Obama Faces Major Online Privacy Test

CNET has a piece on the prospects for an initiative to revamp privacy law for the digital age being put forward by an unlikely coalition that includes Microsoft, Google, privacy advocates, and conservative and libertarian organizations. "When Barack Obama was campaigning for the presidency in 2008, he promised that as president, he would 'strengthen privacy protections for the digital age.' That pledge will be put to the test as the Obama administration considers whether to support a new privacy proposal released by a coalition including Google, eBay, Microsoft, AT&T, the ACLU, and Americans for Tax Reform... The [so-called] Digital Due Process coalition already has met with attorneys from the Justice Department's computer crime unit, White House attorneys, FBI representatives, and Commerce Department officials... the law enforcement meetings were 'respectful' and 'substantive.'"

Comments

Their priciples

[beakerMeep]

From the coalition's website:

----

1. The government should obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before it can compel a service provider to disclose a user’s private communications or documents stored online.

• This principle applies the safeguards that the law has traditionally provided for the privacy of our phone calls or the physical files we store in our homes to private communications, documents and other private user content stored in or transmitted through the Internet "cloud"-- private emails, instant messages, text messages, word processing documents and spreadsheets, photos, Internet search queries and private posts made over social networks.
• This change was first proposed in bi-partisan legislation introduced in 1998 by Senators John Ashcroft and Patrick Leahy. It is consistent with recent appeals court decisions holding that emails and SMS text messages stored by communications providers are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and is also consistent with the latest legal scholarship on the issue.

2. The government should obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before it can track, prospectively or retrospectively, the location of a cell phone or other mobile communications device.

• This principle addresses the treatment of the growing quantity and quality of data based on the location of cell phones, laptops and other mobile devices, which is currently the subject of conflicting court decisions; it proposes the conclusion reached by a majority of the courts that a search warrant is required for real-time cell phone tracking, and would apply the same standard to access to stored location data.
• A warrant for mobile location information was first proposed in 1998 as part of the bipartisan Ashcroft-Leahy bill. It was approved 20 to 1 by the House Judiciary Committee in 2000.

3.Before obtaining transactional data in real time about when and with whom an individual communicates using email, instant messaging, text messaging, the telephone or any other communications technology, the government should demonstrate to a court that such data is relevant to an authorized criminal investigation.

• In 2001, the law governing "pen registers and trap & trace devices" - technologies used to obtain transactional data in real time about when and with whom individuals communicate over the phone - was expanded to also allow monitoring of communications made over the Internet. In particular, the data at issue includes information on who individuals email with, who individuals IM with, who individuals send text messages to, and the Internet Protocol addresses of the Internet sites individuals visit.
• This principle would update the law to reflect modern technology by establishing judicial review of surveillance requests for this data based on a factual showing of reasonable grounds to believe that the information sought is relevant to a crime being investigated.

4.Before obtaining transactional data about multiple unidentified users of communications or other online services when trying to track down a suspect, the government should first demonstrate to a court that the data is needed for its criminal investigation.

• This principle addresses the circumstance when the government uses subpoenas to get information in bulk about broad categories of telephone or Internet users, rather than seeking the records of specific individuals that are relevant to an investigation. For example, there have been reported cases of bulk requests for information about everyone that visited a particular web site on a particular day, or everyone that used the Internet to sell products in a particular jurisdiction.
• Because such bulk requests for information on c

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]strengthen privacy protections for the digital age[/quote]

Yeah, maybe for government agencies and big business.

Re:Define rules

[slashqwerty]

With online privacy, though, if the EFF does not support I have to assume it is astroturf, especially with Google supporting it.

The EFF is a member. With that said, take a look at the URL. That giant code raises all kinds of red flags about tracking who posted the link.

Re:Double Speak

[jhoegl]

Strawman argument is strawman....

Re:A good step forward, but...

[pin0chet]

Unlike government, not one of the firms in the coalition has the power to force you to hand information over to them. If you don't want Google or Microsoft or AT&T to have your information, don't use their services. Also, if a firm fails to adequately protect your data and you suffer harm as a result, depending on the terms of service you may be able to sue the firm. But if government wrongfully seizes your data, you generally cannot sue (absent acts of blatant bad faith.) And government has no financial incentive to safeguard your data, while companies like Google have a LOT to lose if their privacy reputation is damaged due to a data breach or other unscrupulous practice.

Dear Mr. Obama

[Yvan256]

Here are the answers for your Major Online Privacy Test:
1) A
2) D
3) B
4) F
5) B
6) C
7) D
8) A
9) B
10) A
11) D
12) E
13) B
14) A
15) C

Bad move - missing URLS

[DrYak]

It was mine to begin with.
I just happened to hit "Reply" in the wrong thread and wanted to move where appropriate. I fucked up the copy-paste. And of course it does look the same in the preview pane, which didn't help.

Here are the missing links :
- Adium : http://adium.im/
- Pidgin : http://pidgin.im/
- OTR: http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/
- plugins downloads : http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/index.php#downloads middle column. It offers a Windows installer. For Linux there's source code (I use it), but it should be much simpler to use the package provided by your distribution's repository (it's in OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, Debian and Gentoo. Don't know about the others)

(Checking in preview pane : Yup this time I didn't fuck up the URLs ;-) )