Obama May Toughen Internet Privacy Rules 222
CWmike writes "The Obama administration is considering plans to step up policing of Internet privacy issues and to establish a new position to direct the effort, reports the WSJ, which cites unnamed sources. Any push for stronger federal oversight over online privacy is likely to be welcomed by privacy advocates increasingly concerned about the data-collection and data-sharing practices of big Internet and marketing companies. High profile cases such as the uproar over Facebook's personal data collection habits and the public reaction to Google's continuing problems over its Street View Wi-Fi snooping have created a broader awareness of online privacy issues. The big question, though, is just how successful any fresh attempt at enforcing new privacy strictures on the Internet will be with Republicans soon to be in charge of the House."
Bias? (Score:4, Insightful)
The big question, though, is just how successful any fresh attempt at enforcing new privacy strictures on the Internet will be with Republicans soon to be in charge of the House.
Let's try not to be so blatant with our biases next time.
Re:Bias? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that being biased? Republicans are beholden to different corporate interests, and by a different set of constituents. They have also stated their intention of blocking anything Obama tries to do, at least as much as they can with control of only the House.
It's not bias, it's a statement of fact based on an examination of the current political climate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They have also stated their intention of blocking anything Obama tries to do, at least as much as they can with control of only the House.
By the way, in case anyone wants a source on my claim, here's one of many [washingtonpost.com]. Five seconds on Google will net you a large number of hits.
Re: (Score:2)
From your own link:
"Like Halliburton in the previous administration, Google has an exceptionally close relationship with the current administration," the letter says.
So, yes, they are beholden to different corporate interests.
Re:Bias? (Score:5, Informative)
All righty then...taken directly from the article you just linked:
The Army announced its decision yesterday only hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work. The Army also awarded the work to KBR over objections from members of Congress, who have pushed the Pentagon to seek bids for further logistics contracts.
The Justice Department said the government will join a suit filed by whistleblowers alleging that two freight-forwarding firms gave KBR transportation department employees kickbacks in the form of meals, drinks, sports tickets and golf outings.
"Defense contractors cannot take advantage of the ongoing war effort by accepting unlawful kickbacks," Assistant Attorney General Tony West said in a statement.
Care to try again?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't we already do this pissing contest earlier this week?
Re:Bias? (Score:5, Insightful)
So we're supposed to pretend that the republican controlled house will suddenly stop trying to kill anything Obama does? There's unbiased and then there's naive.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, This guy is just next in line for the job. Leave it to Obama-nation to come up with another "position". More of my tax money for another stupid program run by stupid people for the benefit of the Federal Employees and the Obama ra ra section of the major media. And worst of all, some of you actually thing it is a good idea. Obviously you have head buried someplace dark, smelly and damp for the last 2 years. Get a grip...
Oh please please please MOD THIS UP My kingdom for some mod points!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
The republican have said, multiple times now, that they will block anything Obama puts forward. It's not a bias, it's a fact.
|
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You Republicans want to fill the government with the most biased, incompetent, anti-privacy corporatists possible, then whine about bias when people tell the truth about them.
Elections have consequences. You Republicans voting control of the House to Boehner will have consequences that attack your privacy like never before. Evidently starting with the lies about "fair and balanced".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't say anything partisan. What I said was merely a correction of an actual partisan twat. Attacking Republicans on the facts when a Republican spews BS is not partisan, unless "the truth" is a party.
In that spirit, here's the truth about the BS you just spewed about the Democrats: Obama and the Democrats reduced the deficit [yahoo.com] by 9% from Bush's devastation, while reducing taxes on 95% of Americans during the recession Bush caused, even as they rescued the economy from that devastating recession. Republic
Re: (Score:2)
You might or might not be a CS professor, but you're certainly a liar. If you are a professor, your students should ignore you.
Because what the article says is
122B / 1.294T = 9.4281298%. "Budget shortfall" = "deficit". The 2010 fiscal year was the first budget that Obama presented. The 2009 budget was Bush's last budget.
Si
Re: (Score:2)
When someone points out that Net Neutrality is in danger while Republicans have power, when the truth is that Republicans are against Net Neutrality, and someone else criticizes them saying so as biased, that is someone defending the Republican Party on something other than the truth.
In fact, I didn't say it was "loyalty to the Republican Party". You did. I just called them a Republican, because that's who defends Republicans from the truth with BS like "you're biased". Maybe they're not loyal to the Party;
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You guys need to make a new shorthand for it, I had to go look up what they meant by "The House" because as someone not TOO familiar with American Politics, I naturally assumed they meant The White House, which kind of shocked me that they already knew the outcomes of the next elections.
The House of Representatives, can't you guys call it like, the RepHouse or something so that us Canadians aren't all wtf eh?
Or better yet, paint the white house some other colour...
I'm thinking... Mauve?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah - I get that NOW.
But if you don't know that - when you waltz in on the conversation, and someone says "The House" you intuitively think "The White House" and not "Congress"
Re: (Score:2)
I automatically think the house of representatives. Congress is the union of the house and the senate.
Re: (Score:2)
I think house of representatives when they say the house.
Re:The House (Score:2)
It's a Canadian thing. In Canada, "The House" is the House of Commons--our counterpart to Congress.
Our counterpart to the White House is Rideau Hall, but there the similarity ends with a resounding crash.
Re: (Score:2)
But even that's not right...
The House (of Representatives) is the lower chamber of Congress, the Senate is the upper chamber.
But controlling one-half of Congress is enough to stymie legislation, so the outcome is the same in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Canadian and I knew what the reference meant.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess he doesn't want to become an American citizen.
Well, we could call it white horse, as in dead horse, because it's generally dead as in always kicking a dead horse.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I thought it was some dude with a French name and a hot wife.
I learned everything I need to know about Canada from watching Trailer Park Boys, South Park and the Black Hawks beating up on Calgary to win Stanley's Cup.
I'd visit Canada, but on Fox News they say they everybody up there's dying in the streets because of the Socialist Medicine, so I'm gonna stay away until they get that cleaned up.
Re:Bias? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the current climate, it would be more likely that regardless of opinions there will be no bill in congress that will have support from both democrats and republicans.
Re:Different opinions? Or different contributors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, let's all welcome the tyranny of the majority.
And while we're at it, the tyranny of the uninformed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Terminating traffic in another country (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay. I think I'm done. I'm going to terminate my traffic, all of it, via VPN in some other country.
Re:Terminating traffic in another country (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I call (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats have proven themselves to be just as guilty in this regard so please refrain from the partisianship.
I think the summary implied partisanship, not actual ideological differences, could kill this. Maybe the atmosphere will be calmer now, but I suspect if Obama were to endorse trickle down economics, prayer in schools, and outlawing abortion, some republicans would try to block it out of pure spite.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it can be partisanship because of ideological reasoning. In other words, Obama set in the stimulus a tax rebate and automatically said that the republicans would support it. When they didn't, he blamed it on them being partisan. But the reality of it was that the rebate wasn't supported because it didn't do anything economical sound in the short term, and being a single rebate meant it wouldn't be around long enough to have an impact in the long term. We figured this out with Bush and his retroactive
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The 2 parties have primary goals is to oppose whatever the other proposes...except for going to war !
I believe "pretend terrorists are attacking us because of envy of our 'freedom' rather than our foreign policy, and pretend that we can stop them by sacrificing your rights" is the other movement with broad bipartisan support (bipartisan among the elected, that is).
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't bullshit. You misunderstood. When the Republican strategy is to oppose anything Obama tries, then it will probably cause an issue if he tries to enforce new privacy laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Please name any point in the last 50 years where the democrats were blatant obstructionists.
Re: (Score:2)
You should examine your recollections for signs of bias, then.
During the first half of W. Bush's presidency, I seem to recall a lot of brouhaha over the then minority Democrat's use of the filibuster and other Senate rules to stall the debate and appointment of Bush's judicial nominees.
It's pretty standard practice in American politics for the minority (one part of congress vs the other and the Presidency is still a minority) to oppose the will of the governing party in order to make it look bad.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, Slashdot just posted a story about the right-leaning NLPC writing to the House Oversight Committee [slashdot.org] to investigate Google's relationship with Obama after the FTC dismissed its inquiry into the WiFi snooping controversy. Other Republicans were cited in the article as being very interested in investigating Google's WiFi snooping. So Republicans may actually be pretty open about instituting privacy rules.
People in that previous story criticized the NLPC for being a Republican front group. It is kind of
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The bigger picture (Score:5, Funny)
Great. Now where did I put that tinfoil hat...
No he won't (Score:2, Insightful)
He might try, but the republicans will block it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until either side does away with it, taking any of them seriously about privacy is an non-starter.
Re: (Score:2)
Those in power never willingly cede those powers. Power has but one purpose, to engorge and enlarge itself as much as possible. The Founding Fathers were pretty bright, but still, all the power brokers will try everything in their arsenal of tricks and rhetoric to take as much power as they can.
Re: (Score:2)
Saved... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the evil data-mining corporations out for our private data.
Still no word on whether or not we will be saved from a prying government with increased authority over internet communication and encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations have only shareholders to answer to, and shareholders are only concerned about profits.
Governments have the people to answer to.
I choose government control of my communication any day.
What we really need is punishment for violation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What's needed is a constitutional amendment explicitly delivering privacy rights. Anything less will always allow the politicians the means to circumvent protections.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty clear to me that my prior
A Symptom of the Problem! (Score:4, Informative)
Is this not the typical reaction by the average idiot American? Let government legislate a cure to our problem? Are we not supposed to be a free market? When will we say as a group, we refuse to use facebook, or any other site for that matter, until they provide agreements that protect our private data? Instead we just give corporations everything we have so THEY can make money off YOU, and your only concern is why is the government not doing anything about it?
The Government's track record leaves little for debate. The standard is to over charge taxpayers for a system with loop holes that only result in the public "feeling better" without actually solving the real problem. Ladies and Gentlemen, do you want your privacy? Then stop giving it away like retarded little tripe's without a care in the world while expecting the government to swoop in and rescue you like a mythical Superman. If you have not been paying any attention the government does not care about your privacy when it concerns them. They want to be able to stop, search, and seize you and your property any time they please regardless of the constitution. If you think they really care about your privacy, I have some top quality products I would like to sell you! A fool and their money as well as their liberty are soon parted!
Re:A Symptom of the Problem! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds great if everyone was like you, but they are not. They aren't aware that privacy is an issue. You may want to call them stupid or whatever but they aren't as tech savvy as people on here. Expecting everyone to "do the right thing" when they have no idea that they need to isn't realistic. Educating is key as well as encouraging our government representatives to add laws that protect consumer. You act as if all government rules and regulations do nothing to help fix problems. Look at China...see how well they are doing without government regulations for pretty much any product they create. So yeah, our government isn't perfect, but saying they can't do anything is just the stupid stuff that gets circle jerked around on here.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to be able to stop, search, and seize you and your property any time they please regardless of the constitution. If you think they really care about your privacy, I have some top quality products I would like to sell you! A fool and their money as well as their liberty are soon parted!
Precisely. However, the notion of "government as savior" and "hope" seem to be rather common delusions among those who support the policies of the Obama administration. Wake up people, the government isn't your friend and it certainly isn't looking out for your best interests. The United States Federal Government looks after the interests of the highest bidders in the last election (which probably doesn't include you). If you care about individual liberty and personal choice then only rational conclusion is
Google didn't "invade" anyone's privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we please stop calling Google's Wifi drive-by data collection a "Privacy violation" - they only collected traffic that was publicly available because people chose to transmit it. If anything, it was good for public awareness, hopefully at least a few people encrypted their Wifi traffic because of it.
It's not like Google put the data up on their search engine, it was an artifact of the collection process leftover on corporate hard drives.
While it's nice to see lawmakers taking an interest in privacy, rather than go after Google, they should be going after the manufacturers that still sell access points that default to unencrypted traffic.
The danger that all of these people who had their data snooped face is not from Google -- it's not like Google is going to use their credit cards or try to steal their identity. The real danger is in having their data snooped by people with criminal intent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As I understand it, Google was collecting information about WiFi signals, particularly their names and locations. It chose to do so in a way that just logged everything their antennas picked up, so that they could then sift out the useful information later. Maybe their idea was that doin
Re: (Score:2)
No shit. It's like claiming that my ISP is collecting data about my traffic because as a side-effect of how their routers work, some of the data is left in their memory for a period of time after they've routed the packet.
Except you've expressly giving your ISP permission to do that. And as you observed its an essential part of providing YOU the service YOU are paying them to provide you.
Google driving around collecting that information is entirely different.
As I understand it, Google was collecting inform
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but can you come up with an example that doesn't involve entering private property to install a camera in one of the most private rooms of a house?
Actually, in my head writing it I was envisioning a public washroom; with the flush monitoring being set up by the maintenance engineers.
Google received unencrypted data from radio waves, so your example would better be someone installing a camera in their car and driving down streets taking photos of every house, even though it was just to count the number of ho
Google broke privacy laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's completely absurd. If I write my credit card number on the wall of my house, I can't sue people for looking at it because it's my personal information. Google cannot in any way ever be held responsible for people blatantly revealing their personal information. Even considering that Google did anything wrong at all here is complete and utter idiocy.
It's not Google's fault that Canadian law is ridiculous. You can't outlaw "seeing things that are plainly visible."
Well, I guess you did, but that doesn't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's completely absurd. If I write my credit card number on the wall of my house, I can't sue people for looking at it because it's my personal information.
You are right. That is completely absurd. Its also completely irrelevant.
Google cannot in any way ever be held responsible for people blatantly revealing their personal information.
Except that using an unencrypted wifi is really entirely nothing like writing something on the wall of your house.
You can't outlaw "seeing things that are plainly visible."
Re: (Score:2)
Google did not connect to their wifi. These people were transmitting EM signals which passed through Google's antenna and Google recorded them. They weren't transmitting through wires like on a phone, and they weren't encrypted in any way. They were using a standard encoding, like all unencrypted wifi.
It's not like opening a door at all, and representing it with that analogy is overtly misleading. They made no "positive action." A better comparison is overhearing a conversation in a language you know. You d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They made no "positive action.
Google both decoded and recorded the signals. Those are both positive actions.
A better comparison is overhearing a conversation in a language you know.
Only if you "overheard" it using a radio scanner, and then recorded it, and then surprise, surprise it would be illegal for you to do that.
There is a fundamental difference between overhearing a conversation at the next table, and "overhearing" it via a radio scanner and recording it.
It's like you walked out in the street and ann
Re: (Score:2)
See, I knew we agreed. It always comes down to a question of semantics.
I would define using your ears to hear something as equivalent to using a radio to hear it. Just because we happen to be born with ears instead of radios doesn't make the information any more secure. By basing our laws off of how humans are born, we are in many ways making them very short sited, as the emergence of new legal conflicts since the advent of the internet has demonstrated. Old laws for old systems are unfit when the system ch
Re: (Score:2)
See, I knew we agreed. It always comes down to a question of semantics.
In that we disagree on the definition of 'plain view', yes, that seems to be the contention.
This is why the distinction between "signals that leave your home unencrypted" and "signals that are encrypted/don't leave your home" is a farther reaching definition here.
It is, I think, a VERY poor place to put the distinction.
It won't be long before someone releases a "firesheep" tool to get people's credit card numbers or naughty emails just
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when a firesheep comes out that can capture/intercept/decode the em from a wireless keyboard from outside one's home? That technology already exists. Should using a wireless keyboard be carteblanch for people to record your activities? I think not.
Yes, it should be, because if it's not, the bad guys will still do it and still capture the data. All that would be accomplished by making it illegal would be to prevent the good guys from demonstrating how easy it is to steal your data.
If there's some false assumption that no one will intercept my wireless data because it's "illegal", then there will be no demand from consumers for manufacturers to encrypt that data.
Enforcing security by making it illegal to listen is worse than security through obscurity.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it should be, because if it's not, the bad guys will still do it and still capture the data. All that would be accomplished by making it illegal would be to prevent the good guys from demonstrating how easy it is to steal your data.
By that logic we should legalize people breaking car windows and stealing car stereos because its pretty easy, and the only thing we accomplish by making it illegal is that it prevents the good guys from demonstrating how easy it is to steal your car stereo.
That is ridiculou
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic we should legalize people breaking car windows and stealing car stereos because its pretty easy, and the only thing we accomplish by making it illegal is that it prevents the good guys from demonstrating how easy it is to steal your car stereo.
Wow, we've traveled pretty far down that slippery slope -- stealing a stereo is quite a bit different than sitting outside with my computer listening to your unencrypted Wifi signals. (or your wireless keyboard, or shouting out the window, or whatever else you choose to transmit outside of your walls).
The technology exists to listen to conversations through walls. At some point we just need to say that its illegal to use that to invade people's privacy. Or do you plan to require that people encrypt their conversations.
I have no problem with making laser eavesdropping equipment illegal - you should have an expectation to privacy within your home. Though if your fear is the government, they already have such equipment.
Depends what you are trying to address. I'm honestly not all that worried about criminals at this point. The threat right now is coming from government and major corporations. And making it illegal does effectively curb their behavior.
Then i
Re: (Score:2)
Our ears are a type listening technology. Our mouths and vocal chords make up the human speaker system. Our eyes are but cameras capturing data and relaying it on to our brains. What I can sense with my ears I can sense with a microphone, and vice versa. Why is it that when I sense it with a microphone I'm all of the sudden a criminal? Perhaps this argument needs another point: intent.
Laws should not be made against a specific action because any action can be justified regardless of it's legality. Murder is
Re: (Score:2)
Our ears are a type listening technology. Our mouths and vocal chords make up the human speaker system. Our eyes are but cameras capturing data and relaying it on to our brains.
-sigh-
In this context your eyes are not technology. They did not come about through the application of knowledge or invention. They are not tools as they were not crafted. They are not technology, by the simple definition of technology.
They are natural.
The things that they can see naturally are the things in plain sight. Its really t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nice little discussion you're having, but all your analogies miss the point completely. I don't know how you got on this "plain view" furrow, but it has no relevance. The simple fact is that personal information - recorded information that uniquely identifies an individual - has special status. It's special. The law says so. The legislation governs, among other things, how such data is collected and how it is used. Whether or not it is in "plain view" is neither here nor there. Google completely igno
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one missing the point. The law is ludicrous because of the simple "yelling my credit card number at the top of my lungs and suing those who heard me" analogy. Routers broadcasting unencrypted data is exactly "yelling at the top of your lungs." Its up to you to make sure your data is secure, not the government.
You clearly have no idea what you're writing about (Score:2)
You have your view of the law and the Canadian Privacy Commissioner has hers - I know which one I believe is the more sound. The mere fact that you write of "suing" in your inappropriate analogy shows how little you understand of how the legislation works.
Neither Canada nor the EU are responsible for the ridiculous situation where the US alone among industrialised nations lacks proper privacy legislation. Being ignorant of these matters is no excuse, for either you or google.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is your data private if you are publicly broadcasting it for anyone and everyone to see? My name is personal data, but if I tell it to someone and another person overhears it, I wouldn't accuse that person of wrongdoing... that would be foolish. What is the difference with wireless networking? Nobody broke into your house and destroyed your property. You GAVE them access by not securing your network. Thats why they call encrypted wifi "private" and non-encrypted wifi "public."
Charity begins at home... (Score:2)
How about we start with "no more warrantless wiretaps" and by having the Executive Branch's own agencies reversing their insistence that America's telecom infrastructure be inherently snoopable by the spooks?
My Privacy Anecdote (Score:5, Interesting)
I talked to a customer service rep. and they helped me get though the opt-out process without giving up much more in the way of personal info. The rep. quipped, however, that my efforts were pretty futile because there were countless other companies providing the same services. So I asked for those company names and, sure enough, eventually found their web presence with similar business-descriptions and opt-out policies. All of this data aggregation was happening unbeknown to myself and probably most folk that are not in the car insurance industry. Many of them had outdated records (they only mine DMV so often), and showed various false information about my driving record in their records. This was the info. that would be used to analyze my driving habits for insurance rates. All in all, it was breathtaking how flawed and vast this info. gathering network was.
So, long story short, the privacy thing goes a lot deeper than Facebook. Frankly, I have a Facebook profile and I couldn't give a damn about my privacy settings on there (I never want to work for someone that takes things I say on a site like Facebook seriously). What I do give a damn about is companies that turn a profit off of data-mining me without my permission (I NEVER requested any of these company's services, why the hell do they have the right to gather a profile on me?)
Anyways, I would much prefer to see legislation regarding issues like mine rather than crap directed at Facebook or Google. Either way, it was a few months back that I went through all of this and I forget the name of the first company I contacted. I think I still have it written on a post-it note at home. I'll try to find it and dig it up to post in a response to this message later.
Re: (Score:2)
Was this a collision that actually happened, or false data? (I can take your story either way.)
If the "information" about us is false, then I'm not sure it's so much a privacy violation, but rather libel/slander.
Re: (Score:2)
Your desire for privacy is prudish and doomed (Score:2)
All these calls around privacy, protection of user data. They are all going to fall in the end.
That is because the young neither know nor care about privacy. The next generation will grow up in a world where pretty much no-one cares who reads what they post. People here worry all the time about employers freaking out when they see random things you've posted on the internet (hence the attempt at regulations that let you wipe a slate clean) but future employers will not care, because they too will have gr
False Path (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to hand it to the government on this one. They have completely reframed the idea of "privacy" online and separated it from anonymity. We all know that to have true privacy, you have to have anonymity. That aspect of the debate has already been marginalized and will never be addressed. Instead what we are getting is a regulatory regime that proposes to protect our real identities online. What happens if you do not want to use your real identity? It seems like the path that we are going down is to make it more and more difficult not to.
The battle has been lost. We're already in the aftermath; the laws are now being codified to solidify the decisions that have already been made.
It would be nice to see some push back against the government on this. I'm of the opinion that if they want me to be me online, I want a cryptographically secure authentication mechanism. I want two factor RSA. I don't want a single piece of unsolicited email. Unless I have opted in by signing with my digital key, I don't want to hear one peep from advertisers.
If the government is going to get involved, it better go one of two ways. Either A, let me be anonymous or B, make it so damn burdensome for anyone who I don't want to talk to talk to me that they decide it isn't worth the hassle to initiate communication unless I solicit it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are serious about protecting your privacy, both online and offline, then it is best to take matters into your own hands and learn the sorts of tradecraft [wikipedia.org] techniques which are common to the intelligence community. There are many publicly accessible books and articles (of varying quality) on this and other relevant topics; finding them is left as an exercise for the reader. However, a good starting point is this exchange from the film Ronin [imdb.com].
Sam: Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt. That's
Cometition (Score:2)
Just leave rule 34 alone please (Score:2)
As long as rule 34 isn't touched, it's all cool.
Privacy Rules ?! (Score:2)
First, this is not about the Internet. It's about the American way of using it.
In other (Western) countries I could write things like "you are completely incompetent", but I can' t write "someone should drive by your house and teach you a lesson".
In the US I can write "Dr. Joe performs abortion and lives in 400 Main. To bad, if something would happen to him" but I can' t write something, some company's lawyer won' t like (well, I can if I have the money).
In other countries, companies are limited by law
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then allow the consumer to decide what to do about the problem themselves.
Most consumers will do nothing. Educating them will do nothing except waste money. All that will happen is the consumers who do end up losing everything will complain because the government didn't do more to prevent it. They'll complain and get some politician needing an issue to promote to force a half-assed plan into place. Its better to at least attempt a rational level-headed method than something done as a rushed response to a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's impossible now. In order to get a job you have to apply on the internet - many times with third party companies that have their own multi-page legalese filled "Terms of Service" that has the "we reserve the right to change these terms at anytime" bullshit clause.
My credit union uses a third party for many of their back office and web services.
Many companies spread your personal information all over the
Re:knee jerk reaction (Score:4, Funny)
Secure a mans fish and you starve him for a day. Teach a man to secure his fish and he'll call you an idiot and eat it.
What were we talking about again?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree with your overall point, I'd like to take this moment to point out how awesome it is that C-SPAN 1, 2, and 3 exist. Being given a direct line-of-sight into our legislative process is rad as hell, especially when compared to the secretive inner workings of many other governments around the world.
The people that call-in during the morning show on C-SPAN Radio commonly say "Thank you for C-SPAN". There's a damn good reason for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Right.. Im going to trust the gov with privacy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ecept we're not really given a direct line-of-site into the legislative process. We're being given a direct line-of-sight into the dog-and-pony show that masquerades as our legislative process.
The real workings of the legislature happen behind closed doors, on K street and other places where the legislation is actually hammered out.
What we can watch on C-Span is largely circus.
Re:The problem is snooping, not advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Warning: unpopular opinion ahead.
As far as advertising is concerned, I'm actually GLAD that companies are "invading my privacy" in an attempt to display ads to me that are relevant to my interests. I don't give a crap about tampons, or Roth I.R.As, or some new Genital Wart drug. However, I DO care about AMDs latest processor, or some new Asus laptop, or a special deal going on with digital cameras.
Advertising is going to happen, no matter what you do. Yes, I know, I know...adblock and noscript. Still, regardless, advertising will reach you at some point in your day-to-day life. I would MUCH rather it be for something I care about. /rant
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a crap about tampons, or Roth I.R.As, or some new Genital Wart drug.
You're assuming that targeted advertising means you won't get ads for those kinds of products, since you think you're not interesting in those products. That's not quite true. Advertising dollars do the most good on 'fence-sitters'. Ad dollars are wasted if the person has no interest in the product (e.g. live in an area where it isn't available). But ad dollars are also mostly wasted if the person is already well-versed in a given subject: an expert on CPUs is more difficult to sway with flashy ads. Whereas
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points. I hadn't thought of it, but I have been in one of those situations where I favored the product I had heard of over the no-name product.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as advertising is concerned, I'm actually GLAD that companies are "invading my privacy" in an attempt to display ads to me that are relevant to my interests.
Good for you. Now what does that have to do with anything?
You do realize that in a world with strong privacy controls you would still be free to give advertisers as much information as you wanted to right?
In a world with strong privacy controls you could opt in to all their collection methods; install as many advertising toolbars as you can find