Slashdot Mirror
On Several Fronts, US Gov't Prepares To Regulate Online Privacy
storagedude writes "There are at least five US government efforts underway to regulate data and online privacy, according to a new US government internet policy official, who sees some kind of privacy regulation as likely. Ari Schwartz, who left the Center for Democracy and Technology two months ago to become senior internet policy advisor at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, says issues like Facebook's never-ending privacy concerns are making some kind of a national law or regulation more and more likely. He thinks segregating identity from data isn't enough; the data must then be aggregated after identity is stripped out. He also called for objective measures of privacy compliance."
They are going to try to unmask anonymous first posters, and fine them.
... for the "one more step to big government dictatorship" speech in 5-4-3-2-1...
Drill baby drill - on Mars
And one by one all the bills will die on the floor as the campaign money comes rolling in.
There is a war going on for your mind.
. . . if this is good or bad. It sounds "good" in theory but in execution we might all end-up with boxes tied to our lines that monitor everything we do.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
...except from itself.
On the one hand, such legislation would definitely be welcome in this current environment of information free-for-all. We could finally have some benchmark against which we could judge whether companies (and governments!) were properly addressing security and privacy concerns.
On the other hand, it puts an enormous burden on businesses, especially in the still nascent online business sector where we are far from seeing market maturity. Laws like this put a massive damper on technology improvement and force a huge financial penalty against all competitors in this field.
I would give this industry another 5 years before trying to enact a stringent privacy/security statute. That would give the industry enough time to settle down and allow clear leaders to emerge who would then be in a better position to actually implement such measures.
I have a Facebook profile, listing myself as heterosexual, and I've never done anything on Facebook to indicate that I was gay. I still got lots of gay ads, though. It may have changed now, because I haven't seen any Facebook ads since I installed Adblock Plus 3 years ago.
(In case you didn't RTFA, the second article is about targetting gay advertisements to gay Facebook profiles. The summary doesn't mention it.)
Nobody should be using the internet as if they have any privacy at all.
This legislation will give people a false sense of security, leading them to continue leaking data about themselves.
The government will have the easiest access to this leaked data, so it makes sense that they want to pass this kind of legislation.
Privacy regulates you!
If the Federal Government cares about privacy, they can demonstrate it by telling the people running Medicare to stop violating USC 42 1395b by suggesting to private insurers that they should refuse to insure customers who don't want to give their Social Security Numbers.
As in seeing to it that we don't have too much of it. Think CALEA, for example.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Maybe Facebook's, sure, but rest assured that the government won't limit their own ability to spy on you
impossible... It's simply too easy to siphon off information without anybody knowing about it.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Too late, AT&T, Comcrap, and every ISP already feeds all the data they move from their cores right out to the NSA. For "National Security." Bush signed your privacy away and Obama is keeping it status quo. Feel safer now? Yeah, me neither.
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
Don't post personal stuff online.
I have nothing online that I am concerned with someone finding out about. It is the World Wide Web. It is not your personal intranet! All the information is out there anyway if you know where to look.
No, because of non-thinking voters like *you*, we get the heavy hand of government.
You just now figured that out?
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
And this isn't it. The US govt itself is one of the largest violators of online privacy.
The only way is to be careful with your data. If you care about private communication with your buddy Bob, then gpg or otherwise encrypt your messages to Bob.
Anything you put out on the internet in plain-text IS open to snopping, no matter WHAT laws are passed, and no matter what nice friendly language you read in some EULA for a web site.
If you want it private, you must act in a way that is consistent with that wish. Otherwise, you won't get it. Let's stop depending on benevolent overlords to protect us... sometimes they aren't really so benevolent.
The house is trying to "require notice to and consent of an individual prior to the collection and disclosure of certain personal information relating to that individual." and "To foster transparency about the commercial use of personal information, provide consumers with meaningful choice about the collection, use, and disclosure of such information, and for other purposes.
The FTC is pushing a browser-based do-not-track mechanism similar to the do-not-call list
Followed by numerous non-government codes of ethics and various advertising regulations.
As nice and helpful these moves may seem for us users, think of the current advertising market on the internet and wide array of user information practices that keep web companies on top of the market. The economic blow of these bills may be too much to actually push them through.
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
Please, oh, please, foreclose Pelosi's House--vote her and her kind out of office.
Sure, blame the business men. The government has been salivating to control the internet for a while now. Facebook privacy issues are just an excuse to try to convince the citizens they're doing it to help and protect them.
...or am I?)
If the government was simply responding to bad business practices, why has there been no sensible policy or discussion about net neutrality, or why do I still pay $3 to make ATM withdrawals or pay a $30 NSF fee for a $1 overdraft, etc., etc.? It's because it is not in the government's self interest.
(I am becoming more cynical and paranoid of government the older I get.
clearly the free market will solve this problem~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't want to hamstring American businesses while the industry is still in its infancy.
Just exactly what business is it that you believe might be 'hamstrung' by any legislation that might protect my privacy, and what good would such business possibly serve if it trades on my right to said privacy? Why should I care about any business person that might seek to trade on my personal information... WAIT THAT'S IT!!
All that would be REQUIRED in such legislation is that every online business that tracks it's user's data, habits, behavior or the like, include the details of it's intent, methods, data and a list of all its customers for such information and make it easily available to all it's users. 'They' (the company) would be required to list all the attributes of their collection practices in 'their' OPT-ON PRIVACY STATEMENT, prior to collection or distribution of any such information. And every time these attributes changed, the legislation would require yet another OPT-IN consent be registered along with access to the privacy opt-in consent history for each user. Which, of course, would be available online to each user with an account.
That wouldn't be too burdensome, since it could all be collected and maintained automagically, in a separate database.
Muhahahahaha!! (Like that would ever happen!) B-)
-- B-M-W is meant to represent, "Bitch, Moan, Whine." Do I sound sympathetic to the likes of FacistBook, yet?
The EU and the Brits figured this out long ago. The British data protection act is a model of privacy protection that we should have emulated. But that was in the day that the world wide wibbley web was still very immature and back when moneyed interests weren't as powerful. Now there's so much inertia for data mining the web that this will never see the light of day outside any Senate or House committee.
--
BMO
Bang on schedule.
What does government advice about banging on schedule have to do with online privacy?
honestly, this is the ONLY way things can be. If you want to hide something, I want to know what it is.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
This might be good if limited to the kinds of information sharing that takes place without the user's knowledge, but I can easily see how it would turn out not to be such a good thing if the law catered to those who aren't cautious enough to protect their own privacy.
One example of a feature I consider useful that others might not is Amazon's suggestion system. In my case I actually want Amazon to suggest new books to me, and the only way it can do that is to collect information about the books that I and other people buy. While much of that data could be kept in anonymized form, some of that data (e.g. a list of my own purchases) has to be tied to my username. So long as it's done transparently, I think that's perfectly OK.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
that there is no privacy, anywhere?
I mean, at least for non-rich people.
Points to you both! (... if I had them.) Much laughter. Thank you for lightening my day!
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Points to you both! (... if I had them.) Much laughter. Thank you for lightening my day!
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
My online privacy would be helped far more by an end to warrantless wiretapping and data collection by the government. If I don't like Facebook's privacy protections I can just not use it. There's no opt-out for the NSA.
Last time I checked, Facebook wasn't going to reveal any information about me that I didn't put there to begin with. So now instead of simply telling people DON'T PUT ANYTHING ON THE INTERNET THAT YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET TO SEE, we have to have another set of 500 page regulations that no one will understand, that no one voting on them will even read before voting, and that will end up having some messed up consequences down the road. That makes sense. Your tax dollars at work, folks.
Okay, I admit that it's rotten when apps raid your friends list and scarf their info as well as yours, but again it wouldn't matter if people wouldn't put "private" information on the World Wide Web. I have a crazy idea: go meet people in real life! It's cool! It's even in 3D!
Dont be fooled, the corporations and governments will craft legislation to give them all the power they want to collect all the data they want, think: national security.
What Privacy Acts really do, In countries like Canada, is protect the governments and protect the corporations.
its so simple
"sorry we cant release that information because it would violate the persons privacy"
Executives, Politicians, Middle Managers, Bureaucrats, they are all people too, they all have a right to privacy, right?
customer complaints, federal suits, "sorry, we cant release those, privacy"
This happens all the time to Canadian media.
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
I understand that the US government can regulate the interaction between US citizens and US companies, and that it can also regulate US citizens and US companies each in their own right.
But if series-of-facetubes.dk (a hypothetical Danish company, operating in Denmark, privately owned by a Danish citizen) became the hot new social network, the US gov. can't really regulate it, can it? Of course, the US can always threaten to "bring democracy" to Denmark if we aren't obedient enough, but that would be kind of iffy.
So... given that any regulation can only give incomplete results, the point of it is... the incomplete results? I.e. "They're better than nothing"? Granted, some of the biggest perceived privacy threats are american (google, facebook).
Just a thought: whenever anyone wants to regulate the internet, ask yourself "how will this work, internationally?"
This crap is never going to stop until we clearly define who owns what data. Out current system says any data you collect is yours to do with as you please. I think we, as a society, need to change the definition. Henceforth, as proclaimed by me and everyone else that agrees, I am the sole owner of any and all data about myself. Sometimes we may share data, such as when I owe you money, but beyond that everything about me is mine, my location, purchases, height, weight, finger prints, DNA, medical history, library usage, bank balance and transactions, mood........ You may find you know some of these things about me. If you do, keep it to yourself and don't be caught recording it or selling it or aggregating it or I can sue you for theft of personnel data. All we need to do do is change the definition and this becomes possible.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
You know the quote: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Expect any privacy protection legislation to be poisoned to the point of uselessness (think "... to protect the rights of terrorists and paedophiles." on the end of every sentence).
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
You do realize that the equipment to do this was already under development before the Clinton administration and they were the ones to install and switch it on.
Obama wants to regulate YOUR privacy on YOUR Internet. Big government is taking over it all. All I have to say is I have the freedom to have my privacy abused by private corporations. Say no to Obama-net!
My online privacy is excellent now, therefore regulation--to make regular, e.g. optimal--is not necessary. What needs to be "regulated" is govspeak, because the Department of Paranoia needs a dictionary where the words "restricted" and "violated" are defined.
I am becoming more cynical and paranoid of government the older I get
That's normal. With age usually comes wisdom.
Free Martian Whores!
Yes, and if you read any of the stories about the FISA laws and government surveillance that popped-up, post Clinton, you'd be able to attribute FISA's legal protections (the one's Dubya's people ignored) to Nixon era abuses. Furthermore you'd know that the telecommunications surveillance capabilities of WWII that were 'supposed to be' dismantled in the 50's continued on with impunity for any telecommunications companies that aided or abetted government.
Scott McNealy was right, "You have zero privacy anyway..."
Carnivore morphed into Total Information Awareness, Rumsfeld ran a domestic progaganda office that created fake news clips aired on all the major networks (cuz it was cheaper than doing their own) microwaves bouncing off your windows, full body scans at the airports, and /.rr's are worried that someone's gonna mess up corporate online privacy policies by legislating poorly!?
LOL