published the list which caused great embarassment to said politicians. Congress immediately passed an emergency measure which made publishing such embarassing info about politicians illegal.
If these offshore companies try to do the same, you can bet your bottom dollar that Congress will take immediate action to cover their asses. Of course, Joe Citizen will not enjoy the same protection because it's not in the national/corporate interest that his privacy be respected.
When all else fails, run.
Address:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
202-456-1111
president@whitehouse.gov
Salary: $400,000
Health Data
And here's his attourney
Translation: For those living "in the public life," there is no expectation of privacy, so to expect those in public life to understand the motivation of those of us who appreciate privacy to keep it is like talking about being poor to someone who has been rich all their life: They just can't understand. Heck, the news media mentiones when the President has a physical. Some congressional districts probably do this for their representatives too. This is probably only one of the reasons privacy advocates have a hard time pleading their cause in the US.
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
Uhh, exactly how much of this information is private? Usually these systems are merely pulling together public data in an accessible database. Lets keep the strawmen in cornfields.
Also if you were to RTFA (I know, too much to expect from /. story submitters), you would find that there are legitimate reasons for the company to move offshores other than to escape US laws.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
An important fact that's seldom discussed is that any information about me that might be available via the Internet has already been made public. The act of digitizing that information and making it available in a database increases its potential access, but it does not impact my privacy. The data were already in the public domain.
If some piece of information about me is not legally available to the public, and still appears on the Internet, then someone has broken the law.
So, those who argue for new privacy legislation to curb what they see as violations of their privacy on the Internet are really asking to reclassify as private many types of personal information that have long been accessible to the public.
Suppose, then, that former employees could not verify or deny that we used to work for them. Suppose a bank was not allowed to access the credit history of the guy who wants to buy your house. Suppose your daycare center could not check the criminal record of the kid who wants to be their new driver.
Technology and the Internet certainly ease access to information -- that was the point, after all -- but it is almost always info that was already available to the public.
Legislation that broadens government access to private information is, of course, a different issue.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Kerry must agree with data being moved offshore as he, being 1 of only 100 US Senators, has not introduced any bills to combat this problem.
If you want to know why look at who funded the DEMS and GOPs national conventions and you will find your answer.
Actually, this could work out to be kind of an equalizer. Here in this country looking information on public officials could get you an "Ashcrofting." But let some company in another country do the dirty work for you. Hey, what's this charge on Bill O'Reilly's credit card to a place called Vibrator Universe?
Actually, that's nothing compared to what foreign governments are going to do with that treasure trove of information. More likely what will happen is Congress will make it a crime to export data on Congress, and the let the rest of us take up the pooper. Business as usual.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
My father is a physician who has greatly opposed government run health-care. The real problems have been government using unfair attempts to charge doctors with medicare fraud in the 1980's under Pres. Reagan, and here in the State of Washington, using statistical measures to determine who has overbilled medicaid without actually doing any line-item auditing (and violating any sort of due process rights of the doctors involved) under Gov. Locke. If Americans are not going to be willing to pay for the government health care that is currently offered and so they resort to unconstitutional cost-cutting measures, then what would happen in a single-payer system?
I also don't see this as a partisan issue.
However, I think that a number of things could be done to reduce the cost of health care.
1) Provide a shared malpractice insurance system. The doctor's plan would cover a portion of the payout, and the patient would be able to buy coverage as well-- sort of like disability insurance. The state would keep records of claims both by individuals and against doctors. The idea here is to remove court costs as much as possible therefore reducing the malpractice surcharge.
2) Require all pharmaceutical manufacturers to publish recommended retail prices, allowing doctors and consumers to look at the comparitive cost easily. This would halp restore some market pressure to the pharmaceutical drug market
3) Allow insurance agencies to collectively bargain for pharmaceuticals.
4) Take a close look at patent policy and pharmaceutical drugs.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Nice idea, but we all know in the US as soon as the government gets involved in the health care there are going to be lawsuits.
You just wait until a white guy and a black guy are in need of the same liver transplant. The doctors decide the white guy is a better candidate. Solution, the black guy will sue under the Equal Protection Clause and demand that giving the liver to the white guy isn't fair. Ideally they would get an injunction preventing the liver from being transplanted until the judge can hold a trial on the fairness of whether or not the liver is being allocated based on medical need or racial bias.
Then you have the politics of what morally should be covered. Contraception? Abortions? Sex changes? Where does an elective survey end and a "human right" begin? I can make a case for damn near anything being a "human right," (especially in Canada but that is another story).
Also, just wait till I sue the government because of the wrongful death of my loved one. You thought the lawyers were hungry when we had easy malpractice cases from insurance companies? Ain't nobody got deep pockets like the government! "Because you mean to tell me with all the resources of the Federal Government, we aren't able to beat death?" To quote The Onion "World Death Rate Holding Steady At 100 Percent" despite doctors efforts and centuries of trying.
We are all going to want to live forever, and anytime we don't the government is going to be sued.
And shouldn't I be able to pay just a little bit more and get better health care than the basic government service? How much longer till the "little bit more" is deemed something that should be in the general health care, and we're back to the same belly aching over coverage we have now? Or, how quickly until everyone has that "extra" coverage that we can't do without plus the tax paid coverage and we're paying twice.
Lets take that a bit further. Right now we have a horribly F'ed up public school system. (I know "your" school is great but the people in the next county are F'ed.) What do you think a government run health care is going to look like? They can't even keep teachers, reasonable class sizes, and a full school year. How long till you think the government is going to run health care into the ground too? Our "elite" are currently paying BOTH public school taxes and tuition to send their kids to private school. That is exactly what will happen with government health care. You'll have the upper level (or those willing to sacrifice other things) paying to go to a private system where they get better coverage and lower lines.
Also, right now companies pay MOST of the health care, and they get a business deduction for it. If the government runs health care, it'll be the average citizen who pays. Want to guess if the companies are suddenly going to up your salary now that they don't have to pay health care? While The Left is usually a big champion of public health care, it only works to enrich the companies and screw the little guy. Something The Left claims it doesn't want. You never hear them suggest a Corporate tax to pay for government health care, do you? Nope, always the working middle class that The Left wants to pay for the social program of the week.
Universal health care sounds nice, but I just don't think it'll work here in the US.
that makes sense, but how do you find someone who exports personal data? and how do you setup a system that tracks the sale of the illegally exported information? it sounds great, just not very enforceable
That's like saying "How do you stop exports of goods and services to embargoed countries? It sounds great, just not very enforceable."
This stuff isn't cloak and dagger. It's most often out in the open. You can't stop what you can't see, but most of it is very visible. After all, this is a business, and they need to advertise they're dodging the law by exporting private data somewhere inside the US to sell their services. At that point it's just a regular domestic intelligence operation, well within the capabilities of the FBI. The goal is increasing the hurdles to be taken to do this to the point where it's just no longer cost-effective.
Besides, there are many other things besides the "market" in life, something yankees fail to understand.