Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama's Privacy Bill of Rights: Just a Beginning

Posted by timothy on from the how-to-water-down-a-phrase dept.

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."

25 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. aren't required to respect the rules? by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So this is a Privacy Bill of Suggestions :)

    1. Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

    2. Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think you are understating things.

    4. Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by Higgins_Boson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    7. Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by electron+sponge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by PontifexPrimus · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      -- Language is a virus from outer space.
  2. I haven't been that impressed ... by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.

  3. Let me know when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Let me know when... by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    2. Re:Let me know when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  4. I'm more worried about YOU by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:I'm more worried about YOU by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...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.

  5. Another problem. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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?

  6. Companies? by mmcxii · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. We DON'T need yet ANOTHER "Bill of Rights"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"

  8. Bills of rights stop the government. by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  9. Re:It's a start by incer · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  10. Real privacy by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

    --
    Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
  11. Data ownership by Dave+Emami · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  12. Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h by joocemann · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.