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."

8 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. And one by one... by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:And one by one... by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are we sure all 5 of these are actually attempts to -preserve- privacy? Because if not, some of them might survive. "Regulation" to me doesn't mean "protection," skimming TFA didn't really clarify things any, and the bill is incomprehensible to me.

    2. Re:And one by one... by pitchpipe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Facebook's never-ending privacy concerns are making some kind of a national law or regulation more and more likely.

      Looks like Facebook isn't ponying up enough lobbyists and campaign contributions. If they'd just do this and data-mine for the government, they'd probably be allowed to do everything they do plus install anal/brain probes on us.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  2. Re:Major intrusion by SudoGhost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He thinks segregating identity from data isn't enough; the data must then be aggregated after identity is stripped out.

    I'm no lawyer or anything, but last time I checked, that was the opposite of unmasking anonymous posters.

  3. Re:Double edged sword by s73v3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the other hand, it puts an enormous burden on businesses

    Since when did not revealing my personal data become a "burden"?

  4. Re:Double edged sword by s73v3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, yes you do. Not all industries start out with good practices. Better to tell them they can't do the bad stuff from the beginning, rather than them becoming dependent on doing the shitty stuff, and being unable to stop them without causing the industry to go tits up. While the industry is young, it can still evolve. Not so much after a while.

  5. Re:Stand by... by Caerdwyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US government is sufficiently large that there isn't a single entity which can be called "the government". One part may well be genuinely interested in protecting privacy, while another part is doing its best to have the Fourth Amendment repealed. Schizophrenic? Oh yes. It's also part of why trying to make plans on what the regulatory environment will be like in four years a complete crapshoot.

    There's also the matter than if the government acquires the ability to specifically regulate privacy on Internet sites (above and beyond the more basic "your Terms of Service say X, you did Y, you are in material breach of contract" which applies to all businesses), this forms precedent that the government has the power to regulate other things... content, access, reporting. Only the DHS and other jackboots would consider this a good thing.

    No new law or government entity is needed to enforce compliance with privacy statements. Facebook can be held liable for violating its Terms of Service, and fraud on the basis of saying "we don't do this" when they in fact do (and then profiting from it). We don't need a Department of Enforcing Internet Stuff; we just need a judge, a jury, a plaintiff, and a court date.

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
  6. Ownership rights by tombeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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