Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Asks For Public Input on Data Privacy (cnet.com)
The federal government wants to know the best way to protect your privacy online. On Tuesday, the Department of Commerce released a request for public comments as it outlined the Trump administration's approach to consumer data privacy. A report adds: In the proposal, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a branch under the Commerce Department, recommended privacy regulations focused on giving users control over how their data is used by tech companies. The proposal comes a day before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is set to hold a hearing on consumer privacy, with companies like Apple, Google and Amazon testifying. The Commerce Department found public concern with how personal information has been used by tech companies and is taking a "risk-based flexibility" approach for privacy regulations. "The administration takes these concerns seriously and believes that users should be able to benefit from dynamic uses of their information, while still expecting organizations will appropriately minimize risks to users' privacy," the department wrote in the document.
They'll overwhelm the legitimate responses with bot's giving the responses they want. See look we asked the public this is what they asked for.
Whatever you (the gov't) doesn't want anyone to know about all your "dealings", and the efforts you take to ensure such "dealings" remain secret and hidden from public view....apply to all citizens.
Problem solved /h (maybe)
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Require companies that intend to collect ANY personal data to put up a bond commensurate with the type of data they collect. If they are found to have sold the data, or allowed through negligence the data to be stolen, then the bond immediately pays out to the effected people, without so much as a whisper from a lawyer.
I know that's all a fantasy, but really these companies need to know that they can't treat people like assets.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
After the shit show that was the Net Neutrality comment period? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice and.. well... You can't fool me again.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You get into the habit of using facebook single sign on for a majority of web pages and apps, then you find out facebook buys financial banking data to tie to your account, then they get voting data, surfing history, contacts. Nobody knew back then that facebook would buy companies up, gobble data, to have such indepth view into everyones lives. Its not a cute and fun social networking site anymore.
If they're not sharing some info now they will later. We don't have enough laws to protect it, and I really doubt we ever will. Even if the laws say they can't do X, how can you prove they are?
I say the only two options are live in a hermit shack or just accept it.
AT&T thug: Sir! the president says he wants Americans opinions on ah...privacy...
AT&T Boss: Remember the FCC comments?
AT&T thug: Sure thing boss. Yo! Mikey! fire up the shit-post-o-matic 9000! we've got some "opinions" that need voiced!
Good people go to bed earlier.
Dear [DoC]. I strongly [urge/recommend/ask] the DoC to [rescind/overturn/undo] the rules [set in place/laid down] by [Obama/Wheeler/both], which [take over broadband/control the internet]. [Normal people], as opposed to [elitist liberal bureaucrats], should be able to [use/purchase] the [services/applications/products] they want. The [Obama/Wheeler/both] plan is a [betrayal/exploitation/corruption] of [data privacy/the open internet]. It [undid/reversed/broke] a [light-touch/market-based/pro-consumer] [approach/policy/system] that [worked/functioned/performed] successfully for [a long time] with [bipartisan support].
Imagine a consumer data policy where every user has a hash key they can revoke at any point which would leave data encrypted anywhere he or she has shared it. In order to display an unscrambled picture, the social media site or other tech company would run the user's saved key against another decentralized key authority (like the Bitcoin blockchain or one of the many other crypto blockchains). The user could revoke the key by having control over the decentralized address and remove the designated social media site's individual user key.
Then.. for the law.. Make it illegal for any site to store unscrambled/decrypted photos, video, or other media of user's specifically encrypted content. So, a user could share unscrambled pictures to Facebook.. or encrypted pictures to facebook with an unlock hash key..
I don't have the idea completely thought out.. but ultimately a user should have control over his or her specifically private shared data. Specifically private shared data would be any data shared explicitly to a single party with no intent to distribute to everyone. ie: sharing data to only my 'friends' on Facebook
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Trump Administration Asks For Public Input on Data Privacy
Trump's corrupt, useless, so-called "administration" is asking for public input on something, I'm sure so that they can do the opposite.
As Admiral Akbar said, "It's a trap!"
So fucking tired of this shit.
You must be some kind of "born in 2013 baby" because the NSA has been spying on everyone since the 70's. Only a moron would try to blame Obama for that lol. #Get tested Kohath you partisan faggot.
(It's even funnier when you back a traitor like Trump and THEN try to go after Obama using decades old arguments as if brand new)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_Wind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)
http://digitalmanticore.com/?tag=national-security
https://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-prism-keywords-for-domestic-spying-2013-6 * last updated in 1998
The only person that should perform late term abrotion on themselves, is you.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
He was responsible. The President is responsible for the activities of the people who work for him. That’s the job.
There's no link anywhere to provide your input. Nothing on CNet's site in the story (well, duh, they don't want the restrictions), but I couldn't find it on the DoC's National Telecommunications and Information Administration's website either.
Is this a farce?
How about Trump getting public input on the rampant greed in the Health Care Industry? It's the one thing he has not touched as far as I know. The high cost of health care is rendering our population poor as a third world country.
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
Do you believe Trump has stopped these programs and what's your evidence?
Doesn't the continued use of these programs under the Trump administration make Trump just as guilty as you claim Obama is?
Hypocrite much?
Because CNET doesn't want you actually expressing your thoughts on privacy, I'll provide the goods: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/feder...
On behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is requesting comments on ways to advance consumer privacy while protecting prosperity and innovation. NTIA is seeking public comments on a proposed approach to this task that lays out a set of user-centric privacy outcomes that underpin the protections that should be produced by any Federal actions on consumer-privacy policy, and a set of high-level goals that describe the outlines of the ecosystem that should be created to provide those protections.
Written comments identified by Docket No. 180821780-8780-01 may be submitted by email to privacyrfc2018@ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted by email should be machine-readable and should not be copy-protected. Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 4725, Attn: Privacy RFC, Washington, DC 20230.
The President is responsible for the activities of the people who work for him. That's the job.
Oh really? Then are we to presume the con artist is responsible for the FCC lying about being "hacked" when the Net Neutrality public response was out, when in reality they were overwhelmed by people who wanted to keep NN in place? Instead, the head of the FCC used at least one person's dead mother to post a fake comment.
Or how about the former head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, who was essentially bought by big industry, who spent taxpayer money like it was water, had a security detail to rival the president's, who had secretive rooms installed (at taxpayer expense), and got a sweetheart deal from an energy lobbyist on a condo rental?
Or the head of FEMA who used government vehicles to drive back and forth between his home in North Carolina and Washington, a six hour trip, each weekend?
Considering all the scandals in this administration, it doesn't appear the con artist cares one wit about the activities of those who work for him. Even more so when one considers the criminals who worked on his campaign and are going to jail.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
My experience with the public comment process is that some types of comments have worked, some don't. We got changes we wanted, when we used certain approaches.
Regulators already HAVE the bumper stickers. As you mentioned, saying "impeach Trump!" isn't going to inspire any edits to the regulation. Neither is "fuck Facebook", or anything else that fits on a bumper sticker. A bumper sticker slogan won't give regulators any new information or new ideas on which to base changes.
My experience is that sending well thought out, specific suggestions which take into account different people's perspectives works. How does privacy regulation affect your job? What would be good changes that make things work better for you, in your personal life and I your job? What proposed changes could create problems? Can you suggest a way to FIX the proposal to make it better?
That last question is the big one. To pick randomly regulation I commented on, the initial draft off the FAA "drone" defined the terms in such a way that it would apply to a paper airplane. You'd need to register your paper airplane with the FCC before throwing it. The foam glider toys you get for $8, those would need to be registered, under the original definition of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. How about only powered objects? That would include the rubber band powered windup plane in the toy aisle of the supermarket. The palm-sized quadcopters that can only fly indoors - do they really need to be registered with the FAA? Lots of people made comments about what a reasonable definition of an UAV would be, and the FAA adopted a sane definition.
In previous instances it's been "it's been proposed that Foo, Bar, and Baz be exempt. Suggest adding Fum to the list", or "suggest changing 'under 3 pounds' to 'under 10 pounds because ...".
So why are you so focused on Obama? He's one of a long line of Presidents who've been at best passive participants in this going all the way back to Jimmy Carter.
Why are you focused solely on Obama if you are as clean and pure of motive as you claim?
Here's where you can actually comment (sort of the point of the article), go to it folks: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/feder...
in Europe, the people have the upper hand on large corporations in influencing government.
Unfortunately it is not that obvious. Lobbies are strong in Brussels, and in fact I still do not understand how the GDPR made its way. Look at how hard it is to forbid glyphosate usage, for instance.
I'd be great if this can include ISPs, cell phone companies, and credit reporting agencies too. I'd really like to opt-out of their data collection.