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.
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.
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
I don't want to hamstring American businesses while the industry is still in its infancy.
No, because of non-thinking voters like *you*, we get the heavy hand of government.
That sounds a little bit sarcastic.
It may not be a step towards government dictatorship, but it is a step towards an environment where an oppressive government could germinate rather quickly. Or did you mean government dictatorship in the context of regulations and Big Government?
My first thought was that this is like having the fox guard the hen house. Considering how far the government has gone in the last 20 years to eliminate our rights to privacy, anonymity, and free communications in general I find it rather curious they are stepping up to protect us from Mr. Zuckerburg and evil Google.
They are the least of my worries. After all, I am not forced to deal with them.
While the government starts to create regulations that affect companies like Facebook and Google, I wonder why we so quickly forget its intentions to secure access to all encrypted voice communications? That development was quite recent, but let's forget that and talk about how people can see what I am doing with my chickens in Farmville. That is far more important right?
On the other hand, it puts an enormous burden on businesses
Since when did not revealing my personal data become a "burden"?
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.
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 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.
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?
I think you don't understand what a Terms of Service is. It binds the company to jack shit. There's nothing enforceable in it against the company. What it does is state up front behavior that they expect of you or they'll remove your access. If you need any proof that it's null and void- for a contract to be enforceable, it requires both sides to give up something material (called "consideration"). Terms of Service require no exchange, thus no contract is enforceable in court. The same goes for any "Privacy Policy" they may have.
New laws are absolutely needed to protect privacy, but you're right that they don't need to be internet specific. What we need are laws preventing any company from selling personally identifiable information to any third party in any circumstance. There is no reason to allow them to do so, and no way to protect your personal privacy if you are. Even if you find a company you trust now, all you need is a change in leadership or a trip to bankruptcy court (where they can be forced to sell it as an "asset") to make it null and void. Of course like any law they need to have enough teeth to make it matter. Forcing the Cxx who violates it to go to jail for 5 years without parole ought to be sufficient.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I'm kind of amazed at the image used here -- the fox guarding the henhouse. Wouldn't that image best apply to Google assuring us they'll do no evil?
Quite contrary to the business propaganda, Adam Smith spelled this out Way Back When: the invisible hand needs a counter to it, and that's democratic, public government. "Unless government takes pains to prevent it..." http://books.google.com/books?id=-mxKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA163&dq=unless+government+takes+some+pains+to+prevent&hl=en&ei=Ku_ATM3jE4yr8Abmio3hBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=unless%20government%20takes%20some%20pains%20to%20prevent&f=false
I'm likewise amazed how often people in capitalist quasi-democracies are *more* paranoid about government abusing individuals than corporations abusing individuals. I'm not saying this is black/white -- of course there are *plenty* of examples of totalitarian government -- but corporations are clearly, inarguably non-democratic. Quasi-democratic governments (such as the US) have *some* public interest and public input (the rest of their motivation and input has been bought by the investment class). Both corporations and "democratic" governments are necessary evils, but "democratic" governments are gonna be the lesser evil.
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.
Hey! That's not what schizophrenic means! You should instead have said "Does the US government appear to have dissociative identity disorder? Oh yes."
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