"OK, let's set up a "Do Not Track" list. How are they going to know not to track you? By figuring out who you are, then checking to see if you're on the list.
Oops."
It looks like it works the other way. People who want to do the tracking are the ones that are registered. And those that don't want to be tracked download that list of tracking servers. So we are tracking the trackers, not those who dont want to be tracked
No. The Credit Reporting Agencies are regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Section 1681h(e) provides:
"Except as provided in sections 616 and 617 [ 1681n and
1681o] of this title, no consumer may bring any action or proceeding in the nature of
defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence with respect to the reporting of
information against any consumer reporting agency, any user of information, or any
person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency..."
Number one, the Coalition is looking for them to have lots of comments. Sheer numbers from individuals and people outside the organized civil liberties movement to show the broad opposition to this proposal.
Number two, agencies have to make their rulemakings "fully reasoned." This means that they must take into account data, analysis, and interests offered by the public. Courts have said that agencies must respond -- by either modifying a rule or explaining why they are not modifying a rule -- to "significant comments" or "comments of cogent materiality" from the private sector. (all this from Afred C. Aman & William T. Maton, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 54-55 (2001).)
Number three, commenting gives you standing to sue. "Ungrounded Lightning v. Chertoff":)
"The plan will create a massive national identification system without adequate privacy and security safeguards. It will also make it more difficult for people to get driver's licenses. And it will make it too easy for identity thieves, stalkers, and corrupt government officials to get access to such personal information as a home address, age, and Social Security number."
Slashdotters should offer their perspective. REAL ID was approved without Congressional hearings, and this is the last 24 hours for the public to comment on this proposal!
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to 2007.
Its poorly named. At least as proposed las year, it actually required the TRACKERS to register. So that you can easily opt out by downloading the list of trackers. See: http://infoadvocate.org/blog/2007/11/04/do-not-track-lists-and-registries/
I don't buy it. You send emails out to the net, VOIP calls, etc... And those aren't "public." At least not in this sense.
"OK, let's set up a "Do Not Track" list. How are they going to know not to track you? By figuring out who you are, then checking to see if you're on the list. Oops."
It looks like it works the other way. People who want to do the tracking are the ones that are registered. And those that don't want to be tracked download that list of tracking servers. So we are tracking the trackers, not those who dont want to be tracked
Thats if they follow other parts of the law.
No. The Credit Reporting Agencies are regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Section 1681h(e) provides:
"Except as provided in sections 616 and 617 [ 1681n and 1681o] of this title, no consumer may bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence with respect to the reporting of information against any consumer reporting agency, any user of information, or any person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency..."
LOLbertarians.
I don't want people to know what I am doing that is right, never mind wrong!
Number one, the Coalition is looking for them to have lots of comments. Sheer numbers from individuals and people outside the organized civil liberties movement to show the broad opposition to this proposal.
Number two, agencies have to make their rulemakings "fully reasoned." This means that they must take into account data, analysis, and interests offered by the public. Courts have said that agencies must respond -- by either modifying a rule or explaining why they are not modifying a rule -- to "significant comments" or "comments of cogent materiality" from the private sector. (all this from Afred C. Aman & William T. Maton, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 54-55 (2001).)
Number three, commenting gives you standing to sue. "Ungrounded Lightning v. Chertoff" :)
"The plan will create a massive national identification system without adequate privacy and security safeguards. It will also make it more difficult for people to get driver's licenses. And it will make it too easy for identity thieves, stalkers, and corrupt government officials to get access to such personal information as a home address, age, and Social Security number."
Slashdotters should offer their perspective. REAL ID was approved without Congressional hearings, and this is the last 24 hours for the public to comment on this proposal!