Slashdot Mirror
'Do Not Track' Bill Aims To Let Consumers Reject Online Tracking (consumerist.com)
kheldan writes: A newly introduced piece of federal legislation aims to give consumers more choices about when their browsing behavior is being tracked. Today, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Ed Markey (MA) are introducing the Do Not Track Online Act of 2015 (PDF), which would direct the Federal Trade Commission to create new regulations "regarding the collection and use of personal information obtained by tracking the online activity of an individual."
how are they going to enforce "do not track" if they can't even enforce do not call?
The failed policy's we have had here in CT are just the evidence you need as to why to run from any bull proposed by this knucklehead.
Each Do Not Track cookie will have a serial number that cannot be used for tracking purposes. /sarcasm
So this is, what, theater? I mean, that's kind of my go to for all the "Does not actually deliver jack shit of claimed intent", it's for pacification or PR or image management or whatever. Assuming there isn't a more unpleasant motive.
Ohhh, that's adorable. Politicians think their opinion matters to corporations.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why not write these bills in collaboration with software engineers, who have a clue?
We don't want more ridiculous things like the mandatory "by visiting this site you agree with our website using cookies" messages.
Yet another "law" that is completely unenforceable and unworkable being paraded in front of us for one reason only, the get gullible people who don't understand the tech in play to vote for someone.
One of the problems they have with the health care privacy law is that there is no legal punishment. That is, if you get caught giving or selling away healthcare information, you don't do jail time. Usually they get off with a warning - even if it was your ex-employer who gave a private detective health care information and tried to hire them to look for incriminating evidence.
At best, the people get sued - which is often an expensive proposition.
Put in a real fine - say $1000 per incident PLUS all legal fees - non-waivable regardless of contract.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Even if you could pass a law like this and get people in the US or Canada to agree with it, exactly how are you suppose to stop companies that are located in other countries. This isn't really going to work.
Dear Ledouche of the Retardation:
Nobody is talking about NSLs. The article isn't about NSLs. The bill isn't about NSLs. uBlock and Disconnect.me aren't about NSLs.
This is about stopping seedy advertising shitheads from doing what the NSA is already doing.
Do not call lists have worked perfect for myself for the past decade or so?
I just wish they would make it so political calls could be added to that list.
PHB: ...so I, a small online marketing firm, am not allowed to TELL anyone that I'm harvesting this data anymore? I have to say that I'm following the law and not? Ah, shucks. Well, that's fine. I'll just sell a "unique" data set product with "cutting-edge" sources. No big deal. Hey, Jen, tell the guys to start working on that.
Jen: Already did. They said it'll be done in a few hours.
PHB: Better idea than I originally thought!
*faceplant*
You think websites will give a damn?
We have a law against unwanted newsletter in Canada. Hasn't stopped ANYTHING other than from Canadian companies... and even there, some still send them because their TOS says you are agreeing to it just by using their service.
to this and what the loop holes are.
I'm assuming my do not track preferences would not apply to the Feds though.
A better question is where would they apply? I'm sure there will be some rich-ass political BS merged in at the last moment that grants allowances and exclusions.
Can I get a "do not steal my credit card number" bill, and a "pretty please don't assume my identity" bill, while they're at it?
Damn...our politicians are just so forward-thinking. If only they would have have had the foresight to pass a "do not blow up skyscrapers" bill before 9/11. Just think how different the world would be today!!
That's funny. perhaps they will add a bill to outlaw being a criminal, too.
No, it's actually bullshit. Meaningless campaign posturing. Their aides or supporters then mention it to media or in publications as if it were meaningful.
These are senators introducing a bill that everyone knows will be referred to a subcommittee where it will die. To top it off, they're Senators from the minority party so they *know* they have no chance of even getting the bill seriously on the agenda, much less of anything remotely resembling passage.
Which means they're spending taxpayer dollars on political posturing and time campaigning.
Time they could spend on actually trying to fix some area in government where everyone agrees something is stupid. It turns out there are a lot of these.
But we'll still be able to buy homeopathic bullshit, and pay for it with an InstantCash loan, right?
Do not call lists have worked perfect for myself for the past decade or so?
I just wish they would make it so political calls could be added to that list.
Having no land-line works perfectly for this. Unless you're really old, I can't understand why anyone still has a land-line
I won't say it works perfectly, but I will say that at least half of the time that I tell a telemarketer that I'm on the National Do Not Call List they've either hung up, or apologized for the call and ended it politely.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I have one because my ISP provides it as part of my internet package. The option without a landline is cheaper but the Internet speed is painfully slow. The one benefit of the landline is free calls to any landline in the US, which comes in handy when trying to handle business with US companies. (I live in Southern Europe.)
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
People are already empowered to prevent websites from remembering what they told those websites: don't talk to that website. We have neglected to use that power, and instead, we've chosen to use shitty web browsers for the last 20 years, where those web browsers' policy seems to be "meh, load whatever anyone suggests." I suppose some people would say since our browsers suck and most of us aren't programmers who can make their own browser, we're not really empowered, but I think we simply rejected the power.
And things are actually changing (for various reasons that we're all familiar with). You really ought to check out Privacy Badger. It's a start. There are a lot of related and similar plugins, and as we have started to care more about the issue, we have started to have these things. When we start to care a lot, then we'll really upgrade our tools and get what we want.
Mostly. We'll mostly get what we want, at least in terms of "third party" tracking. First party tracking has been possible since the dawn of time. You tell Ogg the caveman, "me hungry" too many times, and eventually he'll start to remember you're often hungry, and who knows: he might approach you with offers of trading his mammoth meat for your ropes and pre-napped obsidian or whatever. That's life.
And I find it pretty fucking outrageous that someone wants to point at gun at Ogg and tell him that he's not allowed to remember things that you told him. His mind is his right, outside of your (or anyone else's) purview. Same goes for my computer. If you choose to tell my agent things about you, my agent gets to remember what you said. "Do Not Track" is about thoughtcrime, and is arguably even more despicable than DMCA (where you're not allowed to program your own computer).
To recap:
1. We've got this on the browser side; we don't need a law.
2. The law would be unenforceable so it won't do any good (you can't verify that Ogg has forgotten whatever you told him).
3. The law would set precedent for more thoughtcrime laws, so it's bad. Also, having an unforceable law just encourages people to not do the things that really work; it reminds me of people who want Congress to stop the NSA from reading their plaintext emails, instead of them encrypting so that the NSA (and everyone else) can't read their emails. So it'd be harmful to privacy.
Everything points against supporting the kind of people who advocate this nonsense. It's another one of those things that is all disadvantages and doesn't even have any advantages, where some idiot could subjectively weigh it in a certain direction. I don't care what you multiple the zero on the "up" side by: it's not enough.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Can we get "do not track" bill that applies to NSA/CIA/etc. first, please?
I get a free one with my ISP too, but have nothing connected to it and never use it. Everything I need I can do with Mobile or VOIP.