Slashdot Mirror
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!?"
Don't assume Microsoft is trying to enact a law that *protects* your privacy. Perhaps they just want privacy laws to be predictable w/o too much concern for whether they actually protect or not.
I think that the same can be said for many, possibly a majority, of people - at least in the US. Sure, sometimes we do things for charity, sometimes we do things because we feel they're right, but there are so many things we do simply because they're cheaper. We don't know, say, what the conditions are in the factories where our clothes are made, but we buy them anyway.
Companies are a more distilled form of this. There are, of course, exceptions - more people than corporations, certainly - but I think the concept holds.
If Microsoft has the ear of the lawmakers, then they'll be in the best position to exploit the law.
Hey, this paranoia stuff is kinda fun!!
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
- Individuals have no rights to privacy.
- Corporations can do what they want with any data.
That is, they want enshrined in national law the most pernicious possible data standards. The fact that this is going down during the Bush administration may or may not play a part, but certainly, the idea that bad laws can be purchased isn't helping assuage any fears I have that such legislation is hopelessly one-sided.Dog is my co-pilot.
Heck, even better - maybe it's both!
It is basically the same issue as with organic food. National standards mean that companies can lobby Congress to get the concessions they want. For organic foods, it can mean anything from allowing synthetics, factory dairy farms for "organic" milk or worse.
I think this quote captures the issue well:
If you think this is going to help people like you and I very much, you would be very optimistic.
I used to work in the wine/spirits business years ago and I can tell you from experience it is very difficult to build business outside your local regulatory agent. Now that was the intention all along. (Prohibition and all)
The Good: A Single set of rules makes it easier to sell to a bigger market.
Now, on the other hand, I have some experience in gov't sales and can tell you once the gov't adopts a some conventions, well, then the big players who were there all along defining the conventions pretty much soak up all of the business. They mostly own the business already, the new rules make it a sure thing.
The Bad: Generally eliminates variety and discourages innovation.
If MS is smart, they help write the laws and develop compliant code simultaneously. So MS gets a 6-12 month jump on the competition when there's little innovation left. Win-Win for MS.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
This is a preemptive strike against Google.
MS isn't in the business of knowing who you are or what you do. They want you to buy their software, not collect your personal data. It shows in their software. Activation is completely anonymous as is error reporting and authenticity checks. This is not true however, for Google.
They want to know who you are, what you do, what you click, buy, read and where you want to go. It's not going to stop there. Google wants information about every corner of the world. Thanks to a digital age, it is possible to gleen this information from our on-line habits.
MS is making a strike at google's efforts by putting tighter restrictions on how they can use, and possibly distribute your information in the future.
I mean, after all.. what does google do? Index information. Revenue is based off how they use that information, personal and public. Will this law(s) convienently be aimed towards creating requirements on how to protect such information that it will make it costly ($$ and time) enough to hurt google's business?
Sounds like the HIPPA expanded.
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
Microsoft is an industry leader in terms of user privacy, internally every employee (for whom it is relevant) must undergo security/privacy training and sign statements about compliance with privacy standards (particularly in terms of how the company deals with PII, Personally Identifiable Information). Saying that the company wants a single privacy standard solely for the purpose of making money may be true in a few corner cases, but in general its not true because Microsoft already has to comply with international standards which (particularly in the EU) are much stricter than the standards of any US State. I think the biggest reason Microsoft would support standard privacy laws is because it would be easier for the company to make guarantees about third party partners (particularly those that use Passport) and make some baseline claims about the level of privacy partners must support.
If you saw Mother Teresa (were she still alive) beating someone, you'd wonder if the person somehow deserved it.
Likewise, if you saw Hitler petting a bunny, you'd wonder if there was a more sinister motive.
Not that I am equating Mother Teresa to Google and Hitler to Microsoft...
oh wait... I am.
Microsoft's suggestions sound quite a lot like what we've already got in the UK thanks to the Data Protection Act.
The MS rep for the privacy law proposal was on C-span's Washington Journal (an excellent show i recommend all should watch)
The format of the show is that each guest gets a good 45 minute to an hour sit down interview, and takes calls for the entire 45 minutes.
I thought the MS rep had some good things to say. He said just about everything you would expect and it was pretty much on the ball.
Of course the entire time i tried to figure why MS is behind this because it's clear they're one of the biggest security problems on the internet.
The only thing i could come up with is that MS probably has software in developement that is near complete that they want to sell to all online retailers etc.
The MS rep's biggest point was that a person should beable to track their info, know where it is, who has it, what is being done with it, and when it shifts hands to outside agencies etc.
Which i'm guessing is exactly what they have in developement for a software solution. If MS could by law force all companies to use such software and provide such information to customers, then MS would have a sure sell to all buisnesses. And like i said, i bet MS has this peice of software all ready to go. All they need is a law to enforce the requirement of such applications and services.
The law is a good idea, but clearly i think MS is banking on this for a new source of revenue in the B2B world.
I'm sorry but wanting to save a couple of hundred bucks is not greed, it is actually a wise thing to do. The whole basis of our economy is based on the fact that customers want the highest quality product possible at the lowest price possible. The point of the grandparent was that the various hoops that a person or company has to jump through in interstate commerce raises the cost of doing business to where smaller companies and poorer people are not able to participate. In our Internet Age, many small businesses are finding it easier and even necessary to do business in serveral states; why not make it easier for the small guys to join the party? If privacy regulations were nationally standardized, I believe it would benifit the comsumers as well, not just corporations. It would actually be easier for consumers to find out exactly how the law protects them and to get advice. Less legal confusion is generally a good thing. One last point, someone mentioned that privacy laws should be decided by each state as they are better aware of the needs of their population. While I generally agree with this theory I fail to see how the privacy needs can vary so significantly between a person living in the state of New York and someone living in Washington state./p?
There is no problem of MS looking out for its own interest. However, the gov't is elected by the people and should work in citizens' interest. Can't you see the conflict here? Maybe a national privacy law deserves consideration, but it should only be considered at citizens' interest. MS' action should be seen with suspicion.
The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin