Slashdot Mirror
Obama May Toughen Internet Privacy Rules
CWmike writes "The Obama administration is considering plans to step up policing of Internet privacy issues and to establish a new position to direct the effort, reports the WSJ, which cites unnamed sources. Any push for stronger federal oversight over online privacy is likely to be welcomed by privacy advocates increasingly concerned about the data-collection and data-sharing practices of big Internet and marketing companies. High profile cases such as the uproar over Facebook's personal data collection habits and the public reaction to Google's continuing problems over its Street View Wi-Fi snooping have created a broader awareness of online privacy issues. The big question, though, is just how successful any fresh attempt at enforcing new privacy strictures on the Internet will be with Republicans soon to be in charge of the House."
The big question, though, is just how successful any fresh attempt at enforcing new privacy strictures on the Internet will be with Republicans soon to be in charge of the House.
Let's try not to be so blatant with our biases next time.
Okay. I think I'm done. I'm going to terminate my traffic, all of it, via VPN in some other country.
bullshit.
"The big question, though, is just how successful any fresh attempt at enforcing new privacy strictures on the Internet will be with Republicans soon to be in charge of the House."
The Democrats have proven themselves to be just as guilty in this regard so please refrain from the partisianship.
I'm all for more privacy, but all this means is the NSA and those other three letter agencies have decided it's easier to snoop on us without asking Facebook and others simply hand over the data they need.
Great. Now where did I put that tinfoil hat...
He might try, but the republicans will block it.
Technoli
From the evil data-mining corporations out for our private data.
Still no word on whether or not we will be saved from a prying government with increased authority over internet communication and encryption.
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
Then allow the consumer to decide what to do about the problem themselves.
Most consumers will do nothing. Educating them will do nothing except waste money. All that will happen is the consumers who do end up losing everything will complain because the government didn't do more to prevent it. They'll complain and get some politician needing an issue to promote to force a half-assed plan into place. Its better to at least attempt a rational level-headed method than something done as a rushed response to a sudden public outcry.
I'm sure the government will do something sensible like require all internet traffic to be encrypted. To make things easier they'll even give you your own personal set of keys to use. Dont worry if you ever lose your keys because they'll keep a set for you.
That's impossible now. In order to get a job you have to apply on the internet - many times with third party companies that have their own multi-page legalese filled "Terms of Service" that has the "we reserve the right to change these terms at anytime" bullshit clause.
My credit union uses a third party for many of their back office and web services.
Many companies spread your personal information all over the World without your consent - the credit bureaus, insurance companies, banks, and just about any firm that handles your most private data. They share data with credit bureaus, other companies that collect data, Governments, etc...
Aside from living under a rock, living "off the grid" and doing business with no one, there's no way for the consumer to control their personal information - none.
I have been doing my best and yet, just googling myself, it sickens me how much personal information is out there - current information.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Secure a mans fish and you starve him for a day. Teach a man to secure his fish and he'll call you an idiot and eat it.
What were we talking about again?
Right now, when your privacy is violated, they say "My bad" and keep on going. We need a law that says something like: 1. For violating all non-medical, non-sexual privacy, (revealing Social Security information, bank account information, phone numbers, etc.) each incident costs the violater $100 fine per person 2. For violating medical privacy, each incident costs the violater $800 fine per person 3. For violating sexual privacy, each incident costs the violater $5,000 fine per person Having the fines go to the EFF (to avoid spurious lawsuits) This would be in addition to the legal right to sue for damages.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Is this not the typical reaction by the average idiot American? Let government legislate a cure to our problem? Are we not supposed to be a free market? When will we say as a group, we refuse to use facebook, or any other site for that matter, until they provide agreements that protect our private data? Instead we just give corporations everything we have so THEY can make money off YOU, and your only concern is why is the government not doing anything about it?
The Government's track record leaves little for debate. The standard is to over charge taxpayers for a system with loop holes that only result in the public "feeling better" without actually solving the real problem. Ladies and Gentlemen, do you want your privacy? Then stop giving it away like retarded little tripe's without a care in the world while expecting the government to swoop in and rescue you like a mythical Superman. If you have not been paying any attention the government does not care about your privacy when it concerns them. They want to be able to stop, search, and seize you and your property any time they please regardless of the constitution. If you think they really care about your privacy, I have some top quality products I would like to sell you! A fool and their money as well as their liberty are soon parted!
Can we please stop calling Google's Wifi drive-by data collection a "Privacy violation" - they only collected traffic that was publicly available because people chose to transmit it. If anything, it was good for public awareness, hopefully at least a few people encrypted their Wifi traffic because of it.
It's not like Google put the data up on their search engine, it was an artifact of the collection process leftover on corporate hard drives.
While it's nice to see lawmakers taking an interest in privacy, rather than go after Google, they should be going after the manufacturers that still sell access points that default to unencrypted traffic.
The danger that all of these people who had their data snooped face is not from Google -- it's not like Google is going to use their credit cards or try to steal their identity. The real danger is in having their data snooped by people with criminal intent.
While I agree with your overall point, I'd like to take this moment to point out how awesome it is that C-SPAN 1, 2, and 3 exist. Being given a direct line-of-sight into our legislative process is rad as hell, especially when compared to the secretive inner workings of many other governments around the world.
The people that call-in during the morning show on C-SPAN Radio commonly say "Thank you for C-SPAN". There's a damn good reason for that.
Living With a Nerd
Warning: unpopular opinion ahead.
As far as advertising is concerned, I'm actually GLAD that companies are "invading my privacy" in an attempt to display ads to me that are relevant to my interests. I don't give a crap about tampons, or Roth I.R.As, or some new Genital Wart drug. However, I DO care about AMDs latest processor, or some new Asus laptop, or a special deal going on with digital cameras.
Advertising is going to happen, no matter what you do. Yes, I know, I know...adblock and noscript. Still, regardless, advertising will reach you at some point in your day-to-day life. I would MUCH rather it be for something I care about. /rant
Living With a Nerd
So, that's nice that the government wants to crack down on sites like Facebook, but I think there are data mining things going on that most folk (even some on slashdot) are unaware of. For instance, awhile back I decided to switch my car insurance policy from company A to company B. When I contacted company B and had them quote me a rate, they said there was an at-fault accident on my record that shouldn't have been there. I asked them where they got that information because my DMV record was clean. They explained that they got their info. from a third party company that gets that kind of information from DMV. They told me I could contact the company to have the accident removed from my record, as there seemed to be no problem with the insurance company disputing the alleged incident (in other words, I am not paying for the accident). Well, I did some Googling and internet browsing and found the company. They list themselves as a data aggregation company (one that I had never heard of) that will sell information to any party interested (information like my personal driving record). There was a whole process you could go through to "opt-out" of their aggregation service, effectively limiting them from collecting information on you. I started the process which involved a few forms asking for personal information. Not wanting to give this company much more information, I just decided to call them instead.
I talked to a customer service rep. and they helped me get though the opt-out process without giving up much more in the way of personal info. The rep. quipped, however, that my efforts were pretty futile because there were countless other companies providing the same services. So I asked for those company names and, sure enough, eventually found their web presence with similar business-descriptions and opt-out policies. All of this data aggregation was happening unbeknown to myself and probably most folk that are not in the car insurance industry. Many of them had outdated records (they only mine DMV so often), and showed various false information about my driving record in their records. This was the info. that would be used to analyze my driving habits for insurance rates. All in all, it was breathtaking how flawed and vast this info. gathering network was.
So, long story short, the privacy thing goes a lot deeper than Facebook. Frankly, I have a Facebook profile and I couldn't give a damn about my privacy settings on there (I never want to work for someone that takes things I say on a site like Facebook seriously). What I do give a damn about is companies that turn a profit off of data-mining me without my permission (I NEVER requested any of these company's services, why the hell do they have the right to gather a profile on me?)
Anyways, I would much prefer to see legislation regarding issues like mine rather than crap directed at Facebook or Google. Either way, it was a few months back that I went through all of this and I forget the name of the first company I contacted. I think I still have it written on a post-it note at home. I'll try to find it and dig it up to post in a response to this message later.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Actually, where I live, the collection of personal information is regulated by law, and Google is/was in flagrant violation of that law. It doesn't matter that the data was available in the clear, over the air : personal data is protected by law, and hand-waving excuses about technical errors or artifacts of collection process are irrelevant. I realise that the US has no proper privacy laws, but many other places (and all other industrialised nations) do have such legislation. Google simply ignored those laws, which is why they were called to task by the Canadian Privacy Commissioner and EU data regulators.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
I have to hand it to the government on this one. They have completely reframed the idea of "privacy" online and separated it from anonymity. We all know that to have true privacy, you have to have anonymity. That aspect of the debate has already been marginalized and will never be addressed. Instead what we are getting is a regulatory regime that proposes to protect our real identities online. What happens if you do not want to use your real identity? It seems like the path that we are going down is to make it more and more difficult not to.
The battle has been lost. We're already in the aftermath; the laws are now being codified to solidify the decisions that have already been made.
It would be nice to see some push back against the government on this. I'm of the opinion that if they want me to be me online, I want a cryptographically secure authentication mechanism. I want two factor RSA. I don't want a single piece of unsolicited email. Unless I have opted in by signing with my digital key, I don't want to hear one peep from advertisers.
If the government is going to get involved, it better go one of two ways. Either A, let me be anonymous or B, make it so damn burdensome for anyone who I don't want to talk to talk to me that they decide it isn't worth the hassle to initiate communication unless I solicit it.
Yes, let's all welcome the tyranny of the majority.
And while we're at it, the tyranny of the uninformed.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Ecept we're not really given a direct line-of-site into the legislative process. We're being given a direct line-of-sight into the dog-and-pony show that masquerades as our legislative process.
The real workings of the legislature happen behind closed doors, on K street and other places where the legislation is actually hammered out.
What we can watch on C-Span is largely circus.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The 2 parties have primary goals is to oppose whatever the other proposes...except for going to war !
I believe "pretend terrorists are attacking us because of envy of our 'freedom' rather than our foreign policy, and pretend that we can stop them by sacrificing your rights" is the other movement with broad bipartisan support (bipartisan among the elected, that is).
Yes, let's all welcome the tyranny of the majority.
And while we're at it, the tyranny of the uninformed.
Thanks for the welcome, although about several years to late.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I always thought "Tyranny of the majority" was a poor and insidiously elitist framing of the issue. "Tyranny of the uninformed" is better... so how can we as a society ensure that the decisions are made by fully informed people in a transparent manner? As self-proclaimed "nerds" (i.e. some of the best informed people on the planet), should we really defer that decision (or other decisions) to someone else? Red Flayer, I'd like to thank you for quoting the "metagovernment.org" url, because otherwise i might never have heard of it.
Wikileaks Is Democracy
The problem with your theory is this: It fails to take into account the incredible power of propaganda and its effect on a populace. Just look how many American to this very day believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Why do they believe that? Because that is what the propaganda told them to believe, that's why!
So unless you have some "silver bullet" that would dissolve all these "to big to fail" giant multinational corps with more money than many third world countries, well then you are just doomed to fail. Because they have the massive WMD known as propaganda in their pocket and I'd argue thanks to the "always on" nature of the MSM it is even easier to change the masses to your thinking than it was then. Just look at how many dirt poor consistently vote against their interests by voting republican? Does anyone actually think republican policies are gonna help someone living in a tar paper shack? But because their local MSM is hard right and pounds those views into them 24/7 that is how they vote.
Welcome to the future comrade, where just a handful or people can completely control the beliefs of a large section of a populace simply using the incredible power of propaganda. Hell look how many poor people voted against getting themselves medical care even though studies have shown that having large sections of your populace unable to see a doctor is bad for everyone? Propaganda my friend, propaganda.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.