I find it appalling that people nowdays act in a manner to prove not innocence, but their lack of guilt, rather than put their feet down and say "I'm innocent until proven guilty, and if you think I'm guilty then it's your job to prove it."
A major feature of a lot of these so-called strong privacy policies is the claim of not selling, sharing, or other forms of transferring personal data to third parties. However, without any real threat of sanctions for doing so, personal data is sold to third parties all the time.
Mann said in an e-mail that the complaints generally fell into three categories: People who had technical problems, those who objected to giving out personal information, and those who "railed that we were pigs and were 'ruining the Internet!"'
"We helped the first group through it. We reassured most all of the second group with a strong privacy policy. The third group still doesn't like it and I presume many of them did not register with us," he said.
It seems like everyone likes to say that they have a strong privacy policy, but it is often the case that the claim of a strong privacy policy is just a bunch of reassuring words with no basis in reality (remember Toysmart? And from what I understand, not much has happened regarding attempts to create legislation.). As long as there are no laws in the US that regulate the use of personal data that are comperable to the laws in Europe, these newspapers could pretty much do whatever they want to with the data.
Now fine, I understand that these newspapers need to get advertisers' money in order to survive. But why not be straightforward about it? For example, if they asked readers to do anonymous surveys in order to help their advertisers, they would probably get far more favorable response than this register-all-your-personal-data-so-we-can-lie-to-y ou-about-not-selling-it-to advertisers bullshit they're doing now.
The Norwegian Personal Data Act (Chapter VII) and the statute to the Personal Data Act (Chapter VIII) allow for video surveillance as long as a certain set of rules are followed, including where you're allowed to set up the cameras, disclosure of images, and notification that surveillance is being carried out (for example with a sign).
Almost every time you read some story or other about the world's oldest woman or world's oldest man, their secret to long life usually includes some kind of alcoholic beverage, drunken on a daily basis. So who needs bio-engineering when you can have a good drink instead?
I don't get Campbell's soup here in Norway. Well, we can get it but it costs much more than it's worth.
My favorite simple soups (i.e. absolute max 20 minutes) are:
tomato/gazpacho where I blend all the ingredients in a blender and either heat or chill
spinach - cook spinach and 1 potato cut in bits (for thickening) in broth; blend in blender when potato is soft
cream of broccoli - cook brocoli and 1 potato cut in bits (for thickening) in broth and milk/cream (1:1 ratio); blend in blender when potato is soft
Asian fishball - cook fishballs and chopped carrot (from Asian markets or any supermarket in Norway) in seafood/fish broth, add rice noodles or flakes if desired. Serve with fresh bean sprouts, chopped spinach, chopped green onion. I usually cook the soup with some rice wine vinegar and soya-chili paste and add some lime.
Apropos spaghetti and tomato sauce - the time it takes to boil the water and cook the spaghetti is the time it takes to make a good simple tomato sauce. Forget about the crap in a jar (which usually contains more sugar and other crap than your body needs).
Apropos bread machines, boyfriend of tuxette makes a wonderful wholegrain bread in his machine, using beer as the liquid.
...and once your cooking skills become more advanced, you won't even want to touch the Campbell's soup because your homemade soups and sauces are superior.
It's probably legal...or "legal" in the US. But in Europe, it is illegal.
First of all, in Europe, data is collected for specific purposes (use limitation principle) and can only be used for these specific purposes and not for other purposes, unless the data subject explicitly consents to new use.
Secondly, whether or not data is "legal" and "pubicly available," you have to get consent from the data subject in order to use that data. And of course you would still be bound by the use limitation principle.
"Passive surveillance" is not prudent, as the data collector risks collecting "junk data" (data that is incorrect, false, outdated, etc.), in addition to risking data subjects filing lawsuits.
It chills me to think that in this age of terrorism paranoia, this kind of approach will be repeated when searching for "terrorists".
I read an article a while ago that painted an interesting scenario. A person living on "Lebanon Street" is put on the no-fly-list due to connections to Lebanon. And of course, the poor sod has no way in getting his situation rectified. I don't have any URLs, unfortunately; if anyone here read the same article and has an URL, I'd greatly appreciate seeing it again.
So we need to get word out to these companies that we don't want our information being sold to the government, or we won't do business with them anymore...something to that effect?
Do you think these companies really care that you won't do business with them anymore, once they have your data that they can sell?
Threats of not doing business with company so-and-so are not good enough. We need to get these companies where it counts. Fine them heavily if they sell personal data to third parties without the consent of the persons who own that data. And yes, you own your own personal data. Nobody else does. Not companies, not the government, nobody but you.
God ettermiddag! I'm very familiar with the Norwegian Data Proection Agency (*). However, they can't do anything about ads that aren't addressed to you directly (uadressert reklame); you have to get one of those stickers from the post office.
(*) Happy with them for the most part, but not always. They could do a lot better, but apparently are low-priority when it comes to funds from the Department of Justice.
What I'm interested in, is the quality of the data the government is mining. They are going through a lot of databases that may contain incorrect, false, misleading, or outdated data:
2. Data Quality Principle
Personal data should be relevant to the purposes for which they are to be used, and, to the extent necessary for those purposes, should be accurate, complete and kept up-to-date.
How does the government separate the junk data from what may actually be worth looking at?
This is called the collection limitation principle - There should be limits to the collection of personal data and any such data should be obtained by lawful and fair means and, where appropriate, with the knowledge or consent of the data subject., cf. OECD Guidelines for privacy/data protection.
I mentioned in another post that it should be a supplement to the history lessons, and stick with it. I see a lot of good points with these games, but games should never replace real lessons.
Different actions have different consequences, and it is important to learn how to think and evaluate all the different scenarios that can come up as a result of one or several actions. If you have a choose your own adventure type game, you could see what could have been if historical figures acted differently. It's something worth thinking about.
This could be an interesting supplement to regular teaching and books. "See how history could have been if so-and-so did such-and-such instead of such-and-such."
However, it should not replace teaching and additional supplementation with books (and perhaps Discovery Channel).
A lot of companies promise to never sell or otherwise transfer your details to a third party, and then do so anyways. Remember the Toysmart case? They're one of the few that got caught.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it appalling that people nowdays act in a manner to prove not innocence, but their lack of guilt, rather than put their feet down and say "I'm innocent until proven guilty, and if you think I'm guilty then it's your job to prove it."
I usually use Beverly Hills 90210 ;-)
A major feature of a lot of these so-called strong privacy policies is the claim of not selling, sharing, or other forms of transferring personal data to third parties. However, without any real threat of sanctions for doing so, personal data is sold to third parties all the time.
"We helped the first group through it. We reassured most all of the second group with a strong privacy policy. The third group still doesn't like it and I presume many of them did not register with us," he said.
It seems like everyone likes to say that they have a strong privacy policy, but it is often the case that the claim of a strong privacy policy is just a bunch of reassuring words with no basis in reality (remember Toysmart? And from what I understand, not much has happened regarding attempts to create legislation.). As long as there are no laws in the US that regulate the use of personal data that are comperable to the laws in Europe, these newspapers could pretty much do whatever they want to with the data.
Now fine, I understand that these newspapers need to get advertisers' money in order to survive. But why not be straightforward about it? For example, if they asked readers to do anonymous surveys in order to help their advertisers, they would probably get far more favorable response than this register-all-your-personal-data-so-we-can-lie-to-y ou-about-not-selling-it-to advertisers bullshit they're doing now.
The Norwegian Personal Data Act (Chapter VII) and the statute to the Personal Data Act (Chapter VIII) allow for video surveillance as long as a certain set of rules are followed, including where you're allowed to set up the cameras, disclosure of images, and notification that surveillance is being carried out (for example with a sign).
Almost every time you read some story or other about the world's oldest woman or world's oldest man, their secret to long life usually includes some kind of alcoholic beverage, drunken on a daily basis. So who needs bio-engineering when you can have a good drink instead?
My favorite simple soups (i.e. absolute max 20 minutes) are:
tomato/gazpacho where I blend all the ingredients in a blender and either heat or chill
spinach - cook spinach and 1 potato cut in bits (for thickening) in broth; blend in blender when potato is soft
cream of broccoli - cook brocoli and 1 potato cut in bits (for thickening) in broth and milk/cream (1:1 ratio); blend in blender when potato is soft
Asian fishball - cook fishballs and chopped carrot (from Asian markets or any supermarket in Norway) in seafood/fish broth, add rice noodles or flakes if desired. Serve with fresh bean sprouts, chopped spinach, chopped green onion. I usually cook the soup with some rice wine vinegar and soya-chili paste and add some lime.
Apropos bread machines, boyfriend of tuxette makes a wonderful wholegrain bread in his machine, using beer as the liquid.
...and once your cooking skills become more advanced, you won't even want to touch the Campbell's soup because your homemade soups and sauces are superior.
Lots of good random recipes to be found on the same journal in case anyone is interested.
It's not nice to tease people with the aromas of fine wine and leave it at that. We want to be able to taste it too!
First of all, in Europe, data is collected for specific purposes (use limitation principle) and can only be used for these specific purposes and not for other purposes, unless the data subject explicitly consents to new use.
Secondly, whether or not data is "legal" and "pubicly available," you have to get consent from the data subject in order to use that data. And of course you would still be bound by the use limitation principle.
"Passive surveillance" is not prudent, as the data collector risks collecting "junk data" (data that is incorrect, false, outdated, etc.), in addition to risking data subjects filing lawsuits.
I read an article a while ago that painted an interesting scenario. A person living on "Lebanon Street" is put on the no-fly-list due to connections to Lebanon. And of course, the poor sod has no way in getting his situation rectified. I don't have any URLs, unfortunately; if anyone here read the same article and has an URL, I'd greatly appreciate seeing it again.
Do you think these companies really care that you won't do business with them anymore, once they have your data that they can sell?
Threats of not doing business with company so-and-so are not good enough. We need to get these companies where it counts. Fine them heavily if they sell personal data to third parties without the consent of the persons who own that data. And yes, you own your own personal data. Nobody else does. Not companies, not the government, nobody but you.
(*) Happy with them for the most part, but not always. They could do a lot better, but apparently are low-priority when it comes to funds from the Department of Justice.
2. Data Quality Principle
Personal data should be relevant to the purposes for which they are to be used, and, to the extent necessary for those purposes, should be accurate, complete and kept up-to-date.
How does the government separate the junk data from what may actually be worth looking at?
In the EU/EEA, this would be illegal, as there are legal limits to third party transfers of personal data.
This is called the collection limitation principle - There should be limits to the collection of personal data and any such data should be obtained by lawful and fair means and, where appropriate, with the knowledge or consent of the data subject., cf. OECD Guidelines for privacy/data protection.
Here is the EU Personal Data Directive (95/46/EC), which is the basis/minimum for the data protection laws of each EU and EEA country. The Norwegian Personal Data Act is supposedly the toughest of them all. It's interesting to compare the nuances.
Why, yes.
He'll surely need a large amount of cigarettes and contraband as dowry for his marriage to Big Bubba.
I mentioned in another post that it should be a supplement to the history lessons, and stick with it. I see a lot of good points with these games, but games should never replace real lessons.
Different actions have different consequences, and it is important to learn how to think and evaluate all the different scenarios that can come up as a result of one or several actions. If you have a choose your own adventure type game, you could see what could have been if historical figures acted differently. It's something worth thinking about.
However, it should not replace teaching and additional supplementation with books (and perhaps Discovery Channel).
A lot of companies promise to never sell or otherwise transfer your details to a third party, and then do so anyways. Remember the Toysmart case? They're one of the few that got caught.