Obama's Privacy Bill of Rights: Just a Beginning

jfruh writes "Last night the White House hastily arranged a phone conference at which a 'Privacy Bill of Rights' was announced. It's an important document, not least because it affirms the idea that our data belongs to us, not to companies that happen to collect it. But it has a number of shortcomings, not least among them the companies aren't required to respect the rules laid out."

Comments

aren't required to respect the rules?

[CannonballHead]

So this is a Privacy Bill of Suggestions :)

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

hastily arranged a phone conference at which a 'Privacy Bill of Rights' was announced

Election posturing?

Washington hasn't cared what we want for quite a number of years. Now, after the blackout, they suddenly care?

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[girlintraining]

Privacy Bill of Suggestions

In this country, that's progress. However, we are still woefully lacking compared to the EU, where privacy is taken very seriously and most industries are required to disclose any and all personal data held and delete it upon request. And I'm not talking the "We just hid it from our homepage" delete either, but a bona fide "We don't have it anymore, anywhere, and if we do we could be sued for a very large amount of money."

It's stuff like this that has firmly convinced me that while the US might have been the origination point of the internet, it is no longer a leader, or even in the race, when it comes to either innovation or culture. My country's only political agenda is its GDP. It will do so even if it means feeding its own citizens to the wolves in the process... Anything to make a buck.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus further reinforcing the notion that rights are mere suggestions. A clever way of making oppression acceptable.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[artor3]

Obama is president, not king. He can't force companies to do anything unless Congress first gives him the power to do so, and there's no chance in hell that the current Congress would give him the Heimlich if he were literally dying in front of them, let alone pass a bill at his suggestion.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh? The EU's fines and such are laughed off and written off as a cost of doing business. The only thing they actually take action about is any companies on the US side of the pond. European companies can get away with murder, and the worst they will get under the EU is a finger waggle.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant to say, "In this country that's what passes for progress." It's not progress, of course. It's bread and circuses.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are understating things.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me, do you feel clever when you use borrowed verbage to personally insult the President? Is the phrase really so astonishingly poignant that you think you are adding to any conversation, ever, when you spew somebody else's vitriolic attack into the comments section on random blogs and news aggregators?

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[slick7]

So this is a Privacy Bill of Suggestions :)

This bill of rights will go the same way as the last "Bill of Rights", the way of the Constitution.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Chris Burke]

Obama is president, not king.

While I'm not surprised saying people who say that he is/wants to be, I'm hugely bothered by all the liberals who are upset that he's not.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Higgins_Boson]

In this country, that's progress.

How is NOT moving forward considered progress again?

If they don't have to respect the suggested "rules", then it isn't doing ANYONE a favor. At all. Period.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, in the EU the government doesn't want companies to violate privacy. It wants that power exclusively to itself.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[yotto]

Obama is president, not king.

While I'm not surprised saying people who say that he is/wants to be, I'm hugely bothered by all the liberals who are upset that he's not.

I fail to see what that has to do with what you quoted. The person above you did not voice an opinion, he stated a fact. Nowhere did he say what he wanted nor did he imply it.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Higgins_Boson]

Unless he wants to waste his "Executive Order" powerup!

A wild US Citizen Appears!
Obama uses Kool-Aid!
It's super effective!

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[DJRumpy]

This is an important step, although the summary makes this out to be the presidents fault. The fault lies with congress. The president cannot unilaterally create a bill, and make it a law, which is why this doesn't have the force of law behind it. If you want to point the blame, then the answer lies with congress, not the president.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because he is the lesser of two evils does not absolve him of being incompetent in some respects.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Archangel Michael]

Which is why people want to mandate EVERY LAST DETAIL. How would you mandate people respect privacy? Would you throw people in jail for violations, even if accidental/innocent? If someone "poor" violated the mandate (law), would you fine them, jail them if they couldn't pay, ignore them?

The problem isn't with the goal (protect privacy), it is always with implementation, and how it never fixes the problem it intends to.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I said the same thing about GWB

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[RKBA]

I would have rated you funny if you weren't already at 5, Insightful. ;-)

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Chris Burke]

Nowhere did he say what he wanted nor did he imply it.

Nor did I think they were.

OP said, in essence, why doesn't Obama require all the companies to comply.

The GP said that Obama is a President, not a King, by way of explaining why he can't do that.

I replied agreeing and saying this is something a lot of people (and in particular liberals) seem to forget when complaining about why Obama hasn't done certain things -- kinda like the OP.

Not every reply has to be an attempt to tear down the post replied to. Sometimes you can build off of their salient points to address other issues. Sorry if I wasn't clear. :)

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because Chris is a racist. Pure and simple. The whites can't stand to have a black in control. They'll do anything to get him out. That's the way it is with whites.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Higgins_Boson]

Which is why people want to mandate EVERY LAST DETAIL. How would you mandate people respect privacy? Would you throw people in jail for violations, even if accidental/innocent? If someone "poor" violated the mandate (law), would you fine them, jail them if they couldn't pay, ignore them?

The problem isn't with the goal (protect privacy), it is always with implementation, and how it never fixes the problem it intends to.

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of "privacy violations" have nothing to do with individuals selling your personal information. It is typically with corporations, who CAN be fined for their actions. However, the fines mean nothing if they are meager amounts like $50,000 fines going to, say, Google for leaking your home address, phone number, date of birth and the size shoe you wear.
FTFA:

February 23, 2012, 12:59 PM — At hastily arranged call-in conference last night, the Obama White House and the FTC announced something privacy advocates have demanded for decades: a declaration that we, the people, own the data that is collected about us.

The FTC doesn't play watchdog on individuals, as far as I know, and the article says that this is aimed toward corporations and not necessarily individuals, as you seem to think. Again... this isn't "progress" in the least. It's just a smoke and mirrors show for them to make it look like they are looking out for the little guy's best interests.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Higgins_Boson]

It's cute when people who disagree with you have mod points and mod you down as flambait for posting factual statements.

I am sorry, whoever you are, if you were hurt by the fact that you drank the kool-aid and are all glassy-eyed anytime Obama utters the words "change" and "hope" and "the rich are evil, but we overlook the fact that Warren Buffet owes large sums of money in taxes."

Then again, I expect nothing less from the /. crowd. Sadly, a lot of people who post here these days are whiny little bitches who mod everything "troll" if it's something that forces them to face reality for a change.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[icebike]

But he can unilaterally order the NSA to stop scanning phone calls and email and text messages and tweets.

Half the crap the private companies collect are at the behest of the government.
Everyone wants to blame Bush, but Bush's America was under attack. That was then. This is now. But Obama's America is still saddled with all the things Bush put in place and all the additions Obama put in place, and nothing has been scaled back.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[icebike]

So tired of hearing how privacy is so highly upheld in the EU, while at the same time reading about government after government mandating the retention of every tweet, email, text, gps position of every single citizen. Give it a rest, will ya?

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a distinct difference between setting executive policy, and creating law. Educate yourself.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[GLMDesigns]

What makes you think this bill makes sense? When it really comes down to it the real fear is the government having access to your information. It's government use of your data that turns the country into a police state. Corporate exploitation of your data is bad. I feel that Facebook should have no more control over my data than Dell or Intel or Microsoft do because I type the data on a machine using those components. But once again - as bad as corporate use of your data is - it is much worse when the government has access to it.

4th A to the US Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ...

I don't see what the Obama administration has done to help privacy concerns. It is Obama's subordinates - people under his direct control who are pushing ACTA. If you're mad at the congress people pushing forth SOPA and PIPA you should be mad at Obama for pushing ACTA

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[endus]

Yea, progress towards another watered down piece of shit that does more harm than good.

You don't seriously think the government is going to do something in our interests that might inconvenience corporations even slightly or impede their ability to invade our privacy do you? There is no financial motive for doing so.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[endus]

Nor does he want to force them to do anything. All he's doing is posturing for the election with another meaningless piece of shit legislation.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[thomasw_lrd]

Here's goes my karma for another year. Tired of moderating anyways.

Chris said absolutely nothing racist. Disagreeing with the current President is not being a racist. The current President is worse than Bush ever was. People who voted for him were either secretly racist or openly racist. He's done nothing good for this country except divide Americans even further. There been no openness during his term. There been no progress since he took office. He has helped double our national debt. Gas has doubled in the last 3 years. Stop acting like disagreeing with our president is a sign of racism. By the way I am a proud black American.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[electron sponge]

There is a distinct difference between setting executive policy, and creating law. Educate yourself.

Right, there certainly is. The difference is, Obama can set executive policy, you know - the rubber meets the road stuff, without having any one else's say-so. He also has the bully pulpit and the almighty veto. He hasn't done anything that would safeguard our civil rights. In fact, he's worse on civil rights than his predecessor was. Dubya never assassinated an American citizen. Dubya never signed a bill that allowed for indefinite detention of American citizens by the military without any sort of due process. He probably would have, but the Democrats would have screamed bloody murder. My ears ache from the silence now.

Compare Candidate Obama c.2007 to President Obama c.2012, it's like some crazy brain-switch has occurred.The one who would end the wars, open up the government, and finally bring truth to the American people has been exposed as nothing but another cheap peddler of lies and also lies. So what are we to do? Vote for the opposing party's liar? As if Romney or Santorum would do any different? Meet the new boss, et cetera. If Ron Paul won, well, that would be something, but quite honestly we all know that that particular outcome wouldn't be allowed since it would end the whole military-industrial complex stranglehold on the executive and legislative branches.

So in summation, dear Anonymous Coward, let me encourage you to educate yourself on what really happens in Washington, and how little changes from administration to administration, and from Congressional session to Congressional session. The same vested interests buy off the small men and sociopaths that are put up for us to select, and we are told that if we don't vote for them we're wasting our vote. And we believe them, mostly because we're too self-involved with making sure we've a roof over our heads and food to eat. Oh and all the shiny things on TV, American Idol or whatever.

We have the government we deserve, until the point when we as a nation decide that we don't. It's a shit sandwich I wish more people could taste.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Concerned Onlooker]

Do you really think that Obama would revoke all that crap Bush put in place? If he did, the instant something happened he'd catch he'll for having restored the Constitution. Besides, the public was eager to give up their rights anyway.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Incompetent libertarian whiner remains incompetent.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cowardly Obama fanboy remains asinine.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[bondsbw]

The fault lies with congress.

This is why it is so absurd that the only election that matters to the vast majority is the Presidency. He can't wipe his butt unless Congress writes a law allowing it.

Wake up, folks. Pay attention to whom you are electing to represent you in Congress. They are the only ones who can actually enact "change" of any kind.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[PontifexPrimus]

I know that this may be hard for an American to understand, but we over here still distinguish between government and corporations.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[EuclideanSilence]

If Ron Paul won, well, that would be something, but quite honestly we all know that that particular outcome wouldn't be allowed since it would end the whole military-industrial complex stranglehold on the executive and legislative branches.

"Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?" -- Patrick Henry

I'll be voting for him no matter how many people stand idle at home complaining to their monitors.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[electron sponge]

Well I guess that makes two of us.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Party promises "pie in the sky dreams"
2. Party gets elected
3. Promises not kept, absurd excuses given (if at all)
4. New party promises to be better than the previous party
Rinse and repeat...

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[sociocapitalist]

The president is the president and responsibility ultimately rests with him.

If he hasn't gotten congress to do what he needs them to do then he needs to figure out ways to do so.

I voted for him and I'll vote for him again because the alternatives seem worse to me, but I don't like his apparent (and this is not a real quote) "Talk softly and carry a small stick" approach to things.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[sociocapitalist]

I'd really like to understand why people think that Ron Paul would be any different than any other right wing republican out there.

And don't tell me about shrinking government. Both parties try and shrink government all the time, so long as it's the other party's government that's being shrunk.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[sociocapitalist]

"We don't have it anymore, anywhere, and if we do we could be put in jail for a very long time."

FTFY

Corporations would be willing to take the risk if it's only a financial penalty that they need to worry about.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[sg_oneill]

Half the crap the private companies collect are at the behest of the government.
Everyone wants to blame Bush, but Bush's America was under attack. That was then. This is now. But Obama's America is still saddled with all the things Bush put in place and all the additions Obama put in place, and nothing has been scaled back.

I shouldn't have to tell an american this, because I'm an australian and you are an american and you should know this. But show your damn constitution and founding principles some bloody respect.

Your own forefathers told your people that they should chose liberty over security. The attack you talk of, September 11, was sad, but could a single, albeit well executed, attack really justify the abandonment of centuries of american struggle?

George bush instituted the patriot act, invaded sovereign countries , drove away numerous liberty oriented allies including the very people, the french, who gifted you with the statue of liberty to symbolise your struggle, and put in place a chain of events that lead to catastrophic decline in the international respect America once yielded, because of a paranoic belief that the world was out to get you, and finally ruined a once vibrant economy by placing the interests of a wealthy elite over the interests of the citizenry and its liberties.

Barack Obama has been a deep disapointment, but by arguing that by deifying the most destructive president the united states has endured in living history you invalidate the very measures that one should judge a president.

Do not forgive Mr Obama, but god damn it, Don't forgive george bush. America is better than that. And if me, a man who has never visited your country can believe that, for fuck sake so can you.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[umghhh]

Well bread and circuses are ok as long as there is enough of them. As soon as you have to send some of your citizens to the lions because catching the primitives became to difficult you are on the way to trouble.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[umghhh]

well this with acceptable oppression works like this: if I oppress you it is acceptable, if you oppress me it is not acceptable at all.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[DeadTOm]

Dubya never signed a bill that allowed for indefinite detention of American citizens by the military without any sort of due process.

I'm so sick of hearing this one, it's right up there with that birth certificate bullshit. Check your facts. Obama refused to sign until an exemption was made for American citizens. That exemption is there only because of the threat of Obama's veto.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't any evidence to support any suggestion of "monumental growth" under the Obama administration. Industries are struggling under increased, and confusing, regulation. Financial backers are paid off with alleged "stimulus" money (eg Solyndra and 1/2 a dozen others). The unemployment rate has remained high even with doctored stats.

As for getting Osama Bin Laden, this administration has put special forces lives at risk by releasing operational details to the press and other "special" people for PR purposes. It is also clear from several sources that they dithered over whether the mission should go as long as they could. Obama was on the golf course when he was allegedly directing the mission (and pulled off the course at the last minute to watch the finale).

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Boscrossos]

You get (some of) what you want and still complain?

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[mcgrew]

Miserable failure? Considering the condition this country was in when he took over?

His predesessor spent eight years turning this country from a nation at peace with a booming economy, low unemployment and a balanced budget to a nation at war with two countries, a collapsed economy, high unemployment, and staggering defecits.

You expected Obama to undo the damage it took Bush eight years to do in less than half that time? What crazy world does your mind live in, son?

The fact is, as presidents go, he's not great but he's a hell of a lot better than most I've seen (and I'm not a young man). Obama's biggest fault is not being FDR.

Compared to Carter or Bush, he's a great President. Compared to Clinton? Nah. And Clinton wasn't great, just good.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

No we don't want to blame Bush, we don't want to have to blame anyone for hundreds of thousands of lives lost, some thousands of our own in a war of lies and adventure, we don't want to have to watch our hard earned dollars get poured into military budgets. We don't want to have to blame any one person or one party for fighting hard to deregulate the financial markets only to have the people of the same party screw over the entire economy.

Obama has had to oversee the clean up of all those messes with a rabid opposition party using every trick to stop any progress because any progress they know would point out in bas relief the bankruptcy of their ideologies and policies and show who they benefitted and who got screwed.

We don't want to be in a position to have to blame anyone, but there we are, we were attacked muliple times under Bush, not Obama, our economy tanked under Bush, not Obama, we went to two wars with a tax cut for the rich under Bush not Obama.

Lets give credit where credit is due. Why do you not want to give the man credit for his accomplishments. It seems he earned them.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[P-niiice]

He's actually done quite a bit considering what he's worked with, but stuff like this makes me want to gouge my eyes out with the nearest sharp thing. Always bowing to business, always suggesting, never enforcing. Feh.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[logical_failure]

Always bowing to business

... and the Saudi King, and the Chinese...

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[logical_failure]

Why do you not want to give the man credit for his accomplishments. It seems he earned them.

I give Barack Obama all the credit he deserves for massively increasing the deficit, doubling the national debt, causing agents to die from his failed Fast and Furious Gun running scheme, 9% unemployment, his assault on the 1st Amendment with his Birth Control mandates...

... yup, all the credit for that is Obama's. He earned it, he owns it.

SCOAMF!

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Archangel Michael]

My birthday is known by a lot of places, and my shoe size is 13 (Well, 12 EEE if I can find them), my phone and address are listed in the white pages. Exactly what "privacy" violations do you have because you know that ? I have big feet. And because I'm married, people can rightfully assume that I have sex with my wife. That is not Private information. Knowing the details of when and how often IS private ... unless I publish videos to PornTube or whatever.

What a lot of people call "privacy" isn't really private, and much of it is already public information.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look who is painting with broad strokes. Did you actually look at the DJIA? Further, dipshit, are you suggesting that everything was well and good with "Industries" before Obama? Fucktard KoolAid Drinking Pansy!

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that this may be hard for an American to understand, but we over here still distinguish between government and corporations.

Except when it comes to the Serious Organized Crime Agency, right?

Not only are you a fucking moron, but the people that thought your comment was insightful are what is wrong with this planet.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[P-niiice]

No, I can't fault him for good diplomacy and common courtesy.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[cyberchondriac]

How about putting this in context?
I'm a little tired of everyone trotting out the old, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" to describe the **immediate** political aftermath of 9-11. The word "essential" is in the original quote, and is significant. By "Essential" liberty, I believe Franklin meant the most basic of liberties, and in an overall permanent manner. He didn't say, "Those who can temporarily give up some liberty"; he said, "to obtain a little temporary safety".. referring to the loss of liberty as total and permanent, even if the safety isn't.
Historically, it wouldn't be the first time the US has scaled back liberties to protect itself in a time of crisis. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus.

The point being, it was reinstated after the war.

During Bush's era, many of the precautions taken made sense. If walking down a dark alleyway in your neighbor at night is likely to get you mugged or raped, are you going to avoid that alleyway, or are you stubbornly continue to walk down that alley at night because otherwise the muggers are infringing on your right to walk there? Until the police get a chance to catch the muggers and prosecute, it makes sense to curtail a degree of your freedom for a while, so long as we realize it's not a resolution but a workaround.

But now, the threat of AQ is reduced, there have been no attacks in over a decade, Bin Laden is dead, most of AQ's top leaders are dead (except Zawahiri). It's about time for Obama to start reinstating some of the lost liberties and scaling back the patriot act, but he's expanded them instead. In this, I agree with those that are alarmed at the continuing erosion of rights.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[logical_failure]

Let me know when he shows that instead of prostrating himself, and by proxy, the US to foreign leaders.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[mcgrew]

Disagreeing with the current President is not being a racist.

That's true. However --

The current President is worse than Bush ever was.

That statement is almost too ignorant to rebut. Bush went into office with a booming economy and a balanced budget and left office after the worst economic crash since 1929. He was the only president in history to leave office with America having fewer jobs than when he entered. The US was attacked on his watch by the very man Clinton warned him about, and he ignored Clinton's advice. When he started office we were at peace, when he left office we were in TWO wars.

Bush was the worst president we've had in my 60 year lifetime, and possibly in this nation's history (although I understand Grant wasn't too good and it's possible Coolige and Hoover were worse).

I'd give Obama a C. His worst fault is he isn't FDR. But he's a better president than half I've seen.

Sorry, but I'm afraid that anyone who says "Obama was worse than Bush" is either incredibly stupid or a die-hard right winger who doesn't give a rat's ass about truth.

People who voted for him were either secretly racist or openly racist.

Son, put that crack pipe down. That's even stupider than your previous moronic statement. Aren't you the least bit embarrassed by your stupid post?

He's done nothing good for this country except divide Americans even further.

Bin Laden's dead, Quadaffi's dead, we're no longer at war in Iraq and Afghanistan is winding down, unemployment is down and more people are working. It isn't Obama that's dividing the nation, the Republicans are doing that with their utter refusal for any compromise whatsoever.

He has helped double our national debt.

How was that to be deflected when we were in two very expensive wars, taxes on those who could most afford to be taxed were slashed, and revenues were WAY down because the economy had crashed? It took Bush eight years to almost totally destroy the economy and you think he can fix it in three? That's just retarded.

Gas has doubled in the last 3 years.

Bullshit, gas wasn't $1.75 a gallon when he took office. It quadrupled under Bush from a buck to four and dropped after the crash to maybe two-fifty. And how is Obama to blame for gas prices? I suspect that the oil barons, who hate Obama with a passion, jacked up the prices to ruin the economy and make sure Obama didn't get re-elected.

Stop acting like disagreeing with our president is a sign of racism.

It's not the disagreement itself, it's the manner of disagreement. If Democrats talked of Bush like you yahoos talk about Obama you'd have called them unamerican traitors.

By the way I am a proud black American.

Sorry, I simply don't believe that at all. I believe you're a blue-eyed blonde headed boy from the deep south. After all, you lied in your comment about "doubling gas prices" and that was the worst sort of "in your face" lie, like saying the sun comes out at night and fire is cold.

Typical. You're pathetic.

Here's goes my karma for another year. Tired of moderating anyways.

Judging from your achievements page (only two +5s) I think you're lying about that as well. Go crawl back under your bridge.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Politburo]

Er, no, that's just not how it works. Congress is an independent branch of the government. The President has tools to persuade them to do things, but they only go so far. If Congress doesn't want to do something, the President has no real recourse.

I would like him to use the bully pulpit more as well, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it would magically get the GOP voting for his proposals. With the current rules and makeup of Congress, that is required to do anything.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Paracelcus]

"Bush's America was under attack" He played it up to convince the unwashed masses that a second Pearl Harbor had taken place instead of an act of criminal mass murder by religious fanatics!

There CAN'T BE A WAR ON A TACTIC! and TERROR IS A TACTIC!

This atrocity was seized upon by Bush like a dog snaffles up a dead bird, the perfect excuse for an executive power grab!

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Paracelcus]

RAH! Well written and well thought out!

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[spidercoz]

You think everything that's wrong is the fault of ONE PERSON? Not maybe the accumulated incompetence and greed of hundreds? Pull your head out of your ass. You want to blame one person, start with yourselves.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[spidercoz]

Prostrating himself? Methinks ye know not what this word means.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[logical_failure]

Well, since I used it correctly, and you're bitching about it, you clearly don't.

Lemme Help:

Prostration is the placement of the body in a reverentially or submissively prone position. Major world religions employ prostration either as a means of displaying reverence for a noble person (as in the Chinese kowtow), persons, or doctrine, or as an act of submissiveness or worship to a supreme being or other worshiped entities (i.e. God or the gods), such as the sajdah of the Islamic prayer, salah. Within various cultures and traditions, prostrations are similarly used to show respect to civil authorities and more accomplished masters. The act is thus often an important part of religious, civil and traditional rituals and ceremonies.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Rakarra]

The point being, it was reinstated after the war.

Our problem is that was a real war, with a real end point. The "War on Terror," like the "War on Drugs" or "War on " is a fictional war, an endless struggle with no possible successful resolution. Terrorism is a concept, a way of fighting, thus it is impossible to definitively defeat. You can force another country to surrender, but terrorism itself will never end. So those liberties that are "scaled back" on the war on terror are not temporary suspensions, they are permanent losses.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Rakarra]

That statement is almost too ignorant to rebut. Bush went into office with a booming economy and a balanced budget and left office after the worst economic crash since 1929

The fact of the matter is that the President does not really have THAT much power over the economy. It's not fair to put the lion's share of the blame on Bush for the crash, nor is it fair to put the blame on Obama because happy days aren't here again.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Rakarra]

Obama is president, not king.

While I'm not surprised saying people who say that he is/wants to be, I'm hugely bothered by all the liberals who are upset that he's not.

I think it comes down to Bush envy. Sure, the left detested Bush, but the guy pushed stuff through regardless of whether the other party liked it or hated it. Bush acted like a King, and yes, he got away with that. Now the Left is bitter because they can say it's not fair because the other guy could do it, and they can't.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[spidercoz]

Well, you're wrong, but since you want to be a pedantic little bitch:

prostrate, verb, to cast oneself face down on the ground in humility, submission, or adoration

or

prostrate, adjective, lying flat or at full length, as on the ground

Is he lying face down on the ground? No. He's bowing, a simple sign of respect.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[KingBenny]

the EU as is does not deserve that much praise, granted, if you take it to an EU court and go all the way you would probably get what you asked for but in practice the rules are not always applied. I once, before having my fb account deleted mailed the local privacy commission on wether i could oblige facebook to delete all my data if i chose to do so and they just referred me to the privacy commission in Ireland since apparently fb has no physical seat in belgium and thus the rules from overthere apply . A lot of people seem to see the EU for something it is not ... most eu-regulations are not binding, the local laws still prevail, the EU is not a real country like the US , it's just a collective so far, the rules are probably more like a 'bill of suggestions' as well :-) , which is a bit sad considering all the money these people cost us but as far as i know the courts, the eu-courts can overrule any local decision if you take the time (and money i guess) to go the distance

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

you sure are busy today, dumb_registrars. did school let out early or something?

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Higgins_Boson]

The entire point is that none of it should be shared unless an individual WANTS it shared. The whole problem which causes the need for this type of legislation is that companies sell it all off haphazardly to anyone willing to pay a penny for it. In doing so, it opens it up to both good entities as well as bad.

What a lot of people call "privacy" can very well BE privacy, if laws are enacted to ensure that it remains so (private) if the individual wants it to be kept secret after having shared it with a corporation.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[tmarsh86]

Thank jebus he wasn't FDR because then we would have been royally fracked.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[logical_failure]

Prostration is the placement of the body in a reverentially or submissively prone position

Look at the picture. Obama's being submissive. If there's any doubt left, watch the video and the reaction from the Saudi King.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

can't keep your regular account and your alter ego straight any more, dumb_registrars? you're supposed to play the whole 'obama is conservative' card under your regular login. but thanks for confirming yet again what we already knew.

logical_failure = damn_registrars

Re:aren't required to respect the rules?

[snowgirl]

Prostration is the placement of the body in a reverentially or submissively prone position

Look at the picture. Obama's being submissive. If there's any doubt left, watch the video and the reaction from the Saudi King.

Dude, seriously... can you not read? Keyword here: "prone". I watched the video, and I didn't see Obama "lying face downward" on the floor.

I haven't been that impressed ...

[therealkevinkretz]

... with how his Administration (or the previous one, before you partisan bedwetters get all bunched up) has treated the *actual* Bill of Rights. So I don't have much hope for its respecting the goals of this one.

Re:I haven't been that impressed ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed.

Quite honestly, we need to get them to own up to their obligations there...and it starts by not being partisan like you allude to and owning up to the fact that much of what has been promised isn't legit to begin with.

Re:I haven't been that impressed ...

[Anonymous Coward]

My sentiments as well. What a doggy-biscuit government we have.

Re:I haven't been that impressed ...

[Artraze]

Don't be silly! Of course they'll be interested in supporting the goals of this legislation!
Look, it's already generating positive sound bytes for his campaign, and is non committal enough he'll surely still get oodles of corporate contributions!

It's a start

[incer]

Even with flaws, it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully this will make people more aware of the issue.

Re:It's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice, more election year pandering...ta da...

Re:It's a start

[JaredOfEuropa]

Or it might be a step backwards. People might think the administration is taking steps to protect their privacy and lull them into a false sense of security, while in fact nothing really changes.

Re:It's a start

[incer]

Well, "people" didn't even know about the problems with online privacy. Now the media will talk about it.

Let me know when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. President,

Please let me know when you plan on respecting our privacy rights w/r/t warrant-less wiretaps and data-mining of personal information of American citizens by the NSA, FBI, and etc.

Otherwise your so-called "Privacy Bill of Rights" is just a shallow gimmick designed to score brownie points from the less informed and less attentive among us in the electorate.

Re:Let me know when...

[Ihmhi]

Otherwise your so-called "Privacy Bill of Rights" is just a shallow gimmick designed to score brownie points from the less informed and less attentive among us in the electorate.

Unfortunately, the "less informed and less attentive" far, far outnumber the rest of us.

We have two options. First is advocacy (make the people more informed and, hopefully, more attentive). This has worked pretty well in stopping at least some of the bullshit.

Secondly is getting people who are all about the whole "fair play" kinda thing - you know, respecting the Constitution and civil rights, acting for the benefit of the people instead of the benefit of corporations, etc. - actually elected into offices. That is much more difficult and I really wish someone with a fanbase would step up and leverage that social power towards getting elected and making a particular change in our government.

The people who are most able to affect such a change are the "leaders" - mayor, governer, president, etc. It is said that without compromise, nothing will ever get passed. Even the most honest politician will be stopped by an uncooperative legislature because he didn't sign off on their latest bad bill in order to get his good bill pushed through. The solution to this (that is rarely, if ever, resorted to) is twofold: first, directly tell the public that the city/state/national legislature is being a bunch of asshats and trying to stop this good thing from happening, and secondly to veto everything you don't like. (A lot of the votes in any given legislature are close enough that they are unlikely to pass a veto override).

We (as in those who use the Internet for more than lolcats and WoW) have a lot of power that we just need to get together and use to effect real change. Look at how we managed to stop SOPA and PIPA. Had the Patriot Act been proposed ten years later (instead of in the early 2000s when broadband penetration was still comparatively low), it would never have passed thanks to our efforts. We use it too often in a reactionary fashion instead of a pro-active fashion.

Please, someone who has the gusto to be honest step up and make a run for office. Any office. Try to be the mayor of somewhere insignificant like West Bumblefuck, Ohio, or Newark, NJ. Get the tech savvy people behind you, and use your connection with them to pull the populace out of its apathy. I'd do it if I thought I had a chance in hell, but I'm pretty sure I don't.

Re:Let me know when...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's in campaign mode this year. That means he's less believable than ever. Watch for all of the "Ideas" he and his cabinet have been shooting down to re-emerge as his. Watch him try and reverse the tables on the massive energy melt down his group caused by shutting down our offshore drilling and like minded antics. This year should be epic on spin from the White House.

Re:Let me know when...

[fatmonkeyboy]

Yeah, shutting down off shore drilling is insane. I mean, it's not like anything happened.

Re:Let me know when...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean someone like Gary Johnson who IS running for office (and has already held office) but doesn't have a chance in hell of winning?

Re:Let me know when...

[BlueStrat]

Yeah, shutting down off shore drilling is insane. I mean, it's not like anything happened.

No, Obama and his administration did NOT shut down offshore drilling, not even in the area of the doomed Deep Horizon platform in the Gulf.

He simply turned it over to people he likes better than US oil companies.

The oil company Petrobras of Brazil that George Soros heavily invested in just prior to Obama's decision. Obama even announced that the US was going to start engaging in more oil business with Brazil like it was a great thing.

But, I'm sure that having Brazil's oil company do the drilling rather than US companies will turn out to be much safer and better for the environment

Safer for Obama, his corrupt cronies, and the Left's agenda, not the Gulf of Mexico's environment. Of course, the environmental groups all ignore his actions, which just proves that the majority of the environmental movement organizations are simply partisan political action groups.

Strat

Re:Let me know when...

[Anonymous Coward]

> from the less informed and less attentive among us in the electorate.

In politics, we call this the '99%'.

Re:Let me know when...

[Ihmhi]

Wow, just reading over the intro on his Wikipedia page... he seems like a really good guy. I'll, of course, have to dig into his voting record and what he's said over the years (go go Internet!), but I finally might have someone worth voting for in the next election. Thank you!

Re:Let me know when...

[PMuse]

Dear Mr. President,

Howsa bout I vote for you again and then you introduce these proposals as actual Constitutional Amendments. You know--the kind that bind the executive branch.

Otherwise, your so-called "Privacy Bill of Rights" is not only a shallow gimmick, but also confuses the citizenry about what the real Bill of Rights used to be.

Re:Let me know when...

[sociocapitalist]

I'll vote for you!!

Re:Let me know when...

[LanMan04]

But, I'm sure that having Brazil's oil company do the drilling rather than US companies will turn out to be much safer and better for the environment

Well, a British company caused the biggest spill in history (BP/Deepwater Horizon). Do you think BP (BRITISH Petroleum) is an American company? Or are you referring to Halliburton? Or Transocean?

Oh, you were trying to imply (lie) that Obama was taking business away from American companies to give them to Brazilian ones.

Re:Let me know when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, either of the two main parties (and probably most of the smaller parties) would promise you that the sky will be green tomorrow if they thought it would get them votes.

Don't bother voting for either of the main parties. Both of them will lie like there's no tomorrow during election season, and do whatever the hell they want after they're elected.

Remember that whole 'hope and change' thing that people voted for? Yeah, how well did THAT work out? PLEASE don't tell me you're going to vote for the same 'hope and change', and just cross your fingers that it actually happens this time.

Re:Let me know when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gary Johnson is in favor of a corporatocracy more than any other candidate. He does want to end the war on drugs, though; so he would get my vote on that. He would most certainly make it illegal to manufacture your own drugs by imposing really, really expensive licensing that only corporations could afford. To do otherwise would not fit his political alignment.

That is, of course, assuming the president can convince congress to do anything.

Re:Let me know when...

[BlueStrat]

Well, a British company caused the biggest spill in history (BP/Deepwater Horizon)

Yes, after which Obama halted all US offshore drilling, just as I said in my OP. See those words? *ALL US* offshore drilling?

Do you think BP (BRITISH Petroleum) is an American company? Or are you referring to Halliburton? Or Transocean?

Oh, you were trying to imply (lie) that Obama was taking business away from American companies to give them to Brazilian ones.

Ohhhh. I get it now. You're a partisan apologist.

Thought for a few moments there you actually had something serious to bring to the discussion.

Sorry, carry on.

Strat

Re:Let me know when...

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you got your information from Glenn Beck, always a reliable source. Googling the relevant keywords yields a stream of articles dispelling the myth, like this one from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/03/17/dispelling-the-petrobras-loan-myth-as-obama-heads-to-rio/

I'm more worried about YOU

[elrous0]

Hey Barack, how about a Bill of Rights that protects me against *your* NSA, CIA, and FBI reading my goddamned emails, listening to my phone calls, and asking my doctor how long my dick is without at least a court order?

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[Sponge Bath]

...asking my doctor how long my dick is without at least a court order?

Most women would appreciate the government staying out of their vaginas as well. Unlike your joke about penis size, they have real intrusions to complain about on the privacy front.

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[FrootLoops]

they have real intrusions to complain about on the privacy front

You've got me curious. Could you name some? Abortion isn't a privacy intrusion and that's all I can think of.

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[bbecker23]

The act of abortion may not be but having to have a wand shoved up your hoo-hah surely is. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, I think we can agree that penetrating rape victims and victims of sexual abuse is a Bad Thing.

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[IVI V K]

Regardless of your view on abortion,

The Roe vs Wade ruling forming the basis of US abortion law today determined that abortion is a privacy issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
"the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion"

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[Culture20]

Abortion isn't a privacy intrusion

According to Roe v Wade, it all came down to a "right to privacy".

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

"...and asking my doctor how long my dick is..."

Why ask the doctor when they can just glance at the screen at the airport?

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[FrootLoops]

Wow, that's rather tortured reasoning. I hate to think I agree with the dissenting opinion on Roe v. Wade, but finding a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment at all, let alone calling abortion a privacy issue, seems ridiculous to my novice ears. In any case, thanks for bringing it up.

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

TSA Pat-downs & body scanners.

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[Silentknyght]

they have real intrusions to complain about on the privacy front

You've got me curious. Could you name some? Abortion isn't a privacy intrusion and that's all I can think of.

Birth control.

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[FrootLoops]

Certainly birth control is an issue related to women that is sometimes the subject of government regulation. I don't see a privacy (= "The state of being free from public attention") issue there, though.

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[IVI V K]

The privacy notion isn't much of a stretch when you consider that the only way a government could prosecute an abortion is by demanding a doctor or hospital to break Physician-patient confidentiality.

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[FrootLoops]

I'm no lawyer, but the Wikipedia article says, "In the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not recognize doctor-patient privilege", and various states offer varying levels of recognition. One could also simply make it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion and sidestep the confidentiality issue that way. (I don't advocate this; I just find privacy hard to swallow here.)

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it is absurd how "privacy" was the reason given there, regardless of whatever court it was, it is not remotely coherent logic.

And if you complain about those rights now being under attack now, well, unlike women, men do not even have any right to determine whether to not have children after realizing a state of pregnancy exists. So I wouldn't say it makes for a terribly good point where "vaginas" are more under attack than "penises" - being without rights simply worse than having to expend efforts to defend rights.

I would of course not even call this an issue of "privacy" primarily, but one of self-determination. One really should realize the idiocy of claiming the general issue and reason for wanting an abortion is the days to months of inconvenience during pregnancy, rather than the decades of legal responsibility, work and cost involved in having an unwanted child. And from there it should follow easily that either gender should be able to absolve themselves of all responsibility on an unwanted pregnancy, either by having the right to an abortion, or by simply being able to renounce responsbilities upon discovering the unwanted pregnancy...

Re:I'm more worried about YOU

[Anonymous Coward]

they have real intrusions to complain about on the privacy front

You've got me curious. Could you name some? Abortion isn't a privacy intrusion and that's all I can think of.

TSA

Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

A case of hey look, "We Care!", but it's not compulsory and has no bite.

Need more teeth

[the eric conspiracy]

It needs to apply to government as well as the private sector.

Another problem.

[mosb1000]

Another problem is that it makes no sense to say that data doesn't "belong" to people who collect it. It clearly does, and there isn't really anything the government can do about it. If you wan't to keep something secret, keep it secret! It that so hard to understand?

Re:Another problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I get your credit card number, does that "belong" to me? Assuredly not.

Re:Another problem.

[mosb1000]

What does that even mean? If I give it to you, you have it. That's the end of the story.

Re:Another problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I can do *anything* I want with your credit card, once you gave it to me? No, of course not, because we have laws. The idea we can't apply that to personal data as well is absurd. You're simply stating the current legal reality, while saying there is no alternative.

The alternative is that we change the laws, this is a (very very small) first step.

Re:Another problem.

[Loosifur]

Actually, a credit card number, along with most identifying numbers associated with everything from Social Security to your bank account, belong to the issuing institution, just like (if you read it closely) your driver's license and your SS card. You don't own it. You can't change the data in question. Which, I think, goes to your original, and very valid, point.

Re:Another problem.

[Entropius]

Yes. If you have my credit card number, and obtained it by legal means (i.e. didn't steal my wallet), then the knowledge of it belongs to you. You can print it out and put it your refrigerator, and I don't care.

What you can't do is buy things with it. That's fraud. You also can't go post it on /b/, since any reasonable person would expect that doing so would lead to fraud, and would make you an accessory.

Re:Another problem.

[Entropius]

How can a number belong to anyone?

The right to use a particular number for a particular purpose can belong to someone, but it is absurd to suggest that a number belongs to someone.

Re:Another problem.

[Loosifur]

Well, yeah, the number as a mathematical entity doesn't belong to anyone as such, but the number in its capacity as an identifier "belongs" to the agency or company. It's a number, yeah, but it's also the label that they use to associate a person with an account, and, in that sense, belongs to the company/agency/whatever. I'm not talking epistemology, here. The proof is that a credit card company can assign you a new credit card number at will; you can't just call Visa up and tell them that you've decided your new number is "49".

Re:Another problem.

[joocemann]

Try to be more naive.... i bet you cant.

Re:Another problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Posession != ownership, not even for physical things. If I borrow a book from the library I posess it but the library owns it. If collecting stuff means it belongs to you then a thief owns whatever he steals. The law disagrees, and that law exists because stealing is harmful to the victim and ulitimately to society. Having such laws is a choice, and although they can't prevent theft completely they do have a positive effect. Assigning ownership of personal data to the person the data is about is a choice too, and it too is based on the idea that some actions that are harmful to others, and that society benefits by balancing that with harm to the ones doing it.

You just have to look around you to understand that most people have a hard time understanding how computers and networks work. The distinction between a web browser and a web page shown in the browser is unclear for a surprisingly high number of people. Do you really expect all those people to understand that saying something casually on the internet is different from saying it casually to a neighbour you meet in front of your house? Do you really expect them to understand what data mining is and how it affects them? We have evolved to understand a more visible and less abstract reality, it is hard to understand.

Is that so hard to understand?

Obama is looking for distractions

[schwit1]

Obama is looking for issues that will take the public's attention away from Gas prices.

I would suggest the US use the EU standards, but lately the EU bends over anytime the US says boo.

Obama's Privacy Bill of Rights:

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooo! Oooo! Another 'privacy policy' change! brought to you by...

Google! The world's favorite home page.

Pull the other one...

Gotta bridge...

No, wait, I mean, wonderful Florida swampland.

Law and Order anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

... not least among them the companies aren't required to respect the rules laid out.

LOL'd. Hard. But seriously.. It's not funny.

Companies?

[mmcxii]

I'll worry about that once we get a half ounce of respect from our so-called leadership that craps on our rights like it was their job.

Keep your eyes on both hands, boys and girls.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Obama's due on doing something right. Let's look at his track record:

Killed some Somali pirates
Got Osama bin Laden
Established the groundwork for a privacy bill of rights

Give credit where it's due. I don't care if you think he's the worst president in history, he can do one good thing a year, on average.

Not surprising it doesn't apply to corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

Our existing Bill of Rights is meant to protect "the people" from the (federal) government. Not state governments, not corporations, not your neighbor.

And as others have already pointed out, I'd be more interested in having our government abide by the Bill of Rights we already have. E.g. no more warrantless searches to fly.

Privacy wrt corporations we can legislate, though that assumes that our legislators have a backbone and/or aren't in the back pockets of the corporations. IOW good luck with that.

Leave Obama alone!!!

[Vinegar Joe]

I can't understand you people! President Obama is doing everything he can to help the people of the world and you whiners complain about your precious privacy! I hope he turns the NSA, CIA and FBI loose on you people and hunts everyone of you down and sends you to Gitmo. See how you like your precious privacy then!!!

Obama 2012!!!!

Re:Leave Obama alone!!!

[Sperbels]

+1 Naivete

Re:Leave Obama alone!!!

[wzzzzrd]

+9000 WOOOSH

We DON'T need yet ANOTHER "Bill of Rights"!

[Anonymous Coward]

First, every website had to have its own "Privacy Policy."

Now, we need a federally-mandated one?

Anyway--a quick search reveals numerous existing "Bill of Rights," for example:

Voter's Bill of Rights
Patient's Bill of Rights
Donor Bill of Rights
Academic Bill of Rights
Landowners Bill of Rights
Taxicab Rider Bill of Rights (NYC; Ha! Figures!)
The eBook User's Bill of Rights
Visual Effects Industry Bill of Rights
Merchant Bill of Rights
Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill of Rights

* Stop calling anything but our original Bill of Rights a "Bill of Rights" -- to do so is to diminish its significance and uniqueness

* With so many "Bills of Rights," collectively they mean little--just like so many "Privacy Policies"

You can't just "keep it secret"

[F69631]

The era of massive data mining is beginning. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/ And that's just your groceries, not your online behavior, which likely contains a lot more hidden clues.

When companies can decide to track and analyze your behavior in any way they want to, reasonably accurately predict things such as pregnancies, marriages, divorces, etc., and use it to their advantage, intentionally disguising all this from you... it's borderline absurd to say "people should just keep their secrets secret".

It's true that it's arguable whether this sort of behavior should be regulated (It's not "evil" that they just look what you've bought and try to predict your interests based on that) and if we decide to regulate it, we'll face a lot of problems... But it's quite odd to say that there shouldn't be a lot of public discourse around this subject (It's relevant to a lot of people and we already have some laws about ethical advertising and for a good reason) and just silly to say that people should take personal responsibility about how data miners figure out things they've never told anyone.

Re:You can't just "keep it secret"

[cdrguru]

Probably a far better question is when your purchases at a grocery store are scanned who owns the scan data? Right now the grocery store sells it to a marketing company which analyzes is and sells the aggregated data back to manufacturers and the like.

So if you are in the business of selling toothbrushes wouldn't you like to know if your brand is being beat out by some upstart in Whole Foods stores but not in the low-cost no-frils stores? Would that not tell you something important? Literally, this is the life or death of manufacturers today because if they don't have accurate data they are going to make bad decisions and lose money. Most manufacturers of consumer products are operating on a very thin margin as it is so they can't afford to make mistakes.

Sure, there is a lot of data that Google collects and is selling the same way, but it happening everywhere in the world, not just on the Internet.

No, I don't believe for a second that the US government is going to try to restrict this or regulate it in any way. There is too much of it happening and it is too big a part of the way manufacturers and retailers work today.

Re:You can't just "keep it secret"

[joocemann]

Making it unhappen puts all the same companies on the same level playing field. think about it.

Re:You can't just "keep it secret"

[Mashiki]

Good luck with that. This is why harsh privacy laws already exist in some countries, germany and canada for example. They can try to mine whatever the hell they want, but the second that they violate the laws of the country and they operate here they're screwed.

Re:You can't just "keep it secret"

[josquin9]

Imagine a man and a woman retiring to his apartment for an intimate evening. As they enter the door, a beep sounds, and he goes to a keypad to turn off the alarm siren before it wakes the building. He tells her, "Yeah, I got a security system last year after a break in. It's got all the bells and whistles. Let me put in "At home" mode.

After a mutually gratifying, consensual evening, she goes home.

The next day she discovers videos of their evening on the internet.

When she confronts him, he replies, "Hey, the cameras are part of my security system. I told you it had all the bells and whistles and that I was putting it in "at home" mode. That means the cameras go on to identify anybody who comes in to attack me. The footage is my property. You didin't object to it last night, and since the recording has commercial value, I decided to sell it. You consented by not objecting before we started. It's too late now to complain, the video exists. I might as well make money off of it."

I don't think it's unreasonable of her to assume that the video could not legally be published without her explicit, informed consent.

Bills of rights stop the government.

[Karmashock]

That's the whole point of rights. All the rights in the bill of rights are negative rights. They don't tell people they can do stuff they say the government can't stop them doing it.

So for example, the freedom of speech doesn't say I can stand on a soap box and sing show tunes backwards. It says the government can't stop me from doing that.

It doesn't stay you can have a religion or beliefs. It says the government can't stop you from having them.

So on and so forth. They're more about restraining the government.

So... Is that what Obama has done here? Has he said the government can't do certain things? Because I rather doubt it. And if he hasn't then he's not offering anyone rights so much as putting additional regulations on ISPs. That isn't a right. If he wants to give me a right then he can agree the government will leave the internet alone.

Re:Bills of rights stop the government.

[FrootLoops]

"Rights" are a rhetorical device. I can more easily convince you that my policy should be followed if I appeal to some mystical authority by talking about rights. I don't mind this conceit as a rule. My point is it's a bit silly to define rights as restrictions on the government's power when the term has no real meaning. Obama('s underlings) seem to be using it precisely as rhetoric here.

Strictly speaking, your assertion

All the rights in the bill of rights are negative rights. They don't tell people they can do stuff they say the government can't stop them doing it.

isn't true. For instance,

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...

This gives a right to accused persons. It does not say the government can't stop people from doing something.

Re:Bills of rights stop the government.

[Karmashock]

As to the rights of the accused, it limits how much time the government has to present its case.

Effectively it says " the government must be ready to try a case shortly after arrest"...

Thus it remains a restriction on government action. You can't arrest someone and then not try them for years. The government must be ready to go to trial within a specified time or the accused must be released.

Try to explain Obama's position in the terms I used. You'll find that it's hard for you to call anything a right that isn't effectively a restriction on government power. That's all rights are... they just tell the government what it can't do to people.

Re:Bills of rights stop the government.

[FrootLoops]

Your definition of rights as things telling the government what it can't do to the people is interesting, though not standard. The first definition I found, "That which is morally correct, just, or honorable," is decidedly different. This would seem to be the definition used in "The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights". That the actual Bill of Rights can be interpreted as limiting government power is immaterial. Rights in general, operationally at least, limit the power of some group or people, not necessarily just the government. This document tries to limit corporate powers; it doesn't seem like an abuse of the term, which seemed to be your point. (Since you didn't address it, my own point was that the term "rights" is ultimately just a rhetorical device, so devoid of any real meaning.)

My final sentence was about the wording of the amendment. Clearly it implicitly restricts the actions of the government; it's just not explicit about those restrictions (eg. it doesn't say, "The government shall not arrest someone and then not try them for years."). Giving people rights and restricting government actions are slightly different, though perhaps operationally they're equivalent. I did preface this quibble with "strictly speaking".

Re:Bills of rights stop the government.

[Karmashock]

Maybe this will help you.

Do you know what a white list and a black list is?

Okay... The constitution contains portions that are both white list and black list.

The white list is filled with all the powers the government is supposed to have. Things like national defense, ability to negotiate diplomacy, collect taxes, etc.

The bill of rights is all blacklist. Its not talking to the people and saying "you have these rights" it's talking to the government and saying "you can't do these things".

Read the bill of rights. Rights are the American government's power blacklist. Things it cannot do... None of it enables people to do anything they couldn't do anyway.

Take freedom of speech. I don't need your help to have that. I have that innately. I can just sit here an talk unless someone else stops me. Well, that right is mostly concerned with stopping the government from shutting people up or controlling what they think or believe.

So getting back on topic, how does Obama's internet bill of rights actually qualify? It doesn't sound like a blacklist to me on government power. And as such, it cannot be considered a right within the american political and legislative construct where all such rights are a blacklist on governmental and especially federal power.

Obama doesn't strike me as the sort that will ever restrain the government... my personal bias... So I doubt he's giving anyone any rights.

Re:Bills of rights stop the government.

[FrootLoops]

I've understood you since your original post. You don't seem to understand me, since you keep repeating the same points over and over while ignoring what I've said. I don't see the point in continuing this conversation, though thank you for trying.

Re:Bills of rights stop the government.

[Karmashock]

I don't understand why you're disagreeing then... If you understood then why don't you agree?

Re:Bills of rights stop the government.

[FrootLoops]

I can both understand you and disagree with you. I simply believe you are incorrect. As I said, you are using a non-standard definition of the term "rights". I quoted a standard one and discussed the implications of a more general definition, the most pertinent being that the use of the term in this case is actually justified. Sorry; I don't know how to be any clearer.

Re:Bills of rights stop the government.

[Karmashock]

I'm pretty sure if we asked the American founding father they'd probably back my version.

But have it your own way.

You get

[sixtuslab]

vanilla rights. Now, get back to your room, muahahaa.

Re:You get

[wzzzzrd]

rights, rights, baby.

Offtopic: Share

[TubeSteak]

What the hell is with this "Share" link and can I make it go away? /. has been Web 2.0-ing what used to be a very clean interface
I've stuck with the Classic Discussion System for a reason

Re:Offtopic: Share

[PatPending]

Just override the existing CSS rule by doing this:

a.comment_share_toggle.btn:link
{
visibility: hidden !important;
}

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[Rockoon]

Killed some Somali pirates
Got Osama bin Laden
Established the groundwork for a privacy bill of rights

Took away your right to a lawyer.
Took away your right to a trial.
Forced you to buy health insurance against your will.


Anyone else want to add some?

No end?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything Obama does is "just the beginning."

Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Words are easy. Actions are harder. Here's an ABC reporter taking Obama's press secretary to task for using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court again and again.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/wake-reporter-deaths-syria-white-house-grilled-aggressive-154806577.html

Real privacy

[Larry_Dillon]

First, how about giving email the same level of privacy as postal email?

The problem with these rules are that bad actors don't have to follow them. We need things like actual end-to-end encryption so companies and malicious individuals can't snoop. (see Code is Law, Lawrence Lessig).

Re:Real privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

postal email ?

That seems a bit cumbersome...

Data ownership

[Dave Emami]

... our data belongs to us, not to companies that happen to collect it.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I disagree with the underlying assumption that data belongs to you by virtue of being about you. Take it down to the simplest level: Adam sees Bob crossing the street. "Bob crossed the street" is the data, an observation that belongs to Adam (the observer) not Bob (the observed), by virtue of now residing in Adam's brain, which belongs to him, not to Bob. Everything else is just communication, storage, analysis, and technological assistance. It comes back to this fundamental point once you remove the obfuscating details, and Bob doesn't acquire the right to perform a partial lobotomy on Adam just because he doesn't like what or how much Adam knows about him, or whom Adam might tell, or what decisions Adam might make based on what he knows.

This assumes, of course, that Adam didn't violate Bob's rights in order to make these observations -- he didn't trespass by breaking into Bob's house, for instance.

Re:Data ownership

[randy of the redwood]

Actually, I agree. I'd go a bit further, and if we all agree that for these free services (gmail, facebook, etc.) that we are the product, not the service, we should be very careful about how much restriction we want to put on these providers.

I'd vote that they MUST tell us what they keep, so we can decide if that price is fair for the service received.

I'd vote against mandatory restrictions on what they can keep. I am willing to pay some level of privacy intrusion, just like I am willing to pay some amount of my attention by accepting advertisements in TV and web pages, so that I can avoid paying actual currency for many services these 'free' vendors provide.

Re:Data ownership

[Chris Burke]

Okay, but now assume we're not talking about some observation Alice (I like Alice as my A name better) made about Bob while Bob was out walking, but some personal information Bob specifically gave to Alice because Alice was doing something for Bob where she needed that information.

Nobody else needs that information. Bob has not agreed to let it be shared with anyone else. He gave it to her because it was necessary, not because he wanted to have everyone know it. You can say "tough shit" and then forced everyone to choose between having every fact of their life known or not getting anything done. I think a reasonable society can find a better middle ground.

Alice doesn't need to be lobotomized. She just needs to respect Bob's wishes that she not share the information with anyone else without his permission.

Why's that so much to ask?

Re:Data ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

uhh, its a lot to ask because its retarded. alice gets a paycheck for bob's info. Bob should have strongly suspected this as soon as alice 1) starting providing bob services for absolutely nothing in return 2) obviously collected bob's data (and used it for him and 3) and made no promises about maintaining the privacy of bobs data. if bob has beef, he should stop talking to alice or obfuscate his relationship. Alice doesn't have to respect bob's wishes. IF bob wants a a truly free service he can terminate his relationship with alice and start one himself, I promise you Alice is too consumed by other clients to mind. Why is that so much to ask? bob must be an asshole making ridiculous demands from alice, when she 1) doesn't need him 2) only services bob when he solicits her.

Re:Data ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

Then Bob should make Alice sign a contract when hiring her. Websites have a TOS. You could try reading the TOS and then if it doesn't respect your privacy, find a different way to get your task accomplished. Why is it too much to ask that people (I hate the term consumers) plan ahead, and think before they share personal information? Or do we want to be able to say and whatever the hell we want, and then be able to bring legal sanctions against the company with a server storing those words and actions? Be careful what you wish for, we already have a society that thinks before it speaks.

Re:Data ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Adam taking pictures of Bob using his (Adam's) bathroom? I think that's a better analogy...

Re:Data ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a choice. We also made the choice that not everything in your posession automatically belongs to you. Without that choice theft would be legal. The reason for making such choices is to make behaviours that are harmful to others less attractive by adding (a risk of) negative consequences to that behaviour. Assigning ownership of personal data to the person the data is about is not natural, but neither is data mining. It's a tool intended to create and maintain a balance.

Re:Data ownership

[LanMan04]

(I like Alice as my A name better)

What other A name is commonly used? When I was getting both my BS and MS in CompSci at 2 different schools, it was ALWAYS: Alice, Bob, Eve

Re:Data ownership

[The Wild Norseman]

Why is it too much to ask that people (I hate the term consumers) plan ahead, and think before they share personal information?

It isn't too much to ask. The problem really lies in that one can agree to a TOS agreement, then have the company holding the personal information unilaterally change the TOS with no promise whatsoever that they'll then delete -- as in, legally, completely delete -- the personal info that they've already been given when the person who voluntarily gave them the information decides to no longer interact with the service due to the unilateral change in the TOS.

For the easiest example, Facebook changes their TOS multiple times per year, many times with no prior notification that they've even changed.

Not very honest of them, is it?

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Funny!

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[Sponge Bath]

Took away your right to a lawyer.
Took away your right to a trial.

Nope, plenty of lawyers and trials everyday here in the US of A.

Forced you to buy health insurance against your will.

Everyone will need health care, some expensive enough to bankrupt any average working person. Insurance is a practical way to pool resources and avoid that. Without insurance, you end up in the emergency room sponging off of others.

Of course there's no substance to it.

[argStyopa]

If there was substance, it would be meaningful and might offend someone - either his corporate donor/masters, or his slavering popular worshipp...er, followers.

The previous president was no substance, and no image.
The current one has improved, he has "image" out the kazoo.

Corporations = new government.

[tizan]

Corporations and cartel are what the government used to be...so coorporation cannot do certain things to individuals...and that is the bill of right !

Re:Corporations = new government.

[Karmashock]

Really? How many millions of people have corporations killed in the last 100 years? Because governments have probably killed at least a billion people over the last 100 years.

There is no comparison. Saying corporations are the new government is ignorant.

Re:Corporations = new government.

[tizan]

If this is your standard about protecting individual rights...

Who has more control an individual rights your senator or Goldman Sachs ?

If killing people is your standard about lack of protecting individual rights... ...then i'll say count the toll of tobacco companies, oil in 3rd world countries, including your mac manufacturers in china etc etc... it is definitely more than all the wars in the last 30 years combined. BTW a billion is a lot...on an aside i'll let you decide what is more ignorant ...please do your historical new math to account for 1 billion death in the last 100 years (the estimated death toll in .WWII is 60 million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)

Re:Corporations = new government.

[Karmashock]

Not a fair comparison.

No senator can do anything to your rights alone. However, the senate itself with the cooperation with the house can.

So a better comparison would be "who can control your individual rights more All the Big Corporations or The total might of the United States Government?

Here's a way to guess... who would win in a war between the major corporations and the US government?

The corps can't fight. The national guard could walk around through wallstreet and execute them all going door to door and they wouldn't be able to do anything to stop it.

As to my standard of protecting individual rights. I fear which ever is the greater power.

Are the corps more powerful then the US government? No. So I fear the government more.

Anyway, I'll leave you to barking at the moon if that's what you want. But the corps while powerful hold not a candle to that of the United States. The US unrestrained by it's own laws could crush them all flat. The only thing that could possibly stop it would be OTHER governments in other countries. All the corporations in the world combined couldn't stop the US government without the help and support of many of the other governments in the world. And with few exceptions practically every government on earth is more then a match for any collection of domestic or international corporations that operate within it's borders.

Governments are "the government" because they're in control. If the corps are stronger then they're the government... which is unlikely since they're no where near as powerful.

What a joke.

[Loosifur]

Everything listed in the "Privacy Bill of Rights" is common-sense, caveat emptor-type stuff, or is easily handled by a standard contract. But by making it part of a "Privacy Bill of Rights" enforced by some government agency, it implies that these "rights" are bestowed by the government, which means that they can be repealed in the future, which would actually harm privacy.

Maybe Barry should start small. Say with the whole indefinite detention thing, or maybe just something simple, like taking it easy with the drone strikes on American citizens abroad.

Typo

[gmuslera]

Is not "our data belong to us", is "YOUR data belong to us".

DUP

[Anonymous Coward]

If courts would rule justly on the existing 4th Article of the Bill of Rights, this point would be moot.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[Entropius]

Last summer I was between jobs. I could stand to incur about $5000 in unreimbursed medical expenses before I would have serious trouble (read: before the marginal-utility-of-money curve went seriously nonlinear), so I bought a catastrophic coverage policy with a deductible of $5000. This is how insurance is supposed to work -- you figure out what risk you can't bear yourself and pay someone else to bear it for you.

Such plans are going to be illegal soon under Obamacare.

White House PDF

[FrootLoops]

Here's the actual document. Appendix A contains the "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights". (There's a link in TFA, but for those who want to skip to the source, here you go.)

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[scot4875]

I gotta wonder how long we're going to keep hearing how awful Obama is as hard-headed Republicans struggle to rationalize the 8 years of Bush Jr. that they voted for.

--Jeremy

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[Culture20]

Took away your right to a lawyer.
Took away your right to a trial.

Nope, plenty of lawyers and trials everyday here in the US of A.

There are even more cars than lawyers, but we don't have a right to a car (in the same way that a right to a trial was enshrined). Sure, cars aren't illegal In the same way that lawyers aren't illegal, but if you're suspected of something terroristy enough, you'll get a hellfire missile from a drone whether you're an American citizen or not. No lawyer, no trial. And that is unprecedented in the US. Violent response is reserved for someone who is being a present danger, not a potential future or prior one.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[Hatta]

The awful part of Obama's presidency is the continuation of Bush's national security policy. Warrantless wiretapping, assassinating under age American citizens, keeping Guantanamo bay open, failing to prosecute anyone for torture. He stayed in Iraq until the last minute set by the Bush administration. All right, good he killed OBL. Now can we GTFO of Afghanistan? Can we stop war mongering with Iran?

Let's not forget his economic policy. Employ the exact same people who caused the problem, and watch them bail out their cronies and wonder why jobs aren't coming back. He didn't do a damn thing to ensure that banks were actually lending out the free money they handed out. He didn't prosecute any senior bank executives for the massive fraud that caused the crisis. Compare with Ronald Reagan who put nearly 1000 bankers in jail for the much smaller S&L crisis. Didn't prosecute anyone for perjury in the robosigning fiasco either. He's prosecuted plenty of whistleblowers and medical marijuana suppliers though.

I thought Bush was the worst president ever. I'm not sure anymore.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[unr3a1]

Since when do we need any privacy bill of rights? The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution already applies here. Or at least they should.

Also, calling it a "bill of rights" is extremely deceitful about what a bill of rights is. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are rights that protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT. This 'privacy bill of rights' conveniently EXEMPTS the GOVERNMENT from it's protections. So in reality what this is doing is conditioning people into falsehoods regarding privacy, and the bill of rights.

1. Privacy is only applicable to private institutions, and the people should not expect privacy from the Government.

2. A 'bill of rights' again does not apply to the Government, but instead private entities. This is extremely important when the Government decides to pass laws that are in direct violation of the Bill of Rights. To say it won't happen is naive, as it already has happened (PATRIOT Act and NDAA being two examples).

Unintended Consequences

[Stormy Dragon]

The problem is that this document never defines what it means by either "consumer" or "personal data" (although there are suggestions they're both far broader then we'd normally use the terms: "Still, data brokers and other companies that collect personal data without direct consumer interactions or a reasonably detectable presence in consumer-facing activities should seek innovative ways to provide consumers with effective Individual Control."). Given this will get the typically clueless implementation that Congress invariably comes up with on technology matters, this creates all kinds of possibilities for abuse.

Does The Church of Scientology have a right to control the content of its Wikipedia page? If a news organization does an undercover investigation of corruption at some company, do they have to approve the distribution of information that gets collected? Is talking about who's funding a particular interest group allowed?

Re:Unintended Consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

Does The Church of Scientology have a right to control the content of its Wikipedia page? If a news organization does an undercover investigation of corruption at some company, do they have to approve the distribution of information that gets collected? Is talking about who's funding a particular interest group allowed?

If a law can create contradictions with another law that doesn't mean the other law evaporates. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press still exist, and I would be very surprised if those would be overruled by a right to own data about yourself.

wookie

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm betting this fluff piece is all about slowing down the TOR and "encrypt everything" rate of adoption. The FBI and NSA want your data to be readable and if you keep trying to hide it from advertisers the FBI and NSA have trouble tracking you.

They are tracking you.

really.

Data ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be obvious that data, naturally, is not owned by anyone. Laws which say otherwise lead to human rights abuse.

It /may/ be a good idea to make it illegal for companies to collect and use data for targeted marketing but even in this case such a law should have nothing to do with "data ownership".

Can we please drop this "intellectual property" oxymoron before we develop technology to monitor peoples thoughts.

Non-consensual mind reading (radio telepathy)

[FShima]

This has no protections whatsoever against government agents using synthetic telepathy to read your mind remotely. So this is just more government PR baloney based on making people believe that we're still using obsolete technology, when in fact they've been doing the "alien" abductions and putting the electrodes in people's brains for years now.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[Anonymous Coward]

good. I'm glad your responsible and understand the purpose of insurance and can objectively make choices on your coverage. Surely you have noticed you are an extreme outlier. I would wager that a majority of insurance seeking americans never evened learned about the concept of marginal utility, those that did were introduced during a semester of highschool or college and have been drowning in a sea of corporate and government propaganda designed to make them forget ever since.

Anonymity is necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

It is meaningless to grant a right when it is impossible to protect it. With datamining and analysis, the only possible way we can have a protected right to privacy is if we also have a protected right to anonymity. If we make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of identity, or lack thereof, then all discrimination will be eliminated.

Of course, this would change quite many cultural features, such as the nature of employment, taxation, insurance, etc. However, as I can think of many solutions to these problems, I'm sure the concerted effort of those directly involved will find a solution to each issue that is actually viable.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[joocemann]

Stfu and accept the fact that single.payer is cheaper per capita and works amazingly in every comparable country.

sick of hearing this stupid factless drivel. support good factually based ideas like single payer and you wont face abominations like obamacare.

Will this include my junk

[Allnighterking]

Some things I'd like to be private. My junk, my wife's body and totally my kids body's. Does he include that?

Re:Will this include my junk

[Anonymous Coward]

And will this include my child's lunches?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lunch-protests-crackdown-homemade-lunches_631809.html

There are SO MANY invasions of citizen's privacy by federal, state, and local governments--making it much more worrisome that what occurs on-line.

In Soviet Russia

[Roachie]

Privacy Bill is the ENDING!

White house is the wrong place for this

[walterbyrd]

I just cannot see the white house coming out with sensible policy for this.

Obama signed the anti-constitution 2012 NDAA

[walterbyrd]

It does seem like Obama may not be the right guy to protect our rights.

Re:Obama signed the anti-constitution 2012 NDAA

[Paracelcus]

The creeping evil that has overtaken our country these past few years will in time result in a horror so profound that even with the complicity of the corporate news media and the ignorant apathy of the public at large there will be no covering it up!

Look up the 2012 NDAA Obama signed

[walterbyrd]

Yes Obama is denying Americans the right to a lawyer, and the right to a trial.

Is Obamacare single payer?

[walterbyrd]

I don't think it is.

Re:Is Obamacare single payer?

[joocemann]

Well what you *think* doesnt matter in the face of facts, unless youre trying to make a point about having irrational thoughts.

Facts are facts. Your opinion is trash compared to facts.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[walterbyrd]

The awful part of Obama's presidency is the continuation of Bush's national security policy. Warrantless wiretapping, assassinating under age American citizens, keeping Guantanamo bay open, failing to prosecute anyone for torture. He stayed in Iraq until the last minute set by the Bush administration.

Obama also signed the 2012 NDAA. So Obama not only continued Bush's constitution shredding policies, Obama accelerated those policies.

Help me out here...

[jcr]

Isn't the same teleprompter-in-chief who signed an extension of the PATRIOT act?

-jcr

Hahahaha... You funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

A bill of Rights from Obama? Please... I'll believe that when pigs fly... He doesn't have any respect for the Constitution or the present Bill of Rights, so now I'm supposed to believe he's suddenly concerned? Unless it says they can strip you and do whatever they want to you without any questions or they will shoot your ass... That is all I would expect from him...

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[RocketRabbit]

You have Stockholm Syndrome something bad.

He established no groundwork, he just put out a non binding little pithy statement.

Now, I would be singing a different tune if he had issued an executive order which legally mandated new privacy rules.

Bush killed more pirates than Obama did, and Bin Laden is not really what you think it was.

What do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit your bitching, we have the beat government that money can buy. It's based on the Golden Rule, who ever has the gold, rules. If you have enough money, you love the government. If not, shut up and bend over.

Apply Privacy to Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

The government has no business knowing where I work or how much money I make. They just use it to play us against each other. I have no privacy until I can get them out of our personal finances. Support the FairTax!

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[Hatta]

I know! Obama is so awful that it's hard to even keep track of how many terrible policies he's implemented.

Lets just see.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Every citizen has the right to believe they actually have rights, when in fact they dont.

What About The Government Itself?

[NoSalt]

The Government seems determined to protect us from privacy rights violations at the hands of big business. But, what about protecting our privacy rights from the Government itself?

Re:What About The Government Itself?

[theangrypeon]

DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!

Does the government have to abide by these rules?

[RogueWarrior65]

I'm less concerned with "private companies" having to abide by privacy rules than I am with governments having to abide by them. You don't HAVE to do business with companies that don't respect your privacy. You do have to deal with the government.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[RocketRabbit]

Fuck per capita you commie. I don't want to pay for your and your cousin's congenitally defective children.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h

[joocemann]

You dont pay. We pay. But being clueless is the least of your problems, since priority and humanity are clearly distorted in your mind.