Microsoft Calls for National Privacy Law

tabdelgawad writes "Brian Krebs, who writes the Washington Post's Security Fix Blog notes that Microsoft has just asked Congress to enact a new federal privacy law to preempt the growing hodge-podge of state laws that regulate how companies can use personal information. Go Microsoft!?"

Comments

Don't let your head explode

[jellomizer]

Before your heads explode, you must say to yourself, Microsoft is only a company. Companies job is to make money, not to do good or evil, if doing good will help the company make or save money then they will do it. In this case for companies like Microsoft it is easier for them to follow one set of privacy laws except for 50 different laws and with the internet it makes it more convoluted.

Re:Don't let your head explode

[AuMatar]

OF course, you have to assume that they'll do good here. Like the CAN-SPAM law, the federal version will likely be weaker than many state versions, and will override the state versions making them unenforcable. MS doesn't really want a law to protect people- they want a law that allows them to do basicly anything. Just watch, the law they push will basicly be "If its in a privacy policy, they can do whatever they want".

Re:Don't let your head explode

[QuantumG]

Uhh, the whole freakin' point of a small business is that they don't do business in multiple states. By nationalizing the law you're making it cost the same to do business in multiple states as it costs to do business in one state. But more importantly, you're taking away the ability of individual states to customize the law to the needs of their citizens. I'm sure the people in West Virginia have a different opinion to the people of Texas about what a company should be able to do with their personal information.

Re:Don't let your head explode

[someone300]

A company has a choice about how it makes profit. Some of these ways might benefit the public, some might not affect the public, and some might make everyone's lives worse.

Google, for example, as a company want to make profit. They can do this through targetted advertising. Their advertising is more intelligent and reaches the people who might care enough to click it if they have a larger database of information and users to sort through, so they offer many services. Some people might be concerned about the privacy of it, but nearly all public webmail services and stuff keep the user's data on a computer they don't own. All their software does is scan your emails and display relevant adverts... it's not as though people sit there reading your emails. But if you don't like their stuff you can block the google cookie and get on with your life.

Microsoft usually do their business through monopoly and things that hinder others, specifically those who choose not to use their software and services. It's not usually a case of just migrating away from Windows, since you have to deal with other Windows users sending you things you can't open. However, if Microsoft do the right thing, (even for the "wrong" reasons.. like profit), then it's a good thing, and if they see this having a positive effect maybe they will do more good things.
Microsoft have a hell of a lot of power and money, maybe we could prompt them to use it for things that will benefit us.

Re:Don't let your head explode

[QuantumG]

Sex tourism laws are fucking insane. The only reason they are tolerated is because they're for a specific heinous act that no-one wants to defend (sex with children). Suppose the exact same laws were applied to drug tourism. Go to Amsterdam, visit a hash cafe, return to the US and get arrested at the airport. Or decompilation tourism. Go to Australia, decompile software to check its security, return to the US and get arrested at the airport. If you're not in the US, you can't commit a crime in the US. That's the way it should be. Otherwise the US is nothing but an imperialist who thinks they can police the world.

Of course they do.

[BCW2]

It's much cheaper to bribe your way around one law than it is fifty.

Beware

[linuxwrangler]

One need only look at how the federal banking regulations are repeatedly used to crush California's much more stringent privacy requirements to see the real reason behind federalized "privacy" laws.

Protecting the Bottom Line, Not Privacy

[Dotnaught]

The purpose of calling for federal regulation is to keep costs down, not to protect privacy. Some companies are actually interested in protecting privacy because failure to do imposes costs. HP is particularly good in this regard in that it lets customers access their data. The companies you have to watch out for are the ones with business models that depend on selling personal information.

Re:Not necessarily good

[thparker]

Don't assume Microsoft is trying to enact a law that *protects* your privacy.

Exactly. Right now, I think privacy laws are pretty weak. But this isn't necessarily a good change -- remember that CAN-SPAM eliminated a bunch of far stronger state laws and left the end user with far less recourse in many cases.

To take this a step further, Microsoft's next logical step would be to gear up their lobbying machine to make certain the federal privacy law would supercede all state laws, limit corporate liability for violations, and leave as much latitude as possible on what they can do with the information.

I hope everyone is compiling their list of items that should be included in a consumer-focused privacy law and is ready to contact their representatives. If this goes forward, I can guarantee you that corporate America has their checkbooks ready to support their idea of how your personal information can be gathered, held, used and sold.

Let's see...

[dslauson]

Hmmm.... How can I spin this against MS to make it seem like they're doing something evil...

I am so sick of this nonsense. I swear, I need to stop clicking on any slashdot story with the name "Microsoft", "Google", or "Apple". Or maybe I should stop looking to slashdot thinking that maybe people could somehow look past their biases and read a story for what it is.

Yes, Microsoft is probably acting in their own best interest. So do Google and Apple. They're all trying to make money. That doesn't mean it won't benefit us. Don't try to tell me that you never act in your own self interest.

I know, Microsoft does anti-competitive things, and that's not cool, but don't let your opinion of them cloud your ability to think for yourself. We need to have our personal information protected, and here MS is in agreement with that. What's the big problem? Seriously!

Microsoft not on the consumer's side in this

[Todd Knarr]

My thought: Microsoft is trying to get Federal rules that they can live with and that'll override more restrictive state rules. Take a look at opt-in vs. opt-out in their proposal. They advocate opt-in for a very limited class of data that they know the general public's getting touchy about, and I'll bet they make that a headline point. But for all other classes of data, they want opt-out enshrined in law in a way that prevents any state from requiring opt-in across the board. And once this is nailed down in Federal law, it'll be all but impossible to get it changed later no matter what happens.

I think that's Microsoft's strategy: cave in on the few points the public's riled up about right now, while simultaneously nailing down favorable terms everywhere else.

Nearly, almost, kinda adequate

[sn00ker]

Every time I hear about privacy laws in the US, I'm stunned at how little privacy you lot have.
This is yet another example, though admittedly it's better than a lot of what's already in existence.

Here in NZ, we've had a Privacy Act for 15 years, and it's stronger than this proposal. You have a right-to-access-and-correct information held by any organisation, even the Government, for example. Getting a credit card or a loan is not a licence for the bank to sell your name and address to a dozen different direct-advertising agencies. Buying something on HP will not require you to purchase a larger mailbox just to cope with the influx of targeted mail.
If you allow the corporations to define the rules of the game, you are fair game. I'd hate to live in a society where any company that has my details can sell them.

Oh, and to the people who say that this exceeds the authority of the federal government, surely this is an inter-state commerce matter? A uniform set of rules under which you may be fucked over by corporations sounds like inter-state commerce regulation to me.

Think: Patriot Act

[Bilbo]

Of course, if someone says that a law is supposed to protect our privacy, then it MUST be good for us, just like the way all true Americans know how the Patriot Act MUST be there to protect us!!

Yea, right.