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.
okay the poster here is saying that if a foreign country hosts information that violates US laws, we are going to enact more laws???
I think if they did something like that, we'd be more likely to invade, though I'd prefer the stronger laws...
Reminds me of a publicity stunt a newspaper in portland pulled after the local government ruled that trash on the curbside was fair game for the police to seize without a warrant. They went dumpster diving at several high profile government officials curbsides and posted the results of their findings in the paper. I thought it was a very effective piece of journalism.
The US could do the same as the EU, and prohibit export of personal data to jurisdictions which do not have equal or better privacy protections as ours. That would stop a lot of outsourcing in general, and probably be a vote-winner among unemployed geeks.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
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."
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.
http://www.willametteweek.com/story.php?story=3507
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
I agree with your premise, I just don't think it would work. everyone needs to keep some private information about a person, its combining it that makes it dangerous and annoying. Credit agencies for example have SO MUCH information about you, and the amount of info on Lexus-Nexus is amazing, I found out there are professionals out there who work for rich people and try to keep their assets out of these databases... I wonder what would happen if lexus-nexus was taken down
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...
I don't see how posting so called private medical data really matters. For example, how can it matter if you know that I am a diabetic? For insurance purposes? I imagine that I have to declare this anyhow.. What else? Legal? This is already public knowledge? Financial? Largely public as well. I really don't see the reason for all the uproar.. of course.. my mind is open as to why I should care...
The guy who designed the system is going offshore, because the government couldn't get the greenlight and hoping to find private backers.
Bell said he did not become involved with Global until after he left government in March.
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The really idiotic part was that the class action lawsuite was dismissed because "the class had suffered no damages." One law firm's reaction was the potential value of this ruling as a defense for future privacy theft instances.
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"
Pile of socks + washing machine = prime number generator.
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
What in the fuck are you talking about? Most importantly, Canada is a former British colony. The United States is also a former British colony. The subs in question are diesel subs. Nuclear subs have never been a (reasonable) option, Canada has no nuclear arms at all. In reality, the British subs happened to be for sale about the same time as the existing subs were due for either major refits or replacement. The initial cost for the British was 800,000pounds, and Canada purchesed them for CAD$750,000, less then 1/2 price, ignoring 10 years of inflation. Even spending twice as much on refits and "Canadianization" of the boats then has been spent, they would still be a good deal.
Submarines are inherently dangerous things. It is entirely possible that there was no design flaw, no flaw in workmanship, and no crew error that caused the fires.
"Canada" hasent purchased any trains. CN is a publicly traded comapny, and has significant investements in US rail systems. Via Rail, a crown coporation , which has some new cars, purchased them from Alstrom, which is headquarters in France.
Canada has purchased military hardware from lots of countries, including France. I cant off hand think of any major system from France... But I also cant think of any major French military system at all. Well, thats not true, I know France is part of various european conglomorates building military hardware.
The United States is obligated to assist Canada if it is ever invaded. As is Belgium, Denmark, France, the UK, Italy, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal... All the NATO nations - amongst others. Even if not so obligated, removing a hostile force from a bordering counrty would actually be a good reason for the US to go to war -- and we are all aware of the flimsy excuses they need to do that.
Besides, there are many other things besides the "market" in life, something yankees fail to understand.