Hello/. people, I sue telemarketers regularly. I live in Washington, DC and sue in the DC small claims court. It only costs $15 to file, and thus far I have collected $600 this year.
Here is the language I put in my standard complaint against someone who has sent an unsolicited commercial fax message:
On March 15, 2002, the Defendant sent an unsolicited commercial facsimile message to Plaintiff's home telephone number in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 U.S.C. 227 (b)(1)(C)). Additionally, the fax message did not include accurate date, time, and sending telephone number information in the margin of the message in violation of 47 U.S.C. 227 (d)(1)(B). Plaintiff has no prior business relationship with defendant, and has not consented to such communications. The TCPA affords Plaintiff a private right of action in State court pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227 (b)(3). The Superior Court of the District of Columbia (Civil Division-Small Claims and Conciliation Branch) has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to D.C. 11-921 and D.C. 11-1321. Defendant is engaged in willing or knowing violations of the TCPA, and Plaintiff requests minimum liquidated damages of $500 and treble damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227 (b)(3)(C).
There is an enormous profiling business that grabs up all of your data and sells it to whomever! Those "trusted partners" are anyone under the sun who is willing to pay a fee for a list of personal information. Check out EPIC on this: Profiling. You'd be shocked to see what aspects of your life can be cataloged and marketed. They have databases on medical conditions, including bladder control problems!
That editorial written by Valenti was placed because Congress will be holding a hearing on content protection and broadband on Thursday morning. Even the Washington Post's editoral page can be hijacked by the MPAA's powerful lobbyists...
The legislation to be considered will probably be Hollings' SSSCA.
SSSCA Working Draft. (via Cryptome)
Nowhere in the Constitution can you find the "right to vote" or "democracy"
Personalization Invades Privacy
on
Making It Personal
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This feel-good commentary on personalization adds nothing to the debate. The fact of the matter is that companies are collecting information for one purpose and using it for other, unrelated purposes.
The databases are immense, and go far beyond what music groups you like. Companies such as Experian trade information on your illnesses! They even have an incontinence database! This information is sold for as little as $65 per million names.
This information is available to government as well. In some cases, businesses just hand over the data. In others, businesses sell the information (Check out EPIC's web page on public records profilers: http://www.epic.org/privacy/publicrecords/). Government can also just subpoena the records.
Companies that care about privacy will not engage in personalization. They will provide services where possible without collecting information unnecessarily. They will also allow "Customization," the practice of letting the customer decide what features will be provided. Personalization does the opposite--it's the practice of saying "I know what the customer wants." Let the customer decide!
Copy Protection and Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems will likely not only dilute user control but also user privacy. EPIC DRM and Privacy Web Page.
Expect these DRM systems to be vigorous in demanding your identification.
Expect these DRM systems to tie content to your identity.
Expect MS to have enormous profiling ability of your tastes, habits, etc as a result. EPIC DRM Webpage.
The anonymous coward has posed excellent questions on public records. The challenge we face is to make records easily accessible to the public while stopping inappropriate uses. This can be done through fair information practices (notice, consent, access, security, use/collection limitations). In these cases, use limitations are most important for protecting citizens.
Generally, public records are created for government accountability. However, there are no restrictions on use--anyone can use public records for any purpose under the sun. We need to establish appropriate uses and audit logs to catch those use who public records for identity theft, pretexting, and marketing.
The fact of the matter is that many banks and other institutions use mother's maiden name and DOB as passwords for user verification. With that information public, all Californians are at heightened risk for pretexting.
Restricting access doesn't work. When you restrict access, the infomation brokers (who have the resources to send researchers and aggregators to records offices) get the records and citizens don't.
The US didn't help write the treaty. The US DOJ wrote the damn legislation. This is what is called "policy laundering" in Washington. If you can't pass the surveillance powers you want in the US, just shop the same provisions around in a treaty in other countries.
Here we have more evidence of big business relying on big government to survive...
Next time you hear those in big business praising the vigor of the free market, and being critical of the welfare state, just think of the Defense Department. The Defense Department is the welfare mother for our corporate failures.
More information tying the FBI to unethical behavior appeared in today's Washington Post. Can we trust the FBI to montior our communications lawfully?
"U.S. government documents released last week show that the FBI compiled a dossier on journalist Frank Teruggi, labeled him a "subversive" and obtained his addresss in the capital of Santiago from a sensitive intelligence source almost a year before his death, raising the possibility that American operatives could have tipped their Chilean counterparts."
--WP, 11/19/00, page A6
Terruggi was a left-wing journalist...if he were a right-winger, the FBI probably would have supported him!
Slashdot Mirror
I sue telemarketers regularly. I live in Washington, DC and sue in the DC small claims court. It only costs $15 to file, and thus far I have collected $600 this year.
Here is the language I put in my standard complaint against someone who has sent an unsolicited commercial fax message:
On March 15, 2002, the Defendant sent an unsolicited commercial facsimile message to Plaintiff's home telephone number in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 U.S.C. 227 (b)(1)(C)). Additionally, the fax message did not include accurate date, time, and sending telephone number information in the margin of the message in violation of 47 U.S.C. 227 (d)(1)(B). Plaintiff has no prior business relationship with defendant, and has not consented to such communications. The TCPA affords Plaintiff a private right of action in State court pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227 (b)(3). The Superior Court of the District of Columbia (Civil Division-Small Claims and Conciliation Branch) has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to D.C. 11-921 and D.C. 11-1321. Defendant is engaged in willing or knowing violations of the TCPA, and Plaintiff requests minimum liquidated damages of $500 and treble damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227 (b)(3)(C).
There is an enormous profiling business that grabs up all of your data and sells it to whomever! Those "trusted partners" are anyone under the sun who is willing to pay a fee for a list of personal information. Check out EPIC on this: Profiling. You'd be shocked to see what aspects of your life can be cataloged and marketed. They have databases on medical conditions, including bladder control problems!
That editorial written by Valenti was placed because Congress will be holding a hearing on content protection and broadband on Thursday morning. Even the Washington Post's editoral page can be hijacked by the MPAA's powerful lobbyists... The legislation to be considered will probably be Hollings' SSSCA.
SSSCA Working Draft. (via Cryptome)
Nowhere in the Constitution can you find the "right to vote" or "democracy"
The databases are immense, and go far beyond what music groups you like. Companies such as Experian trade information on your illnesses! They even have an incontinence database! This information is sold for as little as $65 per million names.
This information is available to government as well. In some cases, businesses just hand over the data. In others, businesses sell the information (Check out EPIC's web page on public records profilers: http://www.epic.org/privacy/publicrecords/). Government can also just subpoena the records.
Companies that care about privacy will not engage in personalization. They will provide services where possible without collecting information unnecessarily. They will also allow "Customization," the practice of letting the customer decide what features will be provided. Personalization does the opposite--it's the practice of saying "I know what the customer wants." Let the customer decide!
Copy Protection and Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems will likely not only dilute user control but also user privacy.
EPIC DRM and Privacy Web Page.
Expect these DRM systems to be vigorous in demanding your identification.
Expect these DRM systems to tie content to your identity.
Expect MS to have enormous profiling ability of your tastes, habits, etc as a result.
EPIC DRM Webpage.
Generally, public records are created for government accountability. However, there are no restrictions on use--anyone can use public records for any purpose under the sun. We need to establish appropriate uses and audit logs to catch those use who public records for identity theft, pretexting, and marketing.
The fact of the matter is that many banks and other institutions use mother's maiden name and DOB as passwords for user verification. With that information public, all Californians are at heightened risk for pretexting.
Restricting access doesn't work. When you restrict access, the infomation brokers (who have the resources to send researchers and aggregators to records offices) get the records and citizens don't.
The US didn't help write the treaty. The US DOJ wrote the damn legislation. This is what is called "policy laundering" in Washington. If you can't pass the surveillance powers you want in the US, just shop the same provisions around in a treaty in other countries.
They have...it's called AOL-Time Warner.
Will I be able to buy a copy of software or music anonymously and still transfer the data from one drive to another without revealing my identity?
Next time you hear those in big business praising the vigor of the free market, and being critical of the welfare state, just think of the Defense Department. The Defense Department is the welfare mother for our corporate failures.
--WP, 11/19/00, page A6
Terruggi was a left-wing journalist...if he were a right-winger, the FBI probably would have supported him!
Buck Mulligan