Obama Calls For New Privacy Bill of Rights

CWmike writes "The Obama Administration is backing a new data privacy bill of rights aimed at protecting consumers against indiscriminate online tracking and data collection by advertisers. In recent times, high-profile examples of a need for improving privacy laws include Facebook's personal data collection practices and Google's problems over its Street View Wi-Fi snooping issue. In testimony prepared for the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation, the Commerce Department's assistant secretary, Lawrence Strickling, said that the White House wants Congress to enact legislation offering 'baseline consumer data privacy protections.' Strickling said the administration's call for new online privacy protections stems from recommendations made by the Commerce Department in a paper released in December. The administration's support for privacy protections is very significant, said Joel Reidenberg, a professor at Fordham Law School who specializes in privacy issues. 'This is the first time since 1974 that the U.S. government has supported mandatory general privacy rules,' Reidenberg said."

Comments

Which one does the President really believe in?

[Wyatt Earp]

This or White House Wants New Copyright Law Crackdown?

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Byzantine]

I'm pretty sure it's both. Are you seriously expecting consistency from an elected official at the head of a vast bureaucracy?

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Infonaut]

OMG! It's like these people in government are human beings with nuanced opinions and conflicting constituencies!

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Wyatt Earp]

So online privacy but also invasive searches "just in case" you are doing something bad?

I'd hope he believes in privacy but is being pushed for the new copyright law by his (and other Democrat) donors.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[causality]

OMG! It's like these people in government are human beings with nuanced opinions and conflicting constituencies!

... and no principles that consistently direct their decision-making since that would require a spine and would likely interfere with retaining power.

You really want to make excuses for that?

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[kalirion]

It's quite simple - Obama wants the monopoly on spying on US Citizens. If an advertising firm wants private information on you, they should pay the Feds premium $$ for it.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also remember corporations are people too.

So whatever they come up with applies to them as well.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Wyatt Earp]

US Supreme Court started taking that away from the Corps just a few weeks ago.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1279.pdf

http://www.slate.com/id/2281715/

"The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally."- Chief Justice Roberts

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[_xeno_]

Well, let's see: There's absolutely no way the privacy legislation will make it through the current Congress. Plus, Obama only came up with this after the Democrats had already lost control of Congress. And, there's a very good chance that the copyright stuff will make it through Congress.

So, I think it's fairly safe to say that he does intend to implement the copyright stuff, and that he has no intention of allowing the privacy legislation to succeed.

It's politics, pure and simple. He's hoping to convince people who care about online privacy to vote for him next year without having to worry about actually living up to any promises he makes. He can just blame the Republican Congress.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Intron]

Online privacy means you can't snoop on other people. You can bet that Law Enforcement is exempt.

Copyright law means you can't copy things. The Fed is already exempt from that. You can't sue the government for copyright violation.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Reason58]

... and no principles that consistently direct their decision-making since that would require a spine and would likely interfere with retaining power.

You really want to make excuses for that?

You said it yourself; politicians in the upper levels of government must set aside principles to stay in office. If you want to blame someone, blame the voters who force them to behave that way. We get the government we deserve.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

... and no principles that consistently direct their decision-making

I disagree. Clearly, the principle of "keep the big donors happy and give lip-service to voters" is the guiding principle for every politician except a very few. Bernie Sanders comes to mind, but he's a Socialist!1! so that doesn't count because clearly he's trying to undermine God and the Founding Fathers by trying to look out for his constituents.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

If you want to blame someone, blame the voters who force them to behave that way. We get the government we deserve.

I would suggest we blame the campaign finance laws that require them to behave that way.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

Well, let's see: There's absolutely no way the privacy legislation will make it through the current Congress. Plus, Obama only came up with this after the Democrats had already lost control of Congress. And, there's a very good chance that the copyright stuff will make it through Congress.

Seriously? Even with all the "populist" tea party members in control of Congress? Don't you think they're going to look out for us Americans? Surely they believe in privacy. Well, not privacy for pregnant women and their doctors, but pregnant women are merely vessels for the Holy Spark of Life and don't deserve privacy because we all know they were created second and are more prone to the influence of Satan, with their short skirts and lipstick and all. But privacy for the real Americans, I mean.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Reason58]

I would suggest we blame the campaign finance laws that require them to behave that way.

I fail to see the connection between campaign finance laws and politicians pandering to whatever the voters currently want. Election campaigns could magically be free and they would still behave in this manner. They want votes, and consistency (currently) does not win you elections.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

It's quite simple - Obama wants the monopoly on spying on US Citizens. If an advertising firm wants private information on you, they should pay the Feds premium $$ for it.

Is that where advertising firms are getting our private information? From the federal government?

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

I fail to see the connection between campaign finance laws and politicians pandering to whatever the voters currently want.

Your incorrect assumption is that there are any politicians "pandering to whatever the voters currently want". That hasn't been the case in quite a while. As far as I can tell, there are a bunch of governors for example doing things that are very unpopular with the voters. Look at the polls in Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan for example.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! It's like these people in government are human beings with nuanced opinions and conflicting constituencies!

... and no principles that consistently direct their decision-making since that would require a spine and would likely interfere with retaining power.

You really want to make excuses for that?

It's delusional to think that a set of principles can generate good decisions. By saying so, you're asserting that the Kolmogorov complexity of the world's problems is no greater than the length of a platform statement for your ideal political party. This is plainly absurd. Making judgements on a case-by-case basis using all relevant data is far more difficult and requires far more character than choosing a side once and forever abstaining from any further decision-making.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Reason58]

If their actions are truly "very unpopular" with the voters then those governors won't be there after the next election. If they are still around then their actions obviously weren't as unpopular as they are being portrayed.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[mind.the.oranges]

Ah yes, the last defense of tyrants: Only history shall rightly judge!

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Reason58]

In what way are United States governors tyrants? Are they not placed in power by the voters? Or is your assertion that you know better than all of the respective states' voters?

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

If their actions are truly "very unpopular" with the voters then those governors won't be there after the next election.

It looks like some of the Republican senators in Wisconsin and the governor won't even make to the next election if these recall elections end up as strongly as they're starting.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those unpopular governors will make popular campaign promises during next elections.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, most people in reality, support certain principles that incompletely specify government policy, leaving some portion of decisions as judgement calls, so I'd say you're fighting a straw man by comparing a wholly algorithmic policy to the GP's objection of having "no principles". But what the hell, it's an interesting argument, so I'm going to play strawdevilman's advocate...

No, all you've shown is that it's delusional to think a set of principles can solve the world's problems. If, OTOH, some of your principles are to restrict the role of government to solving a specific domain of problems (obviously those statements limiting the domain don't govern decisions in that domain, so they're dead weight in the complexity sense), then it can very plausibly generate good decisions -- now you're just asserting that the Kolmogorov complexity of that limited domain is no greater than the rest of your platform.

And as you said, "Making judgements on a case-by-case basis using all relevant data is far more difficult", so it's not obvious that one human attempting it (in real-time, too) will necessarily do a better job than a set of principles carefully designed/chosen/optimized to provide reasonably good decisions overall, even if it can generally be beaten case-by-case. The first obvious question would be whether a useful approximation of the world's problems (or, as above, of a subset of them) exists with Kolmogorov complexity no greater than the active part of your platform. If you can find such an approximation, then it becomes a question of the likely human error vs. the error induced by the simplifying approximation.

As I said, I see your "entirely algorithmic party" as a straw man, from which you may correctly infer I don't actually support it. But I do think it's a lot more plausible than you give it credit for.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PinchDuck]

ding ding ding. Thanks for saving me a post.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is people don't follow up and are easily divided when push comes to shove. All politicians have to do is pander to them during the election campaign and then do whatever the hell their backers want once elected. "Sure I may have made some unpopular decisions during my time, but would you rather have him making those decisions? He wants to set up death panels to decide who lives and who dies!!!!" For fuck's sake.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[BoberFett]

Not at the moment. Seems Obama wants to change that.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

Not at the moment. Seems Obama wants to change that.

So, let me see if I've got this: you believe that Obama's proposal and support of an online privacy law is proof that he wants to sell your personal information to online advertisers.

I can see how you would come to that conclusion, because Glenn Beck believes the exact same thing! Great minds think alike.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[bongey]

Seriously?

Can you get your head out of your ass?
1. Tea Party members are not in charge of congress , just few actual team party members are in congress. Same old politicians.
2. You bring an abortion argument to the table, WTF over ?
As for the abortion agruement , people like you would have supported slavery 150 years ago.
Example Dred Scott case.
The Court decided that a black man was only 3/5 a person, thus does not have any rights.
The Court decided that a fetus is not a person, thus does not have any rights.

Can I call you something else than human and take away your rights?
Finally pro-choice advocates are really just hypocrites http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELDHaeEsNF0

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Lord Kano]

Almost.

Dred Scott determined that blacks were not citizens and hence had no rights that whites were legally bound to respect.
It's the constitution that says that blacks are 3/5 of a person.

Otherwise, I agree, Roe v Wade is the Dred Scott case of the 20th century. Abortion is the slavery of the modern era.

LK

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[bongey]

Thanks for the correction. Haven't gone over the Dred Scott case since I was 14 . Agghh that was almost 16 years ago.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[_xeno_]

Even with all the "populist" tea party members in control of Congress? Don't you think they're going to look out for us Americans? Surely they believe in privacy.

They believe in privacy from the government. Any sort of privacy legislation is going to be seen as a "government interfering in private affairs." After all, the right solution to privacy concerns if the free market. If you don't like web sites spying on you, you can always browse a different Internet.

Kind of like exactly how they scuttled net neutrality.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[shentino]

Maybe the voters are apathetic because they know that the government has no incentive to behave once they're elected.

Even if the president gets voted out in an overwhelming landslide next term he still has 4 years to show his true colors, and until those years are over, only his fellow corporate trough feeders can oust him.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[shentino]

If exploiting your personal information is so valuable that no company in its right mind would dare pass up the chance, then the market does not work for you if you want to keep your privacy instead of whore it out.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[BillX]

"Pandering to whatever voters currently want"... Er, isn't that supposed to be their job?
(Some might disagree on how well they are doing it, of course...)

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[TheGratefulNet]

which is to blame the very system, itself.

say it. call it for what it is. broken beyond shit.

need 2.0 rev. need it bad.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[TheGratefulNet]

voters.

yeah, right.

the system is broken and votes are not relevant. you trust the elections do you? yeah?

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[TheGratefulNet]

lets see, pick obama and things are pretty bad. he's not honorable and won't keep his word.

choose the other party and it will get much worse, guaranteed.

nice system we have here.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

Haven't gone over the Dred Scott case since I was 14 .

Since it was the Constitution that made blacks 3/5 of a person, how long has it been since you've "gone over" the Constitution?

As for the abortion agruement , people like you would have supported slavery 150 years ago.
Example Dred Scott case.
The Court decided that a black man was only 3/5 a person, thus does not have any rights.
The Court decided that a fetus is not a person, thus does not have any rights.

So, you're saying black men = fetuses? And what about a woman's rights to choose not to carry a pregnancy to term and have an abortion in private with her doctor? Are you saying fetus > woman? And since you've already said a black person = fetus, are you saying black man > woman?

That's some pretty fucked-up math there, bongey. How long have you believed that a black man is more important than a woman?

And while we're at it, since your Christian Conservative Supreme Court justices decided that a corporation is a person, does that mean that if I dissolve my little subchapter S corp that I'm guilty of murder? Or only if I dissolve the corporation in the third trimester?

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

Abortion is the slavery of the modern era.

I thought taxes were the "slavery of the modern era".

And your another one who believes black person = fetus.

Here's what you're going to have to come to terms with, Lord Kano. As long as we let women vote, abortion is going to stay legal in the US. Now since you've decided that a fetus is more important than a woman's rights, I imagine you believe that that whole "women voting" thing is only a small speed bump on the way to your Fundamentalist Utopia.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Seumas]

We don't even believe in supporting the REAL bill of rights (and most Americans can't even NAME them, much less the rest of the Constitutional Amendments). So why the fuck would I expect anything more from a lick and a promise over a "privacy" bill of rights?

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[bongey]

Actually one of majors is in theoretical mathematics.
I really don't care what side of the abortion issue you are on.
I do have a problem when one uses faulty logic to reach a conclusion.
Your reply is riddled with fallacies or faulty logic.

• First up, an ad hominem . Not to bad, you are suppose to grab the readers attention, insulting them is one way.
• Next is the straw man .
• Followed by another ad hominem. Not very good, better luck next time.
• Ending with a Red herring

I will end with an ad hominem. Just because you use logical operators does not make your statements logical. Go take a introduction to advance mathematics course about a 200 level course and learn a little logic, it might help you.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[rtb61]

It's more to do with political game play. Right now the administration can propose all kinds of left aligned legislation knowing full well the Republicans in the lower house well knock it back if it has any possible conceivable impact upon corporate profits as reported to them by legions of lobbyists.

So a year and a half odd, off free political campaigning to make the Republicans look anti-people, a government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation. Of course the administration might not want the legislation passed but quite simply the opposition will get the public blame.

Privacy rights would be great, as long as it includes mandatory notification of data held upon a regular basis, together with rights to correct errors or have private data deleted.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

After all, the right solution to privacy concerns if the free market.

That is absolutely ridiculous. To believe that you have to ignore everything that has gone on in the past decades.

Seriously, there is no such thing as a "free market". They are not possible. There has never, ever been one. Never will be. They are a fiction.

When you start trusting the "free market" to enforce social concepts like "privacy" you're really asking for trouble.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[pasv]

Yea every time I hear "administration", "privacy", and "rights" in the same sentence in a story I pretty much assume they're up to no good. That's just how far it's gone. I didnt even read the article. A lot of us don't need to.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he is saying that he is against politicians doing what they need to do to get funding for their campaigns rather than what the people want.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[lwriemen]

I imagine the OP is thinking more along the lines of Obama's continued support for the Patriot Act. Combine that with extensions for the tax cuts for the wealthy and caving to the tea party crowd in other areas concerning the budget, it's easy to extrapolate the OP's position as a possible source of government revenue that won't hurt re-election chances.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Shotgun]

He's hoping to convince people who care about online privacy to vote for him next year without having to worry about actually living up to any promises he makes. He can just blame the Republican Congress.

Bingo! If he gave half a wit for privacy, he'd give up the warrantless wiretapping powers. If he won't get off of that garbage, this proposition is just a sick joke.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

I imagine

Imagination is a wonderful thing.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a problem, then it must be solved (or more accurately, replaced with a different, hopefully more manageable problem) by either a governmental structure, or by some non-governmental structure. Or the problem can be left as is with the damage falling where it may. There are different tradeoffs between different governmental and non-governmental approaches and which is to be preferred varies by problem and by personal tolerances for different forms of error. To elaborate on my earlier position, my belief is that political platforms are simplifying approximations of personal tolerances for different forms of error rather than simplifying approximations for social benefit, which has no viable universal metric. Political platforms tend to encode a hierarchy of preferences with matters at the top of the hierarchy being given absolute preference over the bottom of the hierarchy. They can only achieve good decisions relative to the preferences of the people who created them, and they tend to increase the errors that their creators do not consider important. What is missing from all political debates, is recognizing that one's own preferences and one's opponents preferences are completely arbitrary and neither is more valid than the other. Too few people are willing to recognize other people's preferences as valid, or even to accept that someone can agree with you on one issue and disagree with you on a related but distinct issue.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Same post, except this time with paragraph breaks):

If you have a problem, then it must be solved (or more accurately, replaced with a different, hopefully more manageable problem) by either a governmental structure, or by some non-governmental structure. Or the problem can be left as is with the damage falling where it may. There are different tradeoffs between different governmental and non-governmental approaches and which is to be preferred varies by problem and by personal tolerances for different forms of error.

To elaborate on my earlier position, my belief is that political platforms are simplifying approximations of personal tolerances for different forms of error rather than simplifying approximations for social benefit, which has no viable universal metric. Political platforms tend to encode a hierarchy of preferences with matters at the top of the hierarchy being given absolute preference over the bottom of the hierarchy. They can only achieve good decisions relative to the preferences of the people who created them, and they tend to increase the errors that their creators do not consider important.

What is missing from all political debates, is recognizing that one's own preferences and one's opponents preferences are completely arbitrary and neither is more valid than the other. Too few people are willing to recognize other people's preferences as valid, or even to accept that someone can agree with you on one issue and disagree with you on a related but distinct issue.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Data should not be shared" is a principle that both these policies would be in line with. I presume there are others. I don't know if there are any I would agree with, or any that are actually motivating the White House, but to say these two positions are obviously in conflict just because the /, crowd will tend to agree with the one and disagree with the other is boneheaded.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Lord Kano]

Clearly. You don't know more than Jon Stewart tells you.
Let me recap for you.

Negro = Human Being
Unborn Child = Human Being

If women decided the issue, there would be no elective abortions. Women are more pro-life than men. The only people who are pro-abortion are radical feminists, uninformed leftists and men who want to use women for sex.

LK

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

Unborn Child = Human Being

But does Unborn Child = Born Child? And if so, why do you so devalue motherhood and childbirth? And at what point during the pregnancy does the magic event happen where the unborn child = the born child? "At birth" you say? Well, that's what I say. A "fetus" becomes a "human being" at "childbirth". Words mean something. Actually, I'd go a step further (being radical) that "A "fetus" becomes a "baby" when the mother says it does until childbirth" End of story. The rest of us, no matter what gender do not get a say. Not you, not me, and not Scott Roeder, the hero of the pro-life movement (although none will admit it). Your god does not get a say either, by the way.

If women decided the issue, there would be no elective abortions. Women are more pro-life than men. The only people who are pro-abortion are radical feminists, uninformed leftists and men who want to use women for sex.

So the fact that a growing majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal is something that you disregard? Did you know that even a majority of people who refer to themselves as "pro-life" believe abortion should be legal in the first trimester?

According to the poll, 57% believed abortion should be legal in "all or most cases", and 88% believed it should be legal when the life of the mother is at risk. Here's a shocker for you, St Paul, 54% believed abortion should be legal in cases where the fetus is impaired. These are from a population that refers to itself as "pro-life" by 48-47-5. Get this: the number of people who call themselves "pro-life" is increasing and so is the number of people who believe abortion should be legal. That's American religious beliefs for you.

Americans have always believed that abortion should be legal and regulated.

Now you get to tell me how "Americans once believed slavery should be legal" and I'm going to say "But your argument was that "The only pepole who are pro-abortion are radical feminists, blah blah".

Are you saying the majority of Americans are radical feminists, uninformed leftists and men who want to use women for sex?

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Lord Kano]

But does Unborn Child = Born Child?

Doesn't matter.

And at what point during the pregnancy does the magic event happen where the unborn child = the born child?

Immaterial. When the unborn child has a heartbeat and brain activity, it can be protected under law.

The rest of us, no matter what gender do not get a say.

Don't be such a pussy. We ALL get to have a say. If you want to opt out of yours, be my guest.

Not you, not me, and not Scott Roeder, the hero of the pro-life movement (although none will admit it).

Scott Roeder's actions were penny wise and pound foolish. Yes, Tiller will not kill another baby again but his death will be valuable propaganda for the pro-aborts. It will make it more difficult to reverse Roe v Wade.

Your god does not get a say either, by the way.

Tell us, what's my God's name? What does my God command of me? If you don't know, then you're just talking out of your ass.

So the fact that a growing majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal is something that you disregard?

I disregard all of the pro abortion lies.

And you are lying.

More Americans are pro-life.

According to the poll, 57% believed abortion should be legal in "all or most cases", and 88% believed it should be legal when the life of the mother is at risk.

The poll that you just made up is less accurate than the poll conducted by Gallop.

23% believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. 22% believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances. 53% believe that abortion should be legal under certain (rape/incest/life of the mother) circumstance. In other words, 75% of Americans favor more abortion restrictions.

49% of women are pro-life. 44% of women are pro abortion.

54% of men are pro-life. %49 of men are pro abortion.

Now you get to tell me how "Americans once believed slavery should be legal" and I'm going to say "But your argument was that "The only pepole who are pro-abortion are radical feminists, blah blah".

Think again. Now is when I recap and tell you that you're full of shit and making up numbers doesn't compare to published poll results.

Are you saying the majority of Americans are radical feminists, uninformed leftists and men who want to use women for sex?

The majority of Americans that you imagined are. In the real world, not so much.

LK

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

Both polls were Gallup. Why would one be more accurate than the other?

A majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal. "Pro-life" is just a religious label. There are "pro-life" people who believe abortion should remain legal.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[PopeRatzo]

Scott Roeder's actions were penny wise and pound foolish.

"Penny wise"? You are a fucking monster. A moralistic monster.

If you can, in any sense, consider the murder of a doctor even a penny's worth of "wise" you are the perfect, hypocritical theocrat. You're "morals" are not worth a shit.

I just got a clear picture of you who are, Lord Kano, a middle-aged, single white man who hates the idea that there are women out there having sex without consequences.

May your name be erased from the Book of Life.

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Lord Kano]

"Penny wise"? You are a fucking monster. A moralistic monster.

If you can, in any sense, consider the murder of a doctor even a penny's worth of "wise" you are the perfect, hypocritical theocrat.

Try preparation H, it soothes the butthurt.

It was penny wise because Tiller will never kill another baby. Scott Roeder's actions saved thousands of lives, but his actions will also cost millions of lives because assholes like you will try to turn Tiller into a martyr and hold up restrictions on abortion.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you know of what I believe about God.

You're "morals" are not worth a shit.

I just got a clear picture of you who are, Lord Kano, a middle-aged, single white man who hates the idea that there are women out there having sex without consequences.

May your name be erased from the Book of Life.

You couldn't be further from the truth. I'm in my mid 30s, I'm black and I'm not single. Thanks for playing.

LK

Re:Which one does the President really believe in?

[Lord Kano]

Both polls were Gallup. Why would one be more accurate than the other?

A majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal. "Pro-life" is just a religious label. There are "pro-life" people who believe abortion should remain legal.

Where is your proof? Where is your link? Making something up isn't proof.

LK

LOL WUT?

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about warrantless wiretapping?

Re:LOL WUT?

[hldn]

it says right in the title he wants a new bill of rights. one can only assume this means the old one will be discarded (as if parts of it haven't been already)

how about

[Anonymous Coward]

How about not having to be seen naked in order to be able to fly? Or that there should be a court order before my electronic communications can be intercepted by law enforcement / intelligence agencies?

Bush, Obama, same thing...

Re:how about

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush, Obama, same thing...

I agree. Remember when Bush ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell? That was fuckin cool!

Re:how about

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush never went this far.

Re:how about

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, just like Obama promised. Is Gitmo closed yet?

Re:how about

[_xeno_]

Obama hasn't ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In fact, assuming I understand the law that was passed, it won't be over until Congress gives their final approval based on "proof that it will not adversely effect combat readiness" or something along those lines.

Gee, I wonder what the chances are that the current Congress will do that?

Re:how about

[AK Marc]

I was thinking the same thing. It's not about privacy. Can I smoke what I want in my own home? Nope. Can I grow what I want in my back yard? Nope. Can I get a state-sponsored marriage with whomever I want? Nope. There are piles of things that don't affect anyone outside the room they happen in that are illegal. Where's the privacy for those? Where is my right to keep the contents of my car private from the government officials who pull me over? Where did my privacy go, and why bother to call this a "privacy" related bill when it's about data retention and correlation of public information more than anything privacy related?

Instead, this bill should be the "no sharing" bill where it is made illegal to share information with 3rd parties without express permission and it's illegal to require that permission to offer a service. That's an easy fix, but the real solution will be much much worse for us. And it won't address our real privacy at all.

Re:how about

[vux984]

...until Congress...

I'm curious, what ~exactly~ do you expect Obama to do? What exactly would you do differently?

Re:how about

[Wahakalaka]

One step at a time maybe?

Re:how about

[Nidi62]

He can threaten to veto pretty much every law passed by Congress if they do not pass Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Republicans do not control enough seats to override a veto.

Re:how about

[PopeRatzo]

Where did my privacy go

The same people who took our jobs!

They took our jobs!

Re:how about

[vux984]

He can threaten to veto pretty much every law passed by Congress if they do not pass Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The president is constitutionally required to state his objections to the legislation in writing. What is his objection to the legislation? That congress isn't doing what he wants on some other bill?

Classy.

It might work, but its a clear abuse of procedure at best if he doesn't genuinely veto the bill on its own merit (or lack thereof), and I think there are too many procedural games being played as it is.

Re:how about

[sconeu]

They took our jobs!

They took our jerbs!

There, FTFY

Re:how about

[Anonymous Coward]

the largest intrusion into a US citizen's private life happens every April 15 when you are required by law to disclose every aspect of your private financial life to the Federal/State/Local authorities under fear of incarceration

Re:how about

[hedwards]

Next you're going to tell me that I can't drink what I want when I drive. I mean where does it all end?

If you want to smoke what you like, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to pay up for the consequences, either in terms of subsidizing your treatment or picking up the slack because it's interfering with your performance at work.

Re:how about

[AK Marc]

Next you're going to tell me that I can't drink what I want when I drive.

I don't see why not. The only issue is that we don't have performance-based penalties. You can't drink whatever you want while driving, but you can eat while reading a map and sleeping. I'd much rather have an objective and effective measure of driving ability and impairment to enforce minimum safety standards. Instead, we get lunacy where talking on a phone is shown to be an impairment. However, rather than addressing the actual safety issue, we get bans from using it in your hand, but not with a hands-free set. But the issue is that people talking on the phone are more impaired than the legal limit for drinking, regardless of whether they are using a hands-free kit. So they decided to explicitly make it legal to drive with a greater impairment than currently allowed after drinking. So, if the laws are safety-based, they have proven that drinking and driving isn't unacceptably unsafe, since they have purposefully made things even less safe legal.

If you want to smoke what you like, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to pay up for the consequences, either in terms of subsidizing your treatment or picking up the slack because it's interfering with your performance at work.

If only you meant that. Instead, I expect you are a liar, like everyone else I've ever heard make that statement. Instead you mean "I'm going to advocate making it illegal regardless of whether you are a burden on society because I don't like it." Then you lie (either to me knowingly or to yourself, I don't know or care) and turn it into some crusade where you are saving society from my bad choices by taking away everyone's freedom.

Re:how about

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, at least Bush was fairly specific about who he sold out to. Obama will apparently bend over for anyone with money and an agenda.

Re:how about

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is my right to keep the contents of my car private from the government officials who pull me over? .

I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post, but this is not necessarily true. I've been asked by police on several occasions to search my car. I simply tell them no. Unless you are pulled over for driving while intoxicated, committing another non-traffic related crime, or the police show up with some type of warrant in tow you can just tell them "No".

Re:how about

[AK Marc]

They have the right to search the driver's area for weapons (including under the driver's seat). They can also make you sit outside your car on an uncomfortably hot or cold day while they wait for the dogs to show up while they sit in their own car with climate control. Where you can just give in and let them look to be on your way.

Oh, and if you say no and they have Reasonable Suspicion, but not Probable Cause, they can hold you on RS to determine if they can generate PC. That includes getting the dogs, asking you questions and if you answer any ("where are you going to and from" and such) then holding you until they can verify those answers. And, if they pulled you over for anything, like speeding, you have all the responsibilities of an arrest (if you walk away, they can throw you in jail for resisting arrest and then they get to impound you car and search it without a warrant) but none of the rights (they can ask you anything, even if you tell them you wish to remain silent, and they don't have to wait for a lawyer, and they don't need to Mirandize you or such).

But yes, you can say no.

Re:how about

[TheGratefulNet]

and you know this from actual factual experience or just the pamphlets that they gave you in grade school and you still have in your dresser drawer?

you would be surprised at how uninformed you are.

oh, and "carl sagan" to you, you closed-minded fuck. go google him and then complain about his 'work performance'.

Re:how about

[spidercoz]

Kind of like how the Republican threat of, not even actual use, filibuster prevented any meaningful reform of the banking or insurance industries. Talk about abuse of procedure. Not to mention the glaring indication of where their loyalties truly lie.

Re:how about

[Sabathius]

Sorry to say...but the "they" who are taking your jobs are computers and robots.

Re:how about

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'm spinning and seeing Left-Right-Left-Right..and the life just marches on accordingly.

Re:how about

[PopeRatzo]

You mean "computers and robots" took our jobs?

Dey turk ur jurbs! Durkur Duur!

Draconian?

[symes]

I wonder how far this will go - would it stop Facebook from having some sort of User License Agreement whereby users can only get on Facebook if they allow all their info to be sold on?

Re:Draconian?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bon voyage Facebook! It was nice having you hosted in the USA.

Re:Draconian?

[BlueStrat]

I wonder how far this will go - would it stop Facebook from having some sort of User License Agreement whereby users can only get on Facebook if they allow all their info to be sold on?

I wonder how they will square this with the recent DoE threats to sue public school teachers/administrators that fail to monitor student's non-school-related Facebook pages and other online communications for any hints of non-specific "harassment or bullying" and punish and/or suspend "offenders"?

I remember a time when any teachers or school administrators who "monitored" a student outside of school in such an intrusive way would get a starring role in a criminal investigation.

So, when (not "if") some sick, twisted teacher/administrator uses their access to student's online postings and personal information to victimize students, will those at the DoE who are pushing this policy be held criminally liable?

Strat

Re:Draconian?

[hedwards]

Make damn sure that the only parts of privacy that we can sign away are reasonable, and require an honest request with a clear indication as to what we're agreeing to up front when we make that decision. As it stands you can agree to let them share or not, but you're typically not told who the 3rd parties are and as a result you don't really know what you're agreeing to if you say yes.

Re:Draconian?

[cowboy76Spain]

Probably the have a warning in the EULA that if you sign in, you agree to the sharing of data.

The distintion is that, AFAIK, they do not even have to warn you before sharing the data.

Also, they probably will have to secure that data, know to which they sell it and what they want to do with it, and also ask the third party to equally ensure the data (maybe even forbidding the third party to reselling the data to another party).

Not "the solution of all troubles", but probably an improvement.

Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we PLEASE stop talking about Google as if they did something wrong? I don't exactly blame my neighbors for hearing me when I stand on the top of my house screaming my personal information in all directions.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

What Google did amounts to wiretapping. Period. They eavesdropped and recorded "conversations" carried out over FCC regulated airwaves. There is no difference between what they did and placing a tap on your phone line and recording bits of your conversation.

Wiretapping laws don't require your "conversations" to be encrypted, so don't bother wasting your energy ranting about Wi-Fi encryption.

You government shills... easy to spot a mile a way...

Re:Google's Troubles

[vux984]

Can we PLEASE stop talking about Google as if they did something wrong? I don't exactly blame my neighbors for hearing me when I stand on the top of my house screaming my personal information in all directions.

I don't blame the people at the next table when they overhear my conversation either. But they aren't deliberately listening in, recording it, transcribing it, and publishing it on the web.

And they aren't following me from restaurant to restaurant recording my conversations at each, and adding them to the web, all linked together.

They aren't writing down what I'm wearing at each meal, and then analyzing it to determine colour preferences, brand preferences, income level, social standing, peer group, etc. And then selling this information...

Likewise you don't really care that your neighbors can see and hear you outside. But you'd probably object if your neighbor started keeping "files" on you, recording your comings and goings, writing down what you are wearing, producing transcripts of everything they see and hear...while watching your home with binoculars and cameras... and then publishing and selling it all on the web.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Hatta]

Exactly which wire did Google tap?

Re:Google's Troubles

[ThunderBird89]

What those people did amounts to criminal stupidity. Period.

Fixed the typo for you, no need to thank me.

First off, I'm from Hungary, so I don't need you flinging the "government shills" crap towards me, the US government can go rot in Hades for all I care.

I don't know much about US wiretapping laws either, not being even a paralegal, but consider this: it's called wiretapping for a reason. Wired conversations go between two discrete parties, so to eavesdrop, you need to break in at one point onto private property. Wi-Fi is a point-to-multipoint protocol, it's the equivalent of standing on your rooftop and screaming out your info for the world to hear, like grandparent said. I can walk by your house, and get it without breaking any laws, unless you suddenly want to control what I'm allowed to hear. If I went ahead, and installed a secret microphone to listen in on what you whisper to your friend in your living room, not that is wiretapping!

Learn to encrypt the network, otherwise people will just surf on it, "since it's there". You know, like why Hillary climbed Mount Everest.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

But they aren't deliberately listening in, recording it, transcribing it, and publishing it on the web.

And they aren't following me from restaurant to restaurant recording my conversations at each, and adding them to the web, all linked together.

They aren't writing down what I'm wearing at each meal, and then analyzing it to determine colour preferences, brand preferences, income level, social standing, peer group, etc. And then selling this information...

Likewise you don't really care that your neighbors can see and hear you outside. But you'd probably object if your neighbor started keeping "files" on you, recording your comings and goings, writing down what you are wearing, producing transcripts of everything they see and hear...while watching your home with binoculars and cameras... and then publishing and selling it all on the web.

... how do you know?

I mean, when's the last time you checked?

Re:Google's Troubles

[slimjim8094]

Unless you're suggesting that Google is selling their accidentally-collected WiFI data, you're conflating two *completely* different issues.

Re:Google's Troubles

[causality]

Can we PLEASE stop talking about Google as if they did something wrong? I don't exactly blame my neighbors for hearing me when I stand on the top of my house screaming my personal information in all directions.

I don't blame the people at the next table when they overhear my conversation either. But they aren't deliberately listening in, recording it, transcribing it, and publishing it on the web.

And they aren't following me from restaurant to restaurant recording my conversations at each, and adding them to the web, all linked together.

They aren't writing down what I'm wearing at each meal, and then analyzing it to determine colour preferences, brand preferences, income level, social standing, peer group, etc. And then selling this information...

Likewise you don't really care that your neighbors can see and hear you outside. But you'd probably object if your neighbor started keeping "files" on you, recording your comings and goings, writing down what you are wearing, producing transcripts of everything they see and hear...while watching your home with binoculars and cameras... and then publishing and selling it all on the web.

I admire your grasp of the facts and your (quite accurate) assessment of the situation.

The problem is bigger than a matter of information. This is a religious cause for the Google apologists, unfortunately. They decide ahead of time that what Google did is acceptable. They then reject any information that would contradict this conclusion.

You are quite right that GP would almost certainly object to a neighbor who collects this level of information about him. He'd find that disturbing, violating, and downright creepy, the kind of behavior in which a stalker would engage. But he thinks it's perfectly acceptable when Google collects that much information. And doesn't see the contradiction.

I suppose it's because a neighbor wouldn't do it for purposes of advertising revenue and would likely have a harmful, evil intention while Google does it solely to enhance its services and increase its revenues. The problem that religious apologists have is simple. They think the purpose for which the information is collected somehow changes the fact that the act of collecting the information, in and of itself, is a violation. That's the hinge of this issue, the important part that the apologists are eager to gloss over and perform mental gymnastics in order to dismiss.

That's what yields the following results: "Corporation doing X == good, individual doing X == bad".

Re:Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to imply that cell-phone communications are not also covered by current wiretapping laws? Dur?

Re:Google's Troubles

[Intron]

unless you are famous. Then paparazzi do all of those things. I imagine that's why celebrities occasionally gog berserk and punch somebody.

Re:Google's Troubles

[LordLucless]

None of which is relevant to what the OP is talking about, which is the data received from insecure Wi-Fi APs, not Google's cookies online. They weren't deliberately listening in, as much as they were listening to everything. You can argue they recorded it, but that's because computer's cannot listen without recording it in some fashion.

They definitely didn't follow people around, they didn't upload them to the web, they didn't analyze the data, and they didn't sell it. They deleted it. Hell, they would have preferred deleting it, instead of handing it over to the government, when they found the data they had and told people about it off their own bat.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they "wiretapped" me the same way I "wiretap" the truckers going by on the highway yacking it up with 1000W on CB channel 19.

Try again.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you understand what the word shill means?

Are you seriously alleging that the GP works for the government and has been paid to post about Google online? If you honestly thing that is the most likely scenario, then I suggest that you re-consider your world view since it is on the wrong side of tin foil hat wearing.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Charliemopps]

If my neighbors gave me have the shit Google does for free, they could write down all they want.

The government on the other hand, takes 30% of my pay, charges be an extra 6% on everything I buy, is recording FAR FAR more personal data about me than Google could ever dream, and most importantly has a long and storied history of arresting, imprisoning, torture and lets not forget executing people it deems criminals or enemy combatants.

The result of Google collecting data on me? Free email and long distance calls with the downside of targeted adds.
The result of the Government collecting data on me? Nothing good, but the possibility of discrimination, arrest, imprisonment and death.

If I need a "bill of rights" to protect me from something, lets start with the thing that could possibly KILL me before we worry about target advertising.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Hatta]

Are you trying to suggest that FM Radio would be covered by current wiretapping law? I mean, it's a "conversation" carried out over FCC regulated airwaves, right? No, clearly wired telephones, cellular telephones, Wifi communications, and radio are all significantly different, and are treated such by law.

Let's look at USC CHAPTER 119 "Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications". Section 2155 2(g) reads in part:

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any personâ"
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

So, have you encrypted your router? No? Then your electronic communication system is configured so that your electronic communications are readily accessible to the general public. Therefore, you get no protection under federal wiretap law. QED

P.S. Dur.

Re:Google's Troubles

[ThunderBird89]

You are quite right that GP would almost certainly object to a neighbor who collects this level of information about him. He'd find that disturbing, violating, and downright creepy, the kind of behavior in which a stalker would engage. But he thinks it's perfectly acceptable when Google collects that much information. And doesn't see the contradiction.

Well, one of the reasons I'm okay with Google collecting all that info about my online activity is that unlike my creepy stalker neighbor, Google won't be coming at me with sharp implements any time soon.

The other is that I really don't see how knowing what I look at one the web can harm me. I mean, it's irrelevant to my career that I read and post on Slashdot, that I read Hackaday, along with diplomacia.hu (university major's homepage), and the EU news site, or that I like to go on wiki walks to expand my knowledge. If anything, this is a plus to future employers, since it shows I'm a man of varied interests, who may be called upon to fulfill several roles (say, as the technician of an embassy and the ambassador himself, as it's one less person to pay and get the consent of the hosting state, while the secret service may employ me as a plausibly deniable source of information if I hack together a listening scope for them, since they honestly had nothing to do with that. "Electronics is simply a hobby for me, that can be turned to useful ends".).

Re:Google's Troubles

[vux984]

If my neighbors gave me have the shit Google does for free, they could write down all they want.

The difference being that you are assuming you actually have a choice. I don't think they should have the right to record you by default, but if you want them do... that's entirely up to you.

The result of Google collecting data on me? Free email and long distance calls with the downside of targeted adds.

What about these downsides... ... the possibility of discrimination, arrest, imprisonment and death.

I mean, why exactly do you think the government won't be allowed to snoop through google's notes on you when they feel like trumping up some "discrimination, arrest, imprisonment, and death"?

It doesn't really matter who collects the data. Once its collected; people you don't want looking at it are going to be looking at it.

Better that it not be collected in the first place.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

cell-phone communications are encrypted

Re:Google's Troubles

[Hatta]

When has Google followed anyone anywhere? Google drove down the street recording everything it could hear. This is perfectly legal for an individual to do, and it should be equally legal for a corporation to do.

If we're still talking about the wifi interception, it is absolutely not an accurate assessment to compare it to stalking/harassment.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Teun]

Exactly, plus it was due to the drive-by method just a snapshot, not a trail of your communication habits.

And whether you like it or not this is data transmitted on public waves, similar to an audible conversation in the middle of the mall.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Elbereth]

Google is like the socially retarded neighbor who hires a private investigator to fully investigate you, to find out what the best housewarming gift would be. You might be a slight bit conflicted as to how to feel, given the circumstances. It's definitely creepy, but one could conceivably argue that it's done to give you a better experience. I'm not sure I buy that, but I'm trying to be open-minded.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

HahahahahahahahhaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah right you're not a shill... You typo "fixed" Google to "those people" and wiretapping to "criminal stupidity". You also brought up what I specifically told you not as a defense. Good job Timmy.

Just to educate you, Wi-Fi is not a protocol. TCP/IP is point to point, as in your IP is your point of origin, and the destination IP is fucking end-point. There are multicast protocols, but holy fuck are you expressing some serious ignorance of the The Way Things Work[TM].

Granted all cellular traffic passes through some physical wires at some point, you can still eavesdrop on wireless connections. The laws take this into consideration...

These laws don't require me to speak gibberish on my cell phone to be protected from wiretapping. These laws don't require my celluar phone to be connected to a physical wire (see that, I can use strong tags too!) to be protected from wiretapping.

Now that you used the defense I forewarned you doesn't work, and argued semantics... what else do you have up your sleeves?

Re:Google's Troubles

[Em Adespoton]

What Google did amounts to wiretapping. Period.

As someone else wrote, exactly which wire did Google tap?

They eavesdropped and recorded "conversations"

Really? Eavesdropping involves targeted listening aimed at a specific person over a period of time... Google just drove down the street recording whatever was sent their way.

carried out over FCC regulated airwaves.

I think you'll find that WiFi operates on the UNregulated bands. If Google had been doing this on cellular wavelengths, or microwave transition bands, or even UHF or VHF or AM or FM, you might have a point.

There is no difference between what they did and placing a tap on your phone line and recording bits of your conversation.

...except for everything stated above. They didn't target an individual, they didn't trespass on private property, they didn't interfere with a federal mandate. They just listened and indiscriminately recorded the data (kind of like what they do with web pages).

Wiretapping laws don't require your "conversations" to be encrypted, so don't bother wasting your energy ranting about Wi-Fi encryption.

Hate speech laws don't require your "conversations" to be encrypted either, and Google didn't break these laws either. What's your point here exactly?

You government shills... easy to spot a mile a way...

Yup. Despite the fact that in my country, I vote for my local representative based on his platform for what he's going to do for his local constituents. The only interest I have in US politics is in how it affects the rest of the world -- and how its politicians often jump to false conclusions (based on public/corporate support and lobbying) and then act in ways that go on to impact the rest of the world.

Here's a hint: most government shills would not be attempting to sway public opinion in this way; they'd be busy trying to sway corporate opinion.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Em Adespoton]

I'd say it's more like the university professor who walks around through his entire day wearing microphones and video cameras, and stores all data he gets in a central database he and his acquaintances can search and review whenever they want to.

The problem here is that some people are looking at this as if it is centered around some mythical "individual" -- instead, Google is just storing a bunch of public information in one big database. Not only that, but when they discover they've stored some data that might make some people uncomfortable, they remove it from said database. That's more like me taking video of my kids at a public park, only to later realise that in some of the footage I also caught some neighbour on video walking around naked in their house with the blinds open. Like Google, I'd probably toss that as soon as I discovered it and keep the stuff I was actually interested in.

Re:Google's Troubles

[hedwards]

None. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction, at least in the US, that is that literal about it. Typically if you record a conversation that's a wiretap, if you do it with a tape recorder or you do it over the phone it's equally wiretapping. The problem is that since the Google van wasn't a party to those transmissions no state allows that without an appropriate court order. Around here we're a one party consent state, but since the one party has to actually be involved with the conversation, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they did that here.

And when it comes down to it, it's been a really long time since they had to literally tap the wire to listen in, all ISPs and telecoms have some provision for doing it without having to screw around with wires.

Re:Google's Troubles

[hedwards]

So, how much is it worth for them to not let your home burn down, investigate and prosecute anybody that might rob you? Or how about what is it worth to have streets for the ambulances to travel on in case you actually need emergency assistance?

I hear a lot of whining from the anti-tax people about how the government is taking my money and giving nothing in return, but would you really be that better off without the taxes and the things that taxes provide? Money, despite popular belief, is just money. Precisely how much good do you think that money is doing for the individuals who are now lucky to just be homeless in Japan right now? Rather than one of the as yet discovered bodies.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

"I mean, why exactly do you think the government won't be allowed to snoop through google's notes on you when they feel like trumping up some "discrimination, arrest, imprisonment, and death"?"

Good grief, You prove yourself an idiot soon as you start making out like the Gov't would ever do anything wrong. Governments are here to HELP us, Governments only exist to help the people. It is their sole purpose in being! You've watched/read too much dystopian science fiction. It's called FICTION for a reason. Govt's = The good guy. People who oppose limit or hinder govt's = The bad GUYS!!!!

Re:Google's Troubles

[LordLimecat]

But they aren't deliberately listening in, recording it, transcribing it, and publishing it on the web.

Err.. care to explain when and where exactly they published it?

Re:Google's Troubles

[LordLimecat]

This is a religious cause for the Google apologists, unfortunately.

This is an important fight rather for the people who have decided ahead of time that no matter WHAT the actual story or facts of the situation are, Slashdot will make as inflammatory a summary as possible if corporations or government are involved, and then 80% of posts will be about how said subject wants to murder babies.

So forgive me if my initial reflex on reading a summary such as "Google to break into your house and steal your file cabinets" is to think "gee, I wonder just how different the reality of the situation is".

Re:Google's Troubles

[LordLimecat]

I don't think they should have the right to record you by default, but if you want them do... that's entirely up to you.

This should be one of the first things they teach people before they get on the web. Dont like what a website operator (google) is doing? STOP VISITING THEIR SITE. The internet isnt a democracy; each site is its own monarchy, and if you dont like it you can leave.

Re:Google's Troubles

[TheGratefulNet]

so, its ok if they travel your neighborhood for short durations?

how about if they park in front of your house for an hour? or 6?

so, you don't like that but you are ok with them doing a 'drive by' snoop on you.

as the old joke goes, "we already established, madam, what you are; its only a question of amount, at this point."

think about it. if you are ok with the 'public space' argument then you must be ok with them making a 6 hour wire/air tapping experiment in front of your house. only on public streets, of course, but they will stay there recording all wireless in your neighborhood, your house included.

you like that?

people need to THINK and not just spout out this 'its public space!' bullshit. think, people. privacy DOES matter. let this go and the next one is easier to take from you.

Re:Google's Troubles

[BillX]

Not to shit on your point too much (civilians intercepting your -encrypted- cellphone chat still tickles 'wiretapping' laws in most states), but since when does the protocol have anything to do with whether or not your communications can be heard by the general public? If you stand on your rooftop and yell "Hey Bob! Blah blah blah", do people not named Bob hear nothing?

Re:Google's Troubles

[BillX]

<devil's advocate> It's not as simple as that. Some 70% of commercial 3rd-party sites now include some kind of Google-hosted advertising (including recently-acquired Doubleclick).

Re:Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

I never knew private investigators were illegal. As far as I knew (and it may be different in your country) there isn't a implication of privacy along with anything done in public.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Charliemopps]

and with 3 clicks in fireflox or chrome and its gone. So yes, it's that simple.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government has "a long and storied history" of arresting, imprisoning, torturing and executing "people it deems criminals or enemy combatants", does it?

If you actually believe this, your idea of what a horrible and despotic government looks like is so pitifully miscalibrated it's not funny.

If the US were as bad as your choice of words so clearly indicates, do you think that the administration responsible for creating "enemy combatants" and torturing them would have been damned to hell by history almost before it left office? As for the implication that the US sends goons around randomly abducting, torturing and murdering innocent people like Stalin's NKVD, I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

It's over the top hyperbolic nonsense like this that makes it impossible to take certain aspects of America's left seriously.

Re:Google's Troubles

[vux984]

each site is its own monarchy, and if you dont like it you can leave.

Just like each store and restaurant is its own monarchy... that can do whatever it wants to you the minute you set foot in the door... ? Hmm... we seem to have created all sorts of rules for accessibility, for consumer protection, and so forth... why should a website be any different?

Secondly, a site like google has its fingers in 70%+ of the advertising on the web. If you don't want to interact with google, you might as well cancel your internet access. Or... we could ensure there are rules in place limiting what google can do to what we as a society are ok with.

Re:Google's Troubles

[mickwd]

"If my neighbors gave me have the shit Google does for free, they could write down all they want."

Think what you like about that Mr Hitler, but I won't hear a bad word said about someone who can make the trains run on time.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

> Can we PLEASE stop talking about Google as if they did something wrong?

No, we can not. And even if it was not illegal for you to eavesdrop on your neighbor, the scale they implemented it at sure is.

Here's a few other examples for you:
- They didn't listen in on a single conversation, they recorded the whole frigging city. In fact, several cities all over.
- They didn't nick an apple from the neighbor's tree, they cleaned out the whole garden.
- They didn't accidentally kill a man, they committed planned mass murder.

Feel free to add a car analogy if you like.

Re:Google's Troubles

[L4t3r4lu5]

Not at all. Google Analytics does exactly what the parent posted. This is why that service is blacklisted at the router in my home.

Re:Google's Troubles

[CrimsonAvenger]

Think what you like about that Mr Hitler, but I won't hear a bad word said about someone who can make the trains run on time.

That was Mussolini.

Re:Google's Troubles

[LordLimecat]

Are you seriously trying to argue that Internet is now a human right?

Lets look at your real world analogy. Can a shop ask you to pay $30000 for a steak? Why yes, actually, they are permitted to do so. What about say "the price for this lobster is to see your 2008 tax return"? Im fairly certain they could, if the prices were advertised clearly. Can they refuse to serve you (as long as you cant prove racial / religious / disability discrimination)? Video tape you as you enter the store with notice? Yes, and yes.

Why do you want to treat google different? Every one of their pages has their privacy policy listed. They for many of their products allow you to delete the data they have gathered. And the information they gather is generally not even all that private. Why can they not monitor who enters their site? Why are existing laws not sufficient for internet businesses?

Re:Google's Troubles

[vux984]

Every one of their pages has their privacy policy listed.

And you've read them all?

I don't need to read a contract every time I enter a store. I shouldn't need to read one every time I visit a website.

There should be standard minimum defaults and norms in place that the public can rely on without reading a sites terms and conditions.

Every one of their pages has their privacy policy listed.

Google can track you without ever visiting one of their sites. Millions of sites have google ads on them. Millions more use google analytics. Every time someone with a gmail acount sends you an email google has a copy.

Google can collect a fantastic amount of data on me without me ever directly visiting a google domain.

Why can they not monitor who enters their site?

1) I'm not actually entering their site.

2) Why can we not put reasonable limits on what they monitor. I'd be pretty creeped out if a store fingerprinted people when they walked in.. (of course they don't tell you they do it, they just lift a print off something you touched, and store it in a database with the security camera footage... but don't worry they disclose it on a notice in 8 point font taped to the back of a filing cabinet in the basement in a language that resembles but is almost entirely not english.

Why are existing laws not sufficient for internet businesses?

Its nothing to do with the internet specifically. We need laws period that define the limits of electronic surveillance, monitoring, and tracking that would apply to both the real world and online.

Up until now, its been limited by technology, but the potential for monitoring and surveillance in the real world is getting just as invasive.

Re:Google's Troubles

[Anonymous Coward]

If my neighbors gave me have the shit Google does for free, they could write down all they want.

Speak for yourself, man. Speak for yourself.

Re:Google's Troubles

[LordLimecat]

It is not a human right to be able to visit any and every site on the web on their own terms.

Google can track you without ever visiting one of their sites. Millions of sites have google ads on them. Millions more use google analytics

THEN DONT VISIT THOSE SITES!!!
Perhaps Giant Foods (grocery store) sources its beef from a farm that contributes to political causes you object to. Dont like it? Dont shop at Giant foods! If they start getting hit hard enough, they will change their practices; but in the mean time it is THEIR store. You dont have some innate right to view their content; stop pretending you do.

Re:Google's Troubles

[vux984]

Perhaps giant food stores sources its beef from a farm that feeds them rotting rat meat.

I could simply stop shopping there until they take the hint and source beef somewhere else... but then they fix that and I find out the peanut butter if 50% rat shit... and I'm back to boycotting them again... or since society has a whole doesn't like this, we could pass regulations that dictate certain minimum standards of conduct, safety, consumer protection, health, quality, and other standards that must be adhered to.

This is no different.

I'd rather have cleanliness standards than wait for the free market to put shit hole restaurants out of business.

And I'd rather have monitoring standards in place so I don't have to have a lawyer read the terms and conditions on every web site I click on.

Re:Google's Troubles

[ThunderBird89]

Just to educate you, Wi-Fi is not a protocol. TCP/IP is point to point, as in your IP is your point of origin, and the destination IP is fucking end-point. There are multicast protocols, but holy fuck are you expressing some serious ignorance of the The Way Things Work[TM].

I know Wi-Fi is not a protocol per se. What I wanted to get across was an analogy: if we take wired conversations as a point-to-point protocol, Wi-Fi would be the equivalent of a point-to-multipoint, mercilessly exploited by WLAN cards in promiscuous mode to capture everything in the air, not just traffic intended for them. To include #35512188's analogy, with you shouting to Bob, everyone hears it (point-to-multipoint), but Joe and Barack think "Oh, that's for Bob. I'm not interested then...". See my point?

Man, it's no fun when your opponent cannot be bothered to make a leap of thought/too much of an anal retentive to understand an analogy...

Also, GSM traffic is encrypted by default, at the protocol level. Granted, that encryption is not something you'd trust state secrets with, but it's encryption, therefore that conversation is obviously private, and protected. Show me the protocol-level encryption on TCP/IP, that's on regardless of your router's settings, and indicates that the conversation taking place is private!

Re:Google's Troubles

[LordLimecat]

We already HAVE laws about this, isnt that why privacy policies are listed? Now you want more laws because people couldnt be bothered enough to read the privacy policies, and you think it will do .... what exactly? Pop up ANOTHER box that people wont read because they DONT CARE?

Look, if people are really concerned about this, it isnt hard: 3 clicks in ANY browser out there-- and 0 in Lynx, it asks by default-- and you will never be bothered by cookies again. This is not a problem that needs to be solved by legislation; if people care, they can fix it with the most trivial of efforts.

Re:Google's Troubles

[ffflala]

I think the death penalty is wrong, and should end. But your reasoning on this point bothers me. Show me to the person who has been executed in the US who did not him/herself execute at least one other person. If the result of the government collecting data on you is imprisonment or death, and you've been killing people, fuck you.

Re:Google's Troubles

[vux984]

cookies...

1) But I have nothing against cookies themselves, and I want to be able to use them to keep settings on various sites, to allow session state, and a variety of other things. The technology isn't the problem.

2) Browser fingerprinting is reliable enough that even with cookies off people who want to track you can.

We already HAVE laws about this, isnt that why privacy policies are listed?

And the laws I want passed are to set a minimum threshold of rights that you can't sign away by clicking a box or disclaiming it in a fine print privacy policy.

Re:Google's Troubles

[causality]

Well, one of the reasons I'm okay with Google collecting all that info about my online activity is that unlike my creepy stalker neighbor, Google won't be coming at me with sharp implements any time soon.

For the purpose of making a point, you hypothetically mention direct, grevious harm to your person. Is that what has to be in question for you to value privacy? Nothing short of that would get you to value privacy for its own sake and not merely to protect against some immediate physical threat?

The other is that I really don't see how knowing what I look at one the web can harm me.

If you would forgive a really crude analogy... apologies in advance...

I really don't see how it would harm you for all of your neighbors to know how often you have sex, with whom, and what positions you like to use. Except that it's not their business. I don't know, maybe you are unusually "open" about your sex life, but I am guessing that if a stranger asked you these things, you'd tell them it's not their concern. Maybe you'd be less courteous than that.

With Google, it's not so much that I think they will perform some bodily injury against me by gathering my Web usage data. It's that what I read and write isn't their business. That's the minor part of it.

The major part of it is that they don't want to take "no" for an answer. I have to go to some trouble to keep Google out of my browsing. They are pushy about it. It requires active effort on my part to avoid their snooping. Not only is it not their business, but they are also trying to insist that they are entitled to this information. I disagree and I prove them wrong. If Google's tracking were strictly opt-in and required my unambiguous consent to a clearly spelled-out agreement, I'd have no problem with their practices. But it is very much opt-out and there is no easy way to opt out. That's because they do not respect my wishes. To them, I am just a form of livestock for them to harvest at will.

Maybe you don't mind being treated that way. I do. Perhaps your concept of human dignity does not include any notions of consent, of the wrongness of involuntary participation. Mine does. I refuse to go along with it.

You see, whether the data they collect is harmless or not never has to enter the picture. The very act of collecting it is a violation. If the data could be misused in a harmful way, that would be a second, parallel issue.

The 2012 campaign has begun

[Anonymous Coward]

Woop. If Obama spent less time sucking up to activists instead of balancing the budget, fixing the economy, he might have a chance in hell of getting a second term.

Monopoly

[Ezel]

What he really means is that he is tired of the competition and wants monopoly on the snooping business.

Nobody else should have to much knowledge except Big Brother himself.

why not voluntarily disarm US & our allies?

[Anonymous Coward]

then we could work on living? privacy for ALL might work? fewer 'secrets'? whatever. even more fauxking 'legislation'.

ALL MOMMYS....

Wait, what?

[pyalot]

So first they back ideas to introduce total internet data retention, surveillance, tracking and killswitch control in order to fight pirates. Then they back ideas about better privacy? What sort of morons make decisions in the white house?

Re:Wait, what?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

What sort of morons make decisions in the white house?

Sneaky ones. The proposed new "Privacy Act" will dictate how private industry will keep information gathered on individuals. Just like the Data Privacy Act of 1974 does for the government. I do not believe this prevents the government from requiring ISPs from keeping data logs on its users, since they can create exceptions for ISPs by classifying them as similar to traditional common carrier status and not commerce. Better yet, they can make all the exceptions necessary in this new law to make their copyright enforcement law legal.

This way the populace will read headlines like "Privacy Bill of Rights", and think happy thoughts while the devil remains in the details within the bill. Isn't this how it normally works anyway? Compare some of the title of bills introduced in congress with its contents.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What sort of morons make decisions in the white house?

"Obama Calls For New Privacy Bill of Rights"

Flash Cookies

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they do something about Flash Cookies? That are deliberately hidden? That most people don't even know exist? That are used to reload regular cookies (that people deleted)?

(Yes, as a slashdot reader, I personally know how to deal with them. But I'm talking about the large scale problem.)

Re:Flash Cookies

[Anonymous Coward]

ln -s /dev/null ~/.adobe/Flash_Player
ln -s /dev/null ~/.macromedia/Flash_Player

Re:Flash Cookies

[Anonymous Coward]

And for those that aren't using a unix based OS?

Re:Flash Cookies

[Anonymous Coward]

Install a Unix based OS and then follow the given instructions.

Re:Flash Cookies

[Teun]

They got what they paid for?

Not much need for change...

[binaryseraph]

Quite frankly, if you don't want the information shared- you shouldn't put it out there to begin with. Facebook should be able to sell of any data it wishes provided users know they are giving up that information freely. If they don't read the TOS the fault should be on them.

Re:Not much need for change...

[hairyfeet]

And what if the TOS is buried in a filing cabinet in the basement behind the door of an unused lavatory with "beware of the leopard" on it? I'd agree with you if the TOS were required to use plain language but instead they are nearly always written in such legalese bullshit you'd need to hire a contract lawyer just to translate the stupid thing.

Now if you want to pass a law that the TOS only counts if it falls under the "reasonable person" rule, that is that a reasonable person with an average HS education can read it and make heads or tails of it then I agree it is buyer beware, but most of the things have so much legalese bullshit you'd need a paddle-boat to cut through the muck.

Re:Not much need for change...

[hedwards]

I've noticed that, contracts are presumed to have been agreed to upon informed consent. But, I don't personally have the money to have an attorney on retainer to have them research each EULA, ToS or other contract I might need to agree to. It's gotten to the point where it's completely unrealistic for anybody that isn't an attorney to agree to these things because they regularly include language in it that would require access to a law library to have even a cursory understanding of the language.

Somebody forgot...

[tm2b]

Somebody forgot to check in with his corporate masters...

Re:First

[taktoa]

BTW, for the eventual MichaelKristopeitn post, use this as ammunition: http://www.kristopeit.com/person.php?person_id=207

SSN national identifier or password to finances

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now our Social Security Numbers act as an identifier and a unchangeable password. I wish that somebody would address this data issue.

sure! it will fix it

[Anonymous Coward]

just like CAN-SPAM act fixed the email spam problem, this law is going to fix data privacy problem, sure :) Govt. can fix everything!!
This is just an attempt to legalize data collection over online users so businesses and govt.agencies can mine data and pretend to be in a prescribed legal limits and accept no ethical blame.

Paging Mr. Zuckerberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Zukerberg, please pick up the white courtesy phone. Your campaign contributions are needed urgently. Oh, thank-you Mr. Zuckerberg. We'll see to it that this dies in committee.

Dang

[overshoot]

For a moment there I thought someone had gotten to him and we were going to have the Fourth Amendment back again.

What is missing...

[Anonymous Coward]

With what the teachers have not been teaching (real history, real thinking, real math and real citizenship), I find it very understandable, that, considering how many voted for Obama, having NO IDEA WHAT HE STANDS FOR AND BELIEVES...

There would be a lot of people out there, that feel privacy has no meaning to our lives...

The best description for them 'Eloi' for lack of a better name... .With the one's they 'feel good about' being Morlock...

(Look up "The Time Machine" by H.G.Wells, if you fail to know of which I write)

There is no 'Utopia' (if you do not understand basically why... Look Up What "Utopia" means...)

This country is losing its future to Morlocks that teach, lead our government, and are being influenced by money not from this land.

If we stand for losing what little 'privacy' we have left... Remember, The Eloi were food for the ones in charge..

Obamanos!!

[Cajun Hell]

the White House wants Congress to enact legislation offering 'baseline consumer data privacy protections.'

Wait a minute .. isn't this the same guy who, when he was a Senator, voted for the bill to give AT&T retroactive immunity to their illegal wiretaps?

I guess it just goes to show, in 2008 Obama was just another politician, as corrupt and ineffective as anyone else, but now in 2011 he's become an idealist, finally offering the hope and change that just three years ago, nobody could credibly believe in.

Response to Wikileaks

[Puzzles]

I'm no lawyer or politician, but could this perhaps be legislation made in response to the recent Wikileaks fiasco?

Re:Response to Wikileaks

[AlamedaStone]

I'm no lawyer or politician, but could this perhaps be legislation made in response to the recent Wikileaks fiasco?

That's right where my mind went, too. It sounds like a sugar coating for a clamp down on whistleblowers. I guess if congress passes it we're right, because I can't imagine the Rs getting on board with something like this otherwise.

why they're mad

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not mad because Google collected a bunch of wi-fi data. They're mad because Google didn't share it with them. They want to pass new regulation, new "oversight," ie... the next time this happens the government will get their grubby little hands all over the data.

Ditto with facebook.

"We need to see your data so, uh... we know what you're collecting. We're protecting privacy! Yeah, that's it. Privacy."

Re:why they're mad

[TheGratefulNet]

the government wants 'in' when they say its important. you make a change in your network and don't tell them or give them access? that's a jailin'.

this exists in some contexts; but I see the trend where home users will have to have registered access info with 'the government'.

this is the next world war; the war from governments to their own people; all countries have an 'interest' in spying on their own people. more of an ideological war and not a weapon (such as guns) war. but a push-back from the people to those who would data-rape us and not even think twice about it.

and like the 'war on terror' (that will never be won), this world war 3 will continue to exist between people and their controlling governments. you won't get them to agree NOT to spy on us. they all love this shit and won't ever give it up, willingly. only a revolution will cause a re-write of all the crap they put in our law base. the continual adding of junk only makes the matter worse. how about we age out most of the laws and then have them re-justify themselves before a non-government citizen panel, as a check/balance? think that will happen? ha!

laws

[Anonymous Coward]

wow they are going to write a law showing you just how much privacy you don't have... anymore

thanks obama! Go play some more golf we got this anyway

Too narrow a target

[Anonymous Coward]

aimed at protecting consumers against indiscriminate online tracking and data collection by advertisers

This does not protect you against the government or against its contractors (Aaron Barr et al.)

isn't privacy about consideration, good manners

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, provided one is 'living' indoors. even outdoors, we've been told that unwarranted staring, or being nosy in general, is impolite, at best. when we are confronted with eol issues, privacy becomes....us

Fuck that, how about privacy from the IRS

[argoff]

The number one violator of privacy is the federal government. On the internet, on the phone, with out passports, with TSA, even on our drivers licenses they're just non stop. How about not having to tell the IRS my bank account, my income, or every transaction over 10000, since when was anything like that any of their freaking business.

Re:Fuck that, how about privacy from the IRS

[hedwards]

Since they gained the authority to tax. If you don't like it you're free to move to another country, but somebody has to pay for the things the government supplies. And since conservatives know basically nothing about balancing the budget the amount of taxes is much higher than it otherwise would be. But there are other countries with lower taxes, I just doubt very much that you'd want to live in those sorts of places.

Bill of Rights which applies to whom?

[ScooterComputer]

Anybody else bothered by the fact that a Constitutional Scholar who has ascended to President seems to have a fairly layman's concept of what the Bill of Rights does? I mean, the Bill of Rights applies to the GOVERNMENT, enumerated specific rights that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe upon. However, TFA seems to insinuate that Obama is expecting this new "Bill of Rights" to be applicable to corporations, even other individuals.

Isn't the concept of what rights are and what the Government can/can't do a distinction that a Constitutional Scholar would not be so haphazard in conflating? It seems to me that a programmer wouldn't go around talking about "refactoring" in regards to bringing manufacturing back to town.

Re:Bill of Rights which applies to whom?

[ThunderBird89]

Repeat after me: colloquialism. I'm sure they already have a proper, legal name for it, it's just much easier to call it this.

Re:Bill of Rights which applies to whom?

[Em Adespoton]

Actually, this raises an interesting point... in my opinion, corporations are extensions of the government; they wouldn't exist if government didn't say they could. Corporations are protection rackets allowed by the government in exchange for taxes and other financial support. Without the government protection, businesses would not be able to incorporate, but instead would still hold all employees liable for their actions.

Based on this argument, it should be possible for government to add extra limitations to the laws of incorporation saying that in exchange for limited liability, they are responsible to uphold a certain level of privacy standards on all personally identifiable information they collect and store.

The problem here is that in the US, incorporating is a license given to a business by the state, not the nation. I don't really see how the federal government can uphold such laws under the federal constitution; one or the other would have to be modified, requiring the agreement of all the state legislatures to make the changes.

Re:Bill of Rights which applies to whom?

[hedwards]

To be honest, it would probably bother me a lot more if the court that's responsible for making such determinations had some clue as to what the constitution is and what it says. Some of the rulings over the last decade in particular have been pretty mind blowingly stupid.

Re:Bill of Rights which applies to whom?

[TheGratefulNet]

don't confuse obama with an idiot. he full well knows what the hell he's doing.

bush, well, he was a bumbling fool but still had expert advisors. an idiot but mostly a figure head idiot (still, he picked people from his POV and that was pretty bad).

obama is not an idiot. that makes it even sadder that he scams us like this.

I really don't believe it matters who is in office. its not the person anymore; its whichever extreme happens to govern at the time. really, just like every other country, isn't it? who can say their country has had just and wise and caring rulers. who can say that? its just about large countries and how our idea of control and policing just does not scale to a 'connected world' this big. its old-school ideas that don't apply well anymore. an outdated business model, if you will.

the current power brokers are conservative. obama cannot totally fight this; and so I think he just simply joined them. he lives well and so it was the right choice for him..

whichever wave has control, has control. its not about one man anymore. and yes, its pretty broken and continuing just on inertia, alone.

Protect us for YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not companies we need protection from. If Target tracks my buying habits the worst that can happen to me is they screw it up and offer me coupons for feminine hygiene products (I'm male, though when my daughters were still living with me, that might have come in handy).

I'm not afraid of Target violating my privacy Mr. President. I'm afraid of YOU and your ilk listening in on my phone calls, reading my emails, tracking my web surfing, peering into my bank account and groping me and irradiating me every time I want to visit my sister or brother.

So do us all a favor and can the consumer protection, read the 1st and 4th amendments again and see what you can do about giving me back the REAL rights I've lost instead falsely bolstering my imaginary right to "Privacy".

Re:Protect us for YOU

[GodfatherofSoul]

I disagree STRONGLY. Part of what the government has started to do to get around federal laws against data aggregation is to license access databases run by private entities. It's effectively the same thing, but legally not.

The worst thing that a private company can do to you? Surrender ALL of your records, communications, and travel history to the federal government the instant you are merely accused of a crime.

Facebook lobbyists begin to scramble...

[clapsaddle]

By god, Zuckerberg ain't gonna like this. Your privacy is his billions!

Now we don't have to tell THEM anything?! :-)

[DavidinAla]

So if the federal government is now in favor of us having the right to control our privacy, I guess this means they'll stop threatening to throw us into jail when we don't tell them our business, huh? ;-)

privacy rights coming from a government that

[FudRucker]

spies on more people and collects more personal information than any other organization in the world.

yeah ... right, like i am supposed to believe that...

seriously?

[grapeape]

He's joking right? The day after expanding copyright "reform" and weeks after renewing the patriot act...fuck you obama change my ass

Ready... Race!

[Bob9113]

OK, so today the White House announced its support for two new laws. One protects citizens from predatory trade practices, the other extends the fiat monopoly powers of a corporate lobbying group. Seems like a fine opportunity for a free market and representative democracy shootout.

1. Which one will get gutted before passage?
2. Which one will be broadened before passage?
3. Which one will pass first?
4. Which one will be decried by the opposition party as unconscionable government interference in the free market?
5. Which one will be lauded as necessary government protection of the free market?

Ready... Race!

for some reason, seems like another power grab

[Dan667]

like when they named the act that takes away your right to not be spied on and illegally searched the patriot act. I would be interested in what obama is really up to cause he has abandoned helping regular people.

If only ...

[wisnoskij]

If only he was backing a bill aimed at protecting [citizens] against tracking and data collection by their [government].

But I doubt that will ever happen.

I'm feeling very confused right now...

[Jessified]

Can we get some protection from warrantlesss wiretaps? Holding people without charge? Torture?

Unreasonable search and seizure? Naked body scans and invasive patdowns?

Re:I'm feeling very confused right now...

[TheGratefulNet]

re: patdowns. a lot of slash is from 'basement dwellers' to use a phrase. many of them would welcome that kind of bodily contact.

Wrong privacy rights, Mr. Token President

[Nyder]

I want privacy rights against the Government spying on me.

And yes, he's a Token President.

What do I mean? he's like every other piece of shit token polititian that says whatever works to get him in office and then doesn't go thru with his promises. Token.

For the record, I made the mistake of believing his speeches. Won't happen again.

Re:Wrong privacy rights, Mr. Token President

[Anonymous Coward]

"Won't happen again"? ITYM "Won't get fooled again", yes?

Re:Wrong privacy rights, Mr. Token President

[TheGratefulNet]

we're all saying this. its a univeral feeling. we all 'get it'.

sadly, we don't matter. we, here, are nobodies.

the 'somebodies' just don't care. they're like the phone company, they don't *have* to care. they are not accountable to us.

but we all, here, do get it. we want the spying and privacy invasions FROM the government to stop. we can sort of take care of the corps on our own. its YOU we worry about.

I'll summarize

[Gorimek]

"Don't spy, the government hates competition".

As long as the US government routinely and massively records email, web traffic and phone conversations, they have no business telling others to not do the same or much smaller things.

ACTA

[LuYu]

Is this Privacy Bill going to protect us from DHS border searches? Since this administration has been so pro-ACTA, I think they should certainly review their opinions on privacy.

No Way

[b4upoo]

Never give an inch. How can anything filmed from the street violate anyone's privacy? This crap is absurd.

Disillusioned

[nonregistered]

When I read the summary I thought "Finally!" Then I remembered all the weasel-worded laws enacted at the federal level to nullify any true protections that might be passed at the state level.

protect us from companies?

[TheGratefulNet]

how about you protect the citizens from our own government? THAT's what I worry more about.

I company can't keep fucking with you until you die. the government can.

I can manage companies. I cannot manage an out-of-control info-hungry COUNTRY.

get rid of TSA and put air travel back where it was 10+ yrs ago and then maybe we'll believe you are 'concerned' about our privacy.

assholes.

Yea right!

[ZDRuX]

The Obama administration's reported 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 companies and marketing companies.

There you go, this is what it's all about, always has been, and always will be.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is not your personal army. That MichaelKristopeitn troll obviously setup that site to get internet newbie to harass the person at the listed contact. Fuck off!

Doesn't that go contrariwise to this story?

[mykos]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html

Obama's motive isn't what you think it is.

[Lord Kano]

Obama is a lawyer, so he understands something.

His highest priority as a legislator and now as the commander in chief is to protect the right to abortion. Roe v. Wade doesn't establish an absolute right to abortion, it determined that a woman's right to privacy allows her to get an abortion. If the right to privacy disappears, so does Obama's sacrament.

LK

Ah yes that's great and all

[Apothem]

But what about a constitutional amendment to protect our data rights as citizens? I mean, hurray that they're doing something, but I would figure at this day and age that privacy through protection of data would be big enough to warrant something like that..... Not like any politician would ever consider it, though.

ugh.

[Triv]

I saw that headline and I felt a ray of hope.

And then I read it and realized he's talking about tracking me on the internet (trendy!) and not about actually preventing my personal, kind of a bigger deal, Rights, from being trampled on - the TSA and Guantanamo and security theater and 9/11 as an excuse to let law enforcement do whatever it feels like in the name of security and wiretapping and the lack of judicial review.

But we got a Facebook Bill of Rights instead.

Amazing.

--Triv

I guess the government doesn't like competition

[jenningsthecat]

After all, they seem to be pulling out all the stops to ensure that our privacy is a thing of the past. Maybe they just don't want the advertisers on their turf.

What is witnh all the off topic posts?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good thing, support it. It doesn't deal directly about copyright issues, stop posting that, it doesn't deal with airport control , in a good OR bad way. This deals with

Internet privacy rules

that is it. Whats so bad about that? One battle at a time kids. You get what you want pressing change like this, day After day, month after month. I find most of the posts above be disheartening and trollish.

Obama Calls For New Privacy Bill of Rights

[c0lo]

And the new privacy bill of rights answers with a very weak whisper before finally dying.

Is this related...

[BillX]

Is this in any way to the "please-don't-track-me" header or optout-cookie proposals being volleyed around by gov/browser folks and the IAB, respectively? Have they worked out how they actually plan to enforce this business and keep everybody honest?

So.. do you remember when you were a kid, on Halloween, somebody would put out a big bucket of candy and a "please take only one" sign? Do you remember how well that worked? Well, now those kids are all grown up and working at internet advertising companies :-) And lemme tell ya, the chocolate bars there are a lot bigger, tastier, and... greener.

NO MORE GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT.

[Anonymous Coward]

We do not need our government to take any part in our internet. Really are we going to moron proof the internet now? People should responsible for protecting themselves. If these idiot old men and rednecks continue to pass bills like this and the "copyright infringement act", we will have to create a new internet consisting of purely wi-fi networks.

Obama is pathetic...why...

[terryfunk]

...is Obama concerned about this crap when gasoline is at all time highs, unemployment is near 30s Depression level, healthcare insurance has doubled in the last year and his administration is clamping down on energy and driving prices through the roof? I suspect he's in collusion with the oil companies big time.

When privacy goes too far

[Anonymous Coward]

The game company where I work holds lots of tournaments and other events all around the world, attracting thousands of participants and spectators. Our website has been around for years and contains thousands of articles, many of which mention the names of attendees in the course of describing what went on at these events. Our legal eagles recently informed the web team that we're violating privacy law if we mention the name of any person attending these events unless they have signed a release form, because it discloses their specific location at a specific time.

There are several things I don't understand about this. One is how a person's presence at a given place and time, in front of thousands of other people while wearing a name tag, is considered private information. Another is how it's okay to release this information if you're in the news business, but not if you're in some other kind of business. Games and newspapers and commercial air time are all money-making products. If a company like CNN that sells advertising time can dispense the same information, why can't a company that sells games?

So yeah, my panties are in a bunch. I think privacy laws are great for protecting people's medical information, bank statements and the like, but there's a limit.

think

[qiuliandhongxian]

One protects citizens from predatory trade practices, the other extends the fiat monopoly powers of His highest priority as a legislator and now as the commander in chief is to protect the right . http://www.keyringscenter.com/accessories/key-rings/christian-dior-414.html

Brought to you

[ThatsNotPudding]

by the same guy who gave AT&T and the NSA a free pass for breaking wiretapping laws. I have to assume in the fine print, the 'privacy' they envision exempts the whole cloths of corporations and the security organs of the State.

TSA excluded, of course

[wcrowe]

The new Privacy Bill of Rights will apply everywhere except at airports, and any other location deemed inconvenient.

New Privcy Bill, etc.

[Transaction7]

If this is true, and not just another political gambit, it might possibly be interesting. My Representative, Senators, and Presidents, ob both political parties, have been responding to my correspondence abbot privacy issues by telling me they’re taking care of this for about fifty years now and they mostly lied about that, not to mention everything else. My law dean and professor was fond of Will Rogers’ comment that “Whenever Congress makes a joke, it’s a law, and whenever they pass a law, it’s a joke.” Congress has passed assorted laws that purport to protect privacy and several of them actually say you don’t have much if any and others appear to be subsidies for paper companies. It was on a computer-related site that I first learned that the legal people for the companies developing computerized medical records systems with government support and compulsion don’t think they are covered by the HIPAA medical privacy law, for example. Please somebody post Bill Numbers, links to the full text of the Commerce Department report upon which this is supposed to be based, House and Senate Bills, legislative hearings, etc. As of now I can’t find the bill on the usual thomas.loc.gov site, nor have I ever found the original report. And somebody kindly post the names, positions, and Email etc. of any actual computer experts consulted and actually listened to by the politicians in drafting any such legislation, and their recommendations. I read several recommendations in computer publications on line that seem to make sense but never see them embodied in any of the various computer-related laws passed. There really is nothing in the Constitution that requires Congress not to lay down some basic principles that would cover emerging technology. Not everything that may add to the bottom line of anything that calls itself a business enterprise is either consistent with free enterprise or good public policy. I use a lot of ad-supported content. Most people couldn’t afford a lot of what we get via broadcast and cable TV, the Internet, etc. otherwise. A retired lawyer still active in issues and moving toward going back into active practice, I research a lot of arcane issues ranging from medicine to child abuse to construction, and, apparently as a result, I get some very interesting targeted ads. The New York Times has, for years, been, and still is, constantly feeding me ads for residential treatment for the serious problems of the daughter I don’t have. If I go to certain reputable medical sites and check out any story about anything remotely sexual, I get Emails from someone else, with lots of English and spelling errors, telling me, in foul language my wife would never use, that she says I’m no good in bed and offering me fake Viagra substitutes. Setting up a filter that starts with George Carlin’s famous “seven words” cut my spam in half. What bugs me is that some of these somehow use the correct and less common spelling of her name. Checking out some sites for the side of a campaign or issue I oppose has got me Emails thinking me for going on record supporting something I oppose. Maybe some sharp computer expert can explain why I get Email that appears to be addressed only to other people.

Just enforce the current Bill of Rights first.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, our govt. and legal system support invasion of privacy, so isn't this a direct contradiction? Why not just enforce the Right to Privacy that we should already have.

Privacy

[eagle888]

mmmm...let me see if I understand this correctly. The Obama regime wants to protect the privacy rights of internet users while compelling teachers to monitor student facebook use. ahhh, errrr, I'm havin' a hard here. Can someone "splain" this to me?

Transparency more valuable than privacy

[dmtaub]

I'd rather see protections for whistleblowers and my freedom to record the authorities than privacy law. If we are legally provided with a right to privacy, you can be sure that corporations and government will have even greater rights to the same. We can handle privacy with common sense and good technology, whilst transparency ne be guaranteed by law.

Bill of rights? you have goot ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get your hopes up:this is the person who got elected on change, and whose constituents immediately attacked the Bill of Rights. This is the administration who has never said a word of truth (though not much different from others in that field) about any part of anything it campaigned for, relying instead on GENERALITIES for which it could not be called to account later. It this joker wants a bill of rights, it is because it will give the Fed greater control in some way over internet capabilities. Remember, this guy has a Kill Switch for American internet providers, enacted by congress in his first year of office.