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.
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.
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.
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!
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
Testimony, is by definition, evidence. We now have sworn testimony that Trump participated in multiple felonies. This testimony was from Trump's own long-time lawyer.
https://www.apnews.com/74aaf72...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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...
Which I personally think is a mistake in the constitution (it may shock some to hear, but it is not a divinely inspired document). Why should every other citizen, politician, and official be subject to the criminal laws of the US except for the president? The impeachment process is ineffective since it's far too political, and of the very few times it has been used it has been highly political and used to get rid of someone unpopular with the congressional majority. In essence, if the president is popular with the party in power (who may also be corrupt) then there are no checks on the executive.
Some people say the president should be above all this to protect his or her ability to conduct war and run the country rather than get bogged down dealing with a defense. That's bullshit though, that's why we have vice presidents and cabinet members and we're well into the 21st century where the president should not be micromanaging the country.
You are correct. Cohen's testimony didn't mention Trump by name. It mentioned an "unnamed federal candidate that Cohen worked for". Since Cohen never worked for any other candidate, who do you think it's referring to?
That's why Trump is referred to as an "unindicted co-conspirator". This is a common formulation in criminal cases that involve elected officials. I remember when an earlier incarnation of Trump, Rod Blagojevich, was indicted and everybody was finking on each other. They didn't name the other parties in the conspiracy because they were being indicted separately (or cooperating), and Justice Department guidelines don't allow testimony to name anyone who is not a defendant in that case. Since the testimony is evidenciary in a case that is still being built, brick by brick, against Donald Trump, he's not a defendant until he's indicted. But make no mistake: Cohen implicated Trump in several felonies, and is still talking his head off to prosecutors in some room in the Southern District of New York.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/2...
You are welcome on my lawn.