Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Survey Shows Support For New Privacy Laws

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the internet-is-a-series-of-transparent-tubes dept.

Government 80

GovTechGuy writes "Two-thirds of consumers want the government to safeguard their privacy online and 81 percent want to add their names to a Do Not Track list, according to a May poll released Tuesday by Consumers Union. In addition, over 80 percent of respondents were concerned that companies may be sharing their personal information with third parties without their permission. The survey's release comes just one day before a Senate Commerce Committee hearing where lawmakers will hear testimony on three data privacy bills currently in front of the Senate."

cancel ×

80 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh hai. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36609488)

I hope your mom gets fucking raped.

Never mind consumers (3, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609492)

How many corporations are behind this? That's the only question that counts.

Re:Never mind consumers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36609504)

What percentage of these "consumers" actively use Facebook?

Re:Never mind consumers (2)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 3 years ago | (#36610054)

Companies like facebook, google, etc. don't mine the data. They produce the data. There are a few big corporations none of us have heard of that do nothing but mine personal data. They are linked to our credit bureaus, some of which are subsidiaries. These companies sell to marketing firms, which in turn try and sell you stuff.

It's a big industry and it's not going away. Someone has to sell you something you might buy.

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609518)

I suspect that, if we can get something that appears to be quite strong; but has critical loopholes, going at the federal level, corporations will be absolutely all over it in order to preclude the possibility that some state might actually grow a spine and pass a real one...

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609550)

I suspect that, if we can get something that appears to be quite strong; but has critical loopholes corporations will be absolutely all over it

Do you seriously suspect we might get anything else? Telemarketers don't seem too disturbed by do-not-call lists and politicians even put exclusions for "political parties" into that law.

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609624)

Given the close overlap(in both personnel and required skillset) between marketing and campaigning, I'd say that the odds of seeing anything else aren't quite zero, if some idealistic one-termer feels like walking into a bullet; but the odds of passing anything else are nil.

Re:Never mind consumers (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36610582)

To hell with "do not track" and "do not call" lists, I'd like to see legislation that would make tracking and sphone spam opt-in, making it a felony with prison time for sociopathic corporations' CEOs and boards of directors who ignore the law.

County Market supermarket wants to stalk me, but at least I have to agree to it. Why is it legal for a corporation to stalk me, but a felony for a human being to?

I got phone spam on my cell phone last week; 20 calls from the same telemarketers (302-394-6964, a telemarketing outfit in Deleware). It was just an annoyance to me, as I have a flat-fee no-minutes plan, but it would have cost most people money. These scumbag asshole sociopaths belong behind bars.

Re:Never mind consumers (2)

black soap (2201626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36611746)

They should get booted by their local phone provider, the same way the RIAA want filesharers booted by their ISP.

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36612438)

We could just turn them into biofuels. Sociopaths seem to be a readily renewable resource.

Re:Never mind consumers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36613314)

To hell with "do not track" and "do not call" lists, I'd like to see legislation that would make tracking and sphone spam opt-in, making it a felony with prison time for sociopathic corporations' CEOs and boards of directors who ignore the law...

Why not just ban the collection of personally identifiable data beyond that required to directly conduct business between entities? And completely ban the sale and/or transfer of that data.

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36611724)

I wonder how much the data companies would protest if they were required by law to inform you that they had access to your social security number?

Actually, no, they'd just shift all that data overseas, where it would be even less secure.

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36617206)

How about just changing the system so that knowing a number doesn't give someone the ability to impersonate you?

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36618614)

But it says right on the card that it isn't to be used for identification.

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36620700)

New ones doesn't.

(and 'new' here means from the recent several decades)

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36625642)

cite? If what you are saying is true, I am not old enough to have had that text on my own card.

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629374)

See Q21:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html [ssa.gov]

Gotta love the internets, where countering a misconception results in yelling for citations when the answer is a relatively simple search away:

http://www.google.com/search?q=ssn+not+to+be+used+for+identification [google.com]

Perhaps you don't think of the period between 2011 and 1972 as decades?

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36630230)

Oddly enough, wikipedia information differs from the official SSA website, and my own card was most definitely printed after 1972.

Re:Never mind consumers (2)

base3 (539820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609642)

Exactly -- while a mandatory "do not track" seems all well and good, I'm sure that compliance hurdles that shut out small players could be of benefit in certain quarters. That, and without a "Great Firewall of 'Merica," it would be unenforceable because the companies that wanted to track could just use offshore servers.

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

emaname (1014225) | more than 3 years ago | (#36610252)

You got that right.

Re:Never mind consumers (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613178)

Every single one of them will be if they get fined massively for violations. That's what laws and regulations are for. I'm sure gas stations don't like regulations preventing them from diluting their gas beyond a certain point, but they don't do it because they all know that the fine for doing so far outweighs the profit gained.

Dear Consumers, (1, Troll)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609496)

Did you know that Osama Bin Laden also wanted to be on the 'Do Not Track' list?

Much(highly personalized) love,
-American Advertising Federation

Re:Dear Consumers, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36609530)

Did you know that Osama Bin Laden also wanted to be on the 'Do Not Track' list?

Much(highly personalized) love,

-American Advertising Federation

Nah.

Without tracking, law enforcement won't be able to catch all those child molesters on the internet who are after your kids.

I think would work better ...

Hey! We're brain storming here! Right?

Re:Dear Consumers, (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609654)

I bet he would have settled for being on the "Do Not Shoot" list.

Re:Dear Consumers, (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36611114)

I wish I hadn't posted in this thread or I'd have modded you and fuzzyfuzzyfungus "funny". Got a chuckle out of both of you, thanks!

Re:Dear Consumers, (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613590)

Thanks :)!

Probably not (2)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609544)

Probably not, Because such a list should at least identify you. I find such a list just too stupid for words, because you first have to be identified to be looked up on the list, while I don't want to be identified at all.

Re:Dear Consumers, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36609616)

No way! The dude loved getting his Victoria Secret Arabia catalogs. Lacey niqabs. Fishnet burqas. You can't get that without letting advertisers find you.

Re:Dear Consumers, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36609730)

Like any Privacy Law wouldn't exempt the government.

Re:Dear Consumers, (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36610144)

At least in Germany just a few days ago the chief police officer of Dresden had to step down because of stretching and breaking too many privacy laws. So a privacy law done right can have some teeth even against the government.

Re:Dear Consumers, (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36610600)

I wonder if Germany is any better equipped to hold the line on that sort of thing because the insipid "it can't happen here" line of argument can be trivially and empirically refuted, and doesn't need to be argued on hypothetical grounds? Accusing somebody of using 'Stasi tactics' is considered nearly Godwin-caliber hyperbole stateside...

privacy or security... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36609506)

I think online security is a much bigger problem than 3rd party cookies ( what the do not track bill goes after ) .. Are the stores you're shopping at secure? Is your credit card number getting stolen? These are the real problems.. not that easy to solve with a new law.

Re:privacy or security... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609592)

Those are indeed some(not 'the', which carries an exclusive sense) of the problems.

The difference is that, however incompetently, merchants, credit-card processors, etc. are essentially your allies without any legal pressure. They want everybody to have an easy, comfortable, time buying shit online. They don't necessarily care enough or actually manage to transform caring into not sucking; but your interests and theirs are basically aligned.

By contrast, the desire not to be relentlessly tracked, monetized, and bombarded with ads and junk mail all the bloody time is a situation where your interests and the interests of the marketers come into direct conflict. Since the marketers are comparatively few, and comparatively disliked; but have a strong technological advantage, it is logical for the many; but technologically weak, enemies of the of the marketers to attempt to protect themselves by other means.

You don't bother to pass laws that simply affirm interests that are already aligned. You pass laws in order to bring dangerously non-aligned interests into line.

What were the survey questions? (1)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609512)

It seems technically infeasible to maintain such a list, plus how can they keep track of you being on the list?

I feel like the poll question was 'Do you want a way to prevent keeping track of everything about you and preventing that information to be used fort sending junk mail?

Re:What were the survey questions? (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609580)

how can they keep track of you being on the list?

Simple: They keep a list of everybody (with full names, email addresses, etc.) and give a copy to anybody who's thinking of violating the privacy laws.

Re:What were the survey questions? (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609604)

We could get totally crazy and trying 'opt-in' rather than 'opt-out'...

Re:What were the survey questions? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609690)

We could get *really* crazy and have your *browser* stop giving out identifiable information to anyone that asks...

Is a little personal responsibility too much to ask? After all, it is your browser thats kindly storing these cookies, and kindly giving them out on request. Your browser. Yours. That falls within the scope of something you can do stuff about.

Re:What were the survey questions? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36609966)

The reality is, infrastructure and systems (like browsers) are pre-built and pre-configured. Our society works because everybody doesn't have to do their own building and configuring - the same way not everyone has to grow their own food. It's a much better, socially-aware option, to push for better builds and configurations rather than to say, "screw it I'm going to roll my own".

Re:What were the survey questions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36610470)

That falls within the scope of something you can do stuff about.

not really [eff.org]
There's quite a few ways you can be tracked, even with all the browser's standard "information sharing" features disabled.

Re:What were the survey questions? (1, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36610698)

"Personal responsibility" is NOT dressing in a Burqa to keep from being raped. Personal responsibility is NOT RAPING OTHER PEOPLE. Why are you calling for ME to have "personal responsibility" but not the corporations?

Cookies have many very good uses, like not having to log into slashdot every time you visit. Stalking people is NOT one of them. And most people (non-slashdotters) wouldn't have a clue how to NOT store cookies. How about making laws keeping the goddamned sociopathic corporations from stalking you without your permission?

Re:What were the survey questions? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629940)

LOL. some dimwit modded that "troll". Waste some more mod points, dipshit. Too bad they don't have the old metamoderation, you wouldn't get many more mod points.

Clicking the "no bonus" buttons even though they don't seem to work...

Re:What were the survey questions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36612136)

Okay, you first..... Publish your wonderful fixes to sourceforge please.

We're all waiting on your brilliance.

Re:What were the survey questions? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36612338)

Is a little personal responsibility too much to ask? After all, it is your browser thats kindly storing these cookies, and kindly giving them out on request. Your browser. Yours. That falls within the scope of something you can do stuff about.

That's only half right. Yes you can control who your browser gives cookies to - I use Cookie Safe Lite [mozilla.org] which is fantasticly easy to use, but keeping it working with each release of firefox is getting harder.

However, that's just the low-hanging fruit. There are lots of other methods that corporate stalkers use besides cookies, like so-called "browser fingerprinting" techniques that, when combined with your IP address, are just as problematic as cookies but donn't practically fall under the rubric of "personal responsibility."

Re:What were the survey questions? (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 3 years ago | (#36616840)

We could get *really* crazy and have your *browser* stop giving out identifiable information to anyone that asks...

It's not that easy, since the browser itself may be identifiable.

http://panopticlick.eff.org/ [eff.org]

Re:What were the survey questions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36614264)

I'm just way too conservative for totally crazy. I will go for medium-rare crazy, though.

While you don't control the content fed you by your browser, you can still be master of your own domain (without the self-help connotations).

You need to redact. First you need to know that !(visible) is a double negative - bad grammar and bad practice. When you redact on paper, you can use a Black Magic Marker. Ignoring for a moment the large body of scientific evidence and Blond Jokes about white-out on CRT's that says this is ok ... it's not. Whitespace processing varies widely with media. Substitution of a link does not. Systemic definitions of 'whitespace' and 'link' are pretty obvious though, and you have all the tools you need. Just make sure the link sends somebody to a cyberspace far, far away.

Here are all the links you'll need: http://purl.org/pii/terms/

here is a checklist of things which you might wish to redact: http://www.rustprivacy.org/2011/pii/cnpii.xml

BTW: RUST = Redact Unless Static Text, meaning styled markup is tricky.

The same 81% want free money (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609536)

...and 99.999% of people asked if life is sacred, the answer was "yes." (81% followed up to ask "whose life?")

Re:The same 81% want free money (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609936)

No. They just want a choice in who gets to use their information. Is it fair that a company can keep using my information long after I discontinue use of their product?

Re:The same 81% want free money (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 3 years ago | (#36610288)

I'm not sure your argument is complete. Is it fair that Walmart can keep using the money you paid for Halo long after you stopped playing Halo? Your information is the payment. Though I agree with you: services and companies should be a lot more upfront about what you're paying for their "free" service. I bet not a lot would change (maybe 1% of facebook .5% of google users would stop using the service) but at least people would feel better. And this provides a path to progress: if every service listed the price clearly, it's easier for competitors to lower the price ("oh they track everything but we only track your click habits, and that information expires 30 days after you stop using our service").

Re:The same 81% want free money (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36610744)

You bring up a good point. I was thinking of purely service based online products.

Re:The same 81% want free money (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36611004)

Are you badanalogyguy's new account? Walmart can only use the money I spend ONCE. Once they spend it, it's gone forever.

Re:The same 81% want free money (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613732)

No. They just want a choice in who gets to use their information. Is it fair that a company can keep using my information long after I discontinue use of their product?

I'm less worried about that ... if I actually used your product, and you have my information on file because I gave it to you, I can at least understand how you have it.

It's the people who I have never had a business dealing with, who have managed to get my information that I have a big problem with. who the hell are you, and why do I care? These companies who sell their client lists so that some asshole I've never had any dealings with can call me up ... that I have a problem with.

And, pretty much all telemarketers can go to hell ... you don't have my permission to call me at 9pm to see if I want your product. Besides, so many of the telemarketers I get are sufficiently shady, that I don't care if you might be legitimate or not. I'm on the do not call list, and at this point I'm forced to assume that anybody still calling me is covered under one of the exemptions they feel entitled to, or is a scam ... either way, my response is going to tell you to go away and don't call back. If you're a charity and call three times in a week, well, I pity that last bastard to call because I'll tear him a new one.

My latest scam that I get calls for is some idiot calling from a call center in India or whatever telling me that he's from "the Windows support" -- not what company, just support. I can only assume it's a straight up scam, because there's no indication he actually works for anybody I do business with.

Who are the 19%? :O (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36609556)

Retards?

A tiny glint of hope (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609572)

It's encouraging that this has even made a blip on the public radar, but unfortunately, a public clueless enough to think that a "Do Not Track" list would help the situation is also clueless enough to immediately forget about this issue after seeing the latest high-budget presentation on the mass media about the current political candidates.

Without their permission? (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609576)

What percentage of the 81% have given permission when they clicked "Accept" without reading terms and conditions.

Easier to Pollute Data than Erase It? (3, Insightful)

retroworks (652802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609620)

I'd volunteer to be put on a list of "false positives", records that I'd bought everything from women's shoes to AC/DC videos. Nature rarely designs invisibility, but camouflage is everywhere. If enough people got on a false positive list, creating false cookies and records and interests, wouldn't that have the same effect as privacy? And wouldn't it be cheaper? Seems like you could even have a program running silently in another browser clicking on interest in new cars, home mortgages, health care, etc. and it would confuse the hell out of the data collectors.

Re:Easier to Pollute Data than Erase It? (1)

immakiku (777365) | more than 3 years ago | (#36610064)

To be honest with the bandwidth/data plans as abysmal as they are right now in the US, those extra bits seem too steep a price to pay for the effect they provide.

Re:False Positives (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36610228)

Good try, but False Positives are deadly. Reason: you can't deny them!

"Retroworks is a terrorist! Prove you're not." The whole Security Theater adventure is fueled by false positives.

Re:Easier to Pollute Data than Erase It? (1)

emaname (1014225) | more than 3 years ago | (#36610246)

That sounds like a great idea to me.

I have a friend that would consistently give the people at Best Buy, Sears, etc, bogus info re his address, etc. And it's fun trying to be as imaginative as possible like including that a person has just purchased 10 bovine insemination kits or 5 Bradley M2 fighting vehicles.

This could become a whole new form of social discourse and entertainment.

Re:Easier to Pollute Data than Erase It? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613304)

That may have worked in the snail mail age, but in the electronic age, I think you're just setting yourself up to get spammed while not helping anyone. All they'd think is that you have a broad swath of interests, and it doesn't cost them anything more to track them all, since it only exists in a database anyway. Until you have a critical mass of people following your plan, companies would be more than happy to provide you with as much information as you want about your "interests", and you'd be potentially sharing some real information with them in the meantime (IP, e-mail, browser, etc.). And even if the other data you enter is invalid, they don't know that, and they can still easily sell that to other people, which means that you'd still be supporting their business model.

Re:Easier to Pollute Data than Erase It? (1)

retroworks (652802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613932)

TaoPhoenix and Anubis IV - the idea is that millions of people would do it, not ONLY me. I can deny false positives if they are statistically likely to be false based on hundreds of other people having the same alibi. And if millions of people get additional "junk mail" that would hurt the issuer. I think at some critical mass it would work.

Re:Easier to Pollute Data than Erase It? (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 3 years ago | (#36617354)

A significant portion of the world's Internet users would need to spend time creating false positives list for it to work, since a few false positives doesn't affect those who intrude on our privacy. It's also possible they'd quickly learn to see the difference between "genuine" Internet behaviour and when someone tries to obfuscate.

Re:Easier to Pollute Data than Erase It? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36616602)

This exists as a mozilla add-on called TrackMeNot.

Terrifying (1)

Jayfield (2317990) | more than 3 years ago | (#36609630)

"Two-thirds of consumers want the government to safeguard their privacy..." In other news, two-thirds of consumers don't mind if the government tracks them, as long as evil corporations don't.

Re:Terrifying (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36609962)

"Two-thirds of consumers want the government to safeguard their privacy..."

In other news, two-thirds of consumers don't mind if the government tracks them, as long as evil corporations don't.

I'm sure the Government is more than happy to oblige in helping protect the consumer from "the big bad Corporations" all the while slowly raping us of our own freedoms. Government to the rescue, yay! While this a nice and noble gesture, how far will this extend, come on. I think we know that Government and big business have been in bed for awhile now. Even if it does get passed, there will always be loopholes.

Besides, I wonder how many of these people that worry about being tracked are "liking" every group and product on Facebook and Tweeting about stuff. (e.g. I love my new [insert product], they're awesome!)...then wonder why and how they're being tracked. If people are -really- worried about tracking, then they'll also appeal that ridiculous decision by the FTC to allow Social Intelligence Group to keep people's social media information for 7 years and provide it at will to employer's.

Re:Terrifying (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613334)

Well really....its more like they don't understand how the whole thing works, they like how the "do not call" list works, and think that they want the same here... because they don't realize what the real technical differences that make it impossible to really work are.

Bottom line though, they want to not be tracked.

SONY sure did (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36609656)

"companies may be sharing their personal information with third parties without their permission. "

SONY is not the only company to have "shared" your data.

silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36610326)

Sure it might sound good to consumers/public, but it'll never work. 99% of the population has no clue how the internet works. Even China fails to censor everything they would like to censor with their "great firewall". Even if some plan was put into place, there are too many vested interests in information for our government to effectively put systems/regulations into place that would work. It's pretty obvious at this point that our government is pretty ineffectual with just about everything. It would be better to run an education campaign explaining to the dumb masses that "nothing is safe" on the internet, it's a game of acceptable risks - it's the wild west, deal with it.

Why not a "Track" list (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36610464)

Instead of setting up the rules such that I have to opt out of every stupid scheme someone sets up, reverse the situation such that I must opt in if I feel there is benefit.

Oh yeah, that makes far too much sense.

This just provides a new way to track people (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 3 years ago | (#36611012)

How are they going to implement this scheme.? Put everyone's name and information on a list then distribute it to Internet companies?

People will have to identify themselves first for this thing to work which defeats the purpose.

There's more to privacy than just selling data (1)

Seyedkevin (1633117) | more than 3 years ago | (#36611584)

The level of tracking that advertisements and such take isn't really personally identifiable information -- they don't try to take your identity but more keep tabs on what other websites you've visited that have ads. If a company collects data from you, it should be, at the very least, for some sort of technical purpose like showing relevant ads based on the "Likes" you have on facebook.

That said, I wouldn't want anyone selling this kind of information to data miners for the pure purpose of stalking your online life. What's the point of privacy settings if they're just going ignore it and sell all your data to any company that shows up on the front door with cash? And, if they were to sell it after you gave them permission to, you should also be notified when and to whom your information was sold to.

They really should also mandate the company reveal the technical process in which they process your information internally. Important details include the storage of passwords (plaintext/hashes/salted hashes/algorithm/etc), if encryption of data is used at all, how keys are stored for encryption if used (Are they stored on client software? On the server? Are the keys on the server accessible by the admin or are they encrypted using your password? What kind of keys are they?), how long collected data is stored, and how can they use it?

There's a lot of "should"s in here, but at the end of it all, it's probably safe to assume that the corporations selling data to data mining companies will put up quite a fight.

Re:There's more to privacy than just selling data (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36612154)

That said, I wouldn't want anyone selling this kind of information to data miners for the pure purpose of stalking your online life. What's the point of privacy settings if they're just going ignore it and sell all your data to any company that shows up on the front door with cash? And, if they were to sell it after you gave them permission to, you should also be notified when and to whom your information was sold to.

The obvious answer - to get you to give up that information to begin with!

Facebook knows that probably a good majority of people don't bother with privacy settings - they want the shiny. But they also know a good chunk of people are savvy enough to realize that what they post is public. So give them the illusion of privacy and they'll freely post information up, when in normal circumstances they would've just avoided it. The clueless may also realize that hey could post more sensitive stuff up online and "protect" it, leading to even more valuable data.

It's all theatre - the old adage of "don't post anything online you don't want the world to know" is as valid today as when it was concocted way back in the 70s.

Hell, just ask a good chunk of the flying population and they'd probably think those TSA checkpoints really did prevent another 9/11, and that if they loosen the liquid restrictions there owuld be planes blowing up from binary bombs, etc.

For an alarming percentage, security theatre is the same as real security.

Yes Minister (2)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 3 years ago | (#36611908)

You can get a survey to get any result - Check a href="http://users.aims.ac.za/~mackay/probability/survey.html"

If your survey question is "Do you support Privacy Laws" - the answer will be Yes. "Do you want the Govt to prevent terrorism or protect the children" - the answer will again be Yes.

Correct Link (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 3 years ago | (#36612168)

Link [aims.ac.za] to the Yes Minister dialogue

Outlaws (1)

Bravoc (771258) | more than 3 years ago | (#36612076)

If we make having my personal information illegal, only outlaws will have my personal information. Wait a minute...

Hilarious. 81% want to add their names to a list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36612240)

It should have read 81 percent want to add their names to a list of people who do not want their names added to lists.

Obviously it should be opt-in but our 'representatives' don't care what we want so they're having a laugh at our expense.

Giving information to the government (1)

inventorM (1872970) | more than 3 years ago | (#36612350)

So I would be giving my personal information to the government so that I could have more privacy? Like the government doesn't know enough about me already.

Each consumer will then (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36613214)

be added to the NSA's "What are you hiding?" surveillance list.

This makes me sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36613736)

"Two-thirds of consumers want the government to ..."

Re:This makes me sad (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614212)

Yeah, it makes me sad, too. When will two-thirds of consumers realize that government is one of the biggest problems in their lives?

The Fourth Amendment means nothing to the Feds.

make personally identifiable info joint property (1)

joenospamblo (987387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36614296)

The easiest way to legally protect your personal info is to get congress to pass a law to make personally identifiable info joint property between the the person who is identified and the collector of the info.

Then, the holder of personal info will need your explicit consent in order to legally sell your info. You would need to voluntarily sell your ownership interest in the info to loose legal control of it. All of the normal property laws would take effect.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>