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

[NaruVonWilkins]

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.

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

[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

[laughingcoyote]

And if they don't, who holds them accountable? Ideally, this should be looked at the same way as sex tourism (if an American tourist does something in Thailand that'd be illegal in the US, they will still be prosecuted for it upon return to the US, why shouldn't the same apply to a corporation which goes abroad to skirt labor laws?), but since they're currently not, it falls to -you- to hold that corporation accountable.

Yes, it's a pain in the ass. Sorry. Most things worth doing are. If everyone would quit being too busy to give a shit, these types of things just might improve. Otherwise, they're going to continue. Anyone who is aware of an evil act and does not stand up against it is partially guilty in it.

This is not the same as saying you should -personally- go check every factory you purchase clothing from. But when the labor record of any given multinational is easily available on the web, to consult before making a purchase, you're talking about 5 minutes worth of work. This is NOT too much to ask from even a busy person.

Re:Don't let your head explode

[ozmanjusri]

I'm a nudist you insensitive clod!

I just had lunch, you insensitive clod!

Not necessarily good

[tuxlove]

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.

Re:Not necessarily good

[InvalidError]

I'm fine with companies tracking my personal info if UK-style laws are adopted. IIRC, some of the more interesting clauses went something like this:
1) companies shall not use nor retain information whose origins is not documented
2) companies must make all the info they have on an individual including sources at the individual's request
3) individuals may have companies delete records unless the company can justify keeping the records of terminated accounts

This way, companies would at least have to think at least twice before collecting, using and distributing data.

Of course they want a national privacy law

[Scareduck]

That law will read something as follows:

1. Individuals have no rights to privacy.
2. 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.

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.

MS vs. Google

[Zebra_X]

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.

Anyone else see this as an attempt to kill Google?

[handmedowns]

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.

To MS-Bashing Slashbots: RTFA

[tabdelgawad]

Already a bunch of +4 and +5 Insightful posts bashing MS.

From TFA:

"CDT [Center for Democracy and Technology] President Jerry Berman praised Microsoft's move as "a landmark moment in the cause of establishing and protecting individual privacy rights online. ... While we have not reached consensus on all of the provisions of a privacy bill, we applaud Microsoft 's willingness to work actively with other high tech companies, consumer organizations and policymakers."

"Chris Hoofnagle, EPIC's senior counsel, agreed that Microsoft's position has softened significantly over the years. He noted that it was opposition from Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard that derailed an industry-friendly privacy bill from Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) that was quickly gathering support a few years ago
'Microsoft is being more assertive now and it shows that the company is maturing,' he said"

"ACLU legislative counsel Timothy Sparapani also praised Microsoft's move, but cautioned that any federal privacy law would need to include safeguards for data gathered by commercial data brokers."

Privacy of Third Parties

[RoadDogTy]

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.

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!

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.