Obama's Privacy Bill of Rights: Just a Beginning

aren't required to respect the rules? by CannonballHead · 2012-02-23 09:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

So this is a Privacy Bill of Suggestions :)

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by girlintraining · 2012-02-23 10:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by artor3 · 2012-02-23 10:44 · 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.
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by slick7 · 2012-02-23 11:06 · Score: 2

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.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by Higgins_Boson · 2012-02-23 11:25 · 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.
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by yotto · 2012-02-23 11:30 · Score: 2

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.

--
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by DJRumpy · 2012-02-23 12:03 · 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.
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 12:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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? by Archangel+Michael · 2012-02-23 12:10 · Score: 2

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.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by Higgins_Boson · 2012-02-23 13:43 · Score: 2

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? by icebike · 2012-02-23 13:49 · 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.
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by icebike · 2012-02-23 13:52 · 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.
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by electron+sponge · 2012-02-23 16:07 · 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.
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by bondsbw · 2012-02-23 18:44 · Score: 2

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.

--
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by PontifexPrimus · 2012-02-23 19:48 · 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.
Re:aren't required to respect the rules? by sg_oneill · 2012-02-23 22:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.

I haven't been that impressed ... by therealkevinkretz · 2012-02-23 10:15 · 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.

Re:I haven't been that impressed ... by Artraze · 2012-02-23 10:51 · Score: 2

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 by incer · 2012-02-23 10:16 · Score: 2

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 by JaredOfEuropa · 2012-02-23 10:27 · Score: 2

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.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:It's a start by incer · 2012-02-23 10:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Let me know when... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 10:18 · 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.

Re:Let me know when... by Ihmhi · 2012-02-23 10:43 · 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)
Re:Let me know when... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 11:21 · 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.
Re:Let me know when... by BlueStrat · 2012-02-23 13:45 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

I'm more worried about YOU by elrous0 · 2012-02-23 10:20 · 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.

Re:I'm more worried about YOU by Sponge+Bath · 2012-02-23 10:33 · 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.
Re:I'm more worried about YOU by IVI+V+K · 2012-02-23 12:12 · Score: 2

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"

Need more teeth by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-23 10:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

Obama is looking for distractions by schwit1 · 2012-02-23 10:26 · Score: 2

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.

Companies? by mmcxii · 2012-02-23 10:30 · 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.

Leave Obama alone!!! by Vinegar+Joe · 2012-02-23 10:39 · Score: 4, Funny

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!!!!

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes

We DON'T need yet ANOTHER "Bill of Rights"! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 10:40 · 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"

You can't just "keep it secret" by F69631 · 2012-02-23 10:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Bills of rights stop the government. by Karmashock · 2012-02-23 10:42 · 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.

Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court... by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2012-02-23 10:53 · Score: 2

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 by Larry_Dillon · 2012-02-23 11:05 · 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.

Data ownership by Dave+Emami · 2012-02-23 11:07 · 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."

Re:Data ownership by randy+of+the+redwood · 2012-02-23 12:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you are shorter of breath and one day closer to death
Re:Data ownership by Chris+Burke · 2012-02-23 13:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Of course there's no substance to it. by argStyopa · 2012-02-23 11:19 · Score: 2

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.

--
-Styopa

What a joke. by Loosifur · 2012-02-23 11:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h by Entropius · 2012-02-23 11:43 · Score: 2

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 by FrootLoops · 2012-02-23 11:51 · Score: 2

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 by Hatta · 2012-02-23 12:37 · Score: 2

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.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Unintended Consequences by Stormy+Dragon · 2012-02-23 12:48 · Score: 2

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?

Non-consensual mind reading (radio telepathy) by FShima · 2012-02-23 13:17 · Score: 2

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Obama's Privacy Bill of Rights: Just a Beginning

47 of 222 comments (clear)