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?

[_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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[_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]

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.

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?

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.