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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.