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!

Obama's Privacy Bill of Rights: Just a Beginning

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the how-to-water-down-a-phrase dept.

Government 222

jfruh writes "Last night the White House hastily arranged a phone conference at which a 'Privacy Bill of Rights' was announced. It's an important document, not least because it affirms the idea that our data belongs to us, not to companies that happen to collect it. But it has a number of shortcomings, not least among them the companies aren't required to respect the rules laid out."

cancel ×

222 comments

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

aren't required to respect the rules? (5, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 2 years ago | (#39140931)

So this is a Privacy Bill of Suggestions :)

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141313)

Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141701)

I think you are understating things.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141707)

Says the baseless, opinionated person using his AC privacy check box. If you think McCain/Palin ticket would have the nation in a better spot you're pretty delusional. Everyone drinks a flavor of Koolaid ... yours seems to have been spiked a little with those loose lips.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39142361)

Just because he is the lesser of two evils does not absolve him of being incompetent in some respects.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39142523)

Funny, I said the same thing about GWB

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141751)

Tell me, do you feel clever when you use borrowed verbage to personally insult the President? Is the phrase really so astonishingly poignant that you think you are adding to any conversation, ever, when you spew somebody else's vitriolic attack into the comments section on random blogs and news aggregators?

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39142711)

Yeah, he's on the same level as the Bush presidents... please. Which Commander In Chief finally played the cards right to get Osama and umpteen other terrorists and idiots? Go take a look at the DJIA (that's Dow Jones Industrial Average, in deference to you Kent) and take a good look at when Dipshit Bush took the reins and how he left them...now look at the monumental growth that has occurred under Obama (that sounds funny :)

Obama failed at keeping some basic promises, but he has done a metric fuckton better then Bayou Billionaire Bush.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141329)

hastily arranged a phone conference at which a 'Privacy Bill of Rights' was announced

Election posturing?

Washington hasn't cared what we want for quite a number of years. Now, after the blackout, they suddenly care?

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (4, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142329)

This is an important step, although the summary makes this out to be the presidents fault. The fault lies with congress. The president cannot unilaterally create a bill, and make it a law, which is why this doesn't have the force of law behind it. If you want to point the blame, then the answer lies with congress, not the president.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141443)

Privacy Bill of Suggestions

In this country, that's progress. However, we are still woefully lacking compared to the EU, where privacy is taken very seriously and most industries are required to disclose any and all personal data held and delete it upon request. And I'm not talking the "We just hid it from our homepage" delete either, but a bona fide "We don't have it anymore, anywhere, and if we do we could be sued for a very large amount of money."

It's stuff like this that has firmly convinced me that while the US might have been the origination point of the internet, it is no longer a leader, or even in the race, when it comes to either innovation or culture. My country's only political agenda is its GDP. It will do so even if it means feeding its own citizens to the wolves in the process... Anything to make a buck.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141635)

Eh? The EU's fines and such are laughed off and written off as a cost of doing business. The only thing they actually take action about is any companies on the US side of the pond. European companies can get away with murder, and the worst they will get under the EU is a finger waggle.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141637)

I think you meant to say, "In this country that's what passes for progress." It's not progress, of course. It's bread and circuses.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (3, Insightful)

Higgins_Boson (2569429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141949)

In this country, that's progress.

How is NOT moving forward considered progress again?

If they don't have to respect the suggested "rules", then it isn't doing ANYONE a favor. At all. Period.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142389)

Which is why people want to mandate EVERY LAST DETAIL. How would you mandate people respect privacy? Would you throw people in jail for violations, even if accidental/innocent? If someone "poor" violated the mandate (law), would you fine them, jail them if they couldn't pay, ignore them?

The problem isn't with the goal (protect privacy), it is always with implementation, and how it never fixes the problem it intends to.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141989)

Yeah, in the EU the government doesn't want companies to violate privacy. It wants that power exclusively to itself.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141495)

Thus further reinforcing the notion that rights are mere suggestions. A clever way of making oppression acceptable.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141543)

Obama is president, not king. He can't force companies to do anything unless Congress first gives him the power to do so, and there's no chance in hell that the current Congress would give him the Heimlich if he were literally dying in front of them, let alone pass a bill at his suggestion.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (0, Flamebait)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141775)

Obama is president, not king.

While I'm not surprised saying people who say that he is/wants to be, I'm hugely bothered by all the liberals who are upset that he's not.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (2)

yotto (590067) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141991)

Obama is president, not king.

While I'm not surprised saying people who say that he is/wants to be, I'm hugely bothered by all the liberals who are upset that he's not.

I fail to see what that has to do with what you quoted. The person above you did not voice an opinion, he stated a fact. Nowhere did he say what he wanted nor did he imply it.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142559)

Nowhere did he say what he wanted nor did he imply it.

Nor did I think they were.

OP said, in essence, why doesn't Obama require all the companies to comply.

The GP said that Obama is a President, not a King, by way of explaining why he can't do that.

I replied agreeing and saying this is something a lot of people (and in particular liberals) seem to forget when complaining about why Obama hasn't done certain things -- kinda like the OP.

Not every reply has to be an attempt to tear down the post replied to. Sometimes you can build off of their salient points to address other issues. Sorry if I wasn't clear. :)

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (0)

Higgins_Boson (2569429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142117)

Unless he wants to waste his "Executive Order" powerup!

A wild US Citizen Appears!
Obama uses Kool-Aid!
It's super effective!

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (2)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141769)

So this is a Privacy Bill of Suggestions :)

This bill of rights will go the same way as the last "Bill of Rights", the way of the Constitution.

Re:aren't required to respect the rules? (1)

RKBA (622932) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142545)

I would have rated you funny if you weren't already at 5, Insightful. ;-)

I haven't been that impressed ... (5, Insightful)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141257)

... with how his Administration (or the previous one, before you partisan bedwetters get all bunched up) has treated the *actual* Bill of Rights. So I don't have much hope for its respecting the goals of this one.

Re:I haven't been that impressed ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141397)

Indeed.

Quite honestly, we need to get them to own up to their obligations there...and it starts by not being partisan like you allude to and owning up to the fact that much of what has been promised isn't legit to begin with.

Re:I haven't been that impressed ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141491)

My sentiments as well. What a doggy-biscuit government we have.

Re:I haven't been that impressed ... (2)

Artraze (600366) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141607)

Don't be silly! Of course they'll be interested in supporting the goals of this legislation!
Look, it's already generating positive sound bytes for his campaign, and is non committal enough he'll surely still get oodles of corporate contributions!

It's a start (2)

incer (1071224) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141281)

Even with flaws, it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully this will make people more aware of the issue.

Re:It's a start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141293)

Nice, more election year pandering...ta da...

Re:It's a start (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141373)

Or it might be a step backwards. People might think the administration is taking steps to protect their privacy and lull them into a false sense of security, while in fact nothing really changes.

Re:It's a start (3, Insightful)

incer (1071224) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141569)

Well, "people" didn't even know about the problems with online privacy. Now the media will talk about it.

Let me know when... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141297)

Mr. President,

Please let me know when you plan on respecting our privacy rights w/r/t warrant-less wiretaps and data-mining of personal information of American citizens by the NSA, FBI, and etc.

Otherwise your so-called "Privacy Bill of Rights" is just a shallow gimmick designed to score brownie points from the less informed and less attentive among us in the electorate.

Re:Let me know when... (4, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141529)

Otherwise your so-called "Privacy Bill of Rights" is just a shallow gimmick designed to score brownie points from the less informed and less attentive among us in the electorate.

Unfortunately, the "less informed and less attentive" far, far outnumber the rest of us.

We have two options. First is advocacy (make the people more informed and, hopefully, more attentive). This has worked pretty well in stopping at least some of the bullshit.

Secondly is getting people who are all about the whole "fair play" kinda thing - you know, respecting the Constitution and civil rights, acting for the benefit of the people instead of the benefit of corporations, etc. - actually elected into offices. That is much more difficult and I really wish someone with a fanbase would step up and leverage that social power towards getting elected and making a particular change in our government.

The people who are most able to affect such a change are the "leaders" - mayor, governer, president, etc. It is said that without compromise, nothing will ever get passed. Even the most honest politician will be stopped by an uncooperative legislature because he didn't sign off on their latest bad bill in order to get his good bill pushed through. The solution to this (that is rarely, if ever, resorted to) is twofold: first, directly tell the public that the city/state/national legislature is being a bunch of asshats and trying to stop this good thing from happening, and secondly to veto everything you don't like. (A lot of the votes in any given legislature are close enough that they are unlikely to pass a veto override).

We (as in those who use the Internet for more than lolcats and WoW) have a lot of power that we just need to get together and use to effect real change. Look at how we managed to stop SOPA and PIPA. Had the Patriot Act been proposed ten years later (instead of in the early 2000s when broadband penetration was still comparatively low), it would never have passed thanks to our efforts. We use it too often in a reactionary fashion instead of a pro-active fashion.

Please, someone who has the gusto to be honest step up and make a run for office. Any office. Try to be the mayor of somewhere insignificant like West Bumblefuck, Ohio, or Newark, NJ. Get the tech savvy people behind you, and use your connection with them to pull the populace out of its apathy. I'd do it if I thought I had a chance in hell, but I'm pretty sure I don't.

Re:Let me know when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39142789)

You mean someone like Gary Johnson who IS running for office (and has already held office) but doesn't have a chance in hell of winning?

Re:Let me know when... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141913)

He's in campaign mode this year. That means he's less believable than ever. Watch for all of the "Ideas" he and his cabinet have been shooting down to re-emerge as his. Watch him try and reverse the tables on the massive energy melt down his group caused by shutting down our offshore drilling and like minded antics. This year should be epic on spin from the White House.

Re:Let me know when... (1)

fatmonkeyboy (257833) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142009)

Yeah, shutting down off shore drilling is insane. I mean, it's not like anything happened.

I'm more worried about YOU (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141317)

Hey Barack, how about a Bill of Rights that protects me against *your* NSA, CIA, and FBI reading my goddamned emails, listening to my phone calls, and asking my doctor how long my dick is without at least a court order?

Re:I'm more worried about YOU (5, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141439)

...asking my doctor how long my dick is without at least a court order?

Most women would appreciate the government staying out of their vaginas as well. Unlike your joke about penis size, they have real intrusions to complain about on the privacy front.

Re:I'm more worried about YOU (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142097)

they have real intrusions to complain about on the privacy front

You've got me curious. Could you name some? Abortion isn't a privacy intrusion and that's all I can think of.

Re:I'm more worried about YOU (1)

bbecker23 (1917560) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142319)

The act of abortion may not be but having to have a wand shoved up your hoo-hah surely is. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, I think we can agree that penetrating rape victims and victims of sexual abuse is a Bad Thing.

Re:I'm more worried about YOU (2)

IVI V K (2022732) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142397)

Regardless of your view on abortion,

The Roe vs Wade ruling forming the basis of US abortion law today determined that abortion is a privacy issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade [wikipedia.org]
"the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion"

Re:I'm more worried about YOU (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142425)

Abortion isn't a privacy intrusion

According to Roe v Wade, it all came down to a "right to privacy".

Once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141321)

A case of hey look, "We Care!", but it's not compulsory and has no bite.

Need more teeth (4, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141333)

It needs to apply to government as well as the private sector.

Another problem. (1, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141347)

Another problem is that it makes no sense to say that data doesn't "belong" to people who collect it. It clearly does, and there isn't really anything the government can do about it. If you wan't to keep something secret, keep it secret! It that so hard to understand?

Re:Another problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141413)

So if I get your credit card number, does that "belong" to me? Assuredly not.

Re:Another problem. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141593)

What does that even mean? If I give it to you, you have it. That's the end of the story.

Re:Another problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141753)

So I can do *anything* I want with your credit card, once you gave it to me? No, of course not, because we have laws. The idea we can't apply that to personal data as well is absurd. You're simply stating the current legal reality, while saying there is no alternative.

The alternative is that we change the laws, this is a (very very small) first step.

Re:Another problem. (1)

Loosifur (954968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141865)

Actually, a credit card number, along with most identifying numbers associated with everything from Social Security to your bank account, belong to the issuing institution, just like (if you read it closely) your driver's license and your SS card. You don't own it. You can't change the data in question. Which, I think, goes to your original, and very valid, point.

Re:Another problem. (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142089)

How can a number belong to anyone?

The right to use a particular number for a particular purpose can belong to someone, but it is absurd to suggest that a number belongs to someone.

Re:Another problem. (1)

Loosifur (954968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142239)

Well, yeah, the number as a mathematical entity doesn't belong to anyone as such, but the number in its capacity as an identifier "belongs" to the agency or company. It's a number, yeah, but it's also the label that they use to associate a person with an account, and, in that sense, belongs to the company/agency/whatever. I'm not talking epistemology, here. The proof is that a credit card company can assign you a new credit card number at will; you can't just call Visa up and tell them that you've decided your new number is "49".

Re:Another problem. (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142067)

Yes. If you have my credit card number, and obtained it by legal means (i.e. didn't steal my wallet), then the knowledge of it belongs to you. You can print it out and put it your refrigerator, and I don't care.

What you can't do is buy things with it. That's fraud. You also can't go post it on /b/, since any reasonable person would expect that doing so would lead to fraud, and would make you an accessory.

You can't just "keep it secret" (5, Interesting)

F69631 (2421974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141507)

The era of massive data mining is beginning. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/ [forbes.com] And that's just your groceries, not your online behavior, which likely contains a lot more hidden clues.

When companies can decide to track and analyze your behavior in any way they want to, reasonably accurately predict things such as pregnancies, marriages, divorces, etc., and use it to their advantage, intentionally disguising all this from you... it's borderline absurd to say "people should just keep their secrets secret".

It's true that it's arguable whether this sort of behavior should be regulated (It's not "evil" that they just look what you've bought and try to predict your interests based on that) and if we decide to regulate it, we'll face a lot of problems... But it's quite odd to say that there shouldn't be a lot of public discourse around this subject (It's relevant to a lot of people and we already have some laws about ethical advertising and for a good reason) and just silly to say that people should take personal responsibility about how data miners figure out things they've never told anyone.

Re:You can't just "keep it secret" (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142313)

Probably a far better question is when your purchases at a grocery store are scanned who owns the scan data? Right now the grocery store sells it to a marketing company which analyzes is and sells the aggregated data back to manufacturers and the like.

So if you are in the business of selling toothbrushes wouldn't you like to know if your brand is being beat out by some upstart in Whole Foods stores but not in the low-cost no-frils stores? Would that not tell you something important? Literally, this is the life or death of manufacturers today because if they don't have accurate data they are going to make bad decisions and lose money. Most manufacturers of consumer products are operating on a very thin margin as it is so they can't afford to make mistakes.

Sure, there is a lot of data that Google collects and is selling the same way, but it happening everywhere in the world, not just on the Internet.

No, I don't believe for a second that the US government is going to try to restrict this or regulate it in any way. There is too much of it happening and it is too big a part of the way manufacturers and retailers work today.

Obama is looking for distractions (2)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141363)

Obama is looking for issues that will take the public's attention away from Gas prices.

I would suggest the US use the EU standards, but lately the EU bends over anytime the US says boo.

You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama here (-1, Troll)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141371)

Our Magic Obama has only announced this non-binding, suggestion based "bill of rights" to get people to think that something is actually being done to protect our privacy.

What's funny is that the usual group of cheerleaders will say that, hey (as with the Magic Health Care Bill) at least Obama is doing something. I would argue that doing something that's terrible is worse than doing nothing at all.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141431)

Nonsense. Obama's due on doing something right. Let's look at his track record:

Killed some Somali pirates
Got Osama bin Laden
Established the groundwork for a privacy bill of rights

Give credit where it's due. I don't care if you think he's the worst president in history, he can do one good thing a year, on average.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141601)

Killed some Somali pirates
Got Osama bin Laden
Established the groundwork for a privacy bill of rights

Took away your right to a lawyer.
Took away your right to a trial.
Forced you to buy health insurance against your will.


Anyone else want to add some?

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141873)

Took away your right to a lawyer.
Took away your right to a trial.

Nope, plenty of lawyers and trials everyday here in the US of A.

Forced you to buy health insurance against your will.

Everyone will need health care, some expensive enough to bankrupt any average working person. Insurance is a practical way to pool resources and avoid that. Without insurance, you end up in the emergency room sponging off of others.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h (2)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142123)

Last summer I was between jobs. I could stand to incur about $5000 in unreimbursed medical expenses before I would have serious trouble (read: before the marginal-utility-of-money curve went seriously nonlinear), so I bought a catastrophic coverage policy with a deductible of $5000. This is how insurance is supposed to work -- you figure out what risk you can't bear yourself and pay someone else to bear it for you.

Such plans are going to be illegal soon under Obamacare.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39142939)

good. I'm glad your responsible and understand the purpose of insurance and can objectively make choices on your coverage. Surely you have noticed you are an extreme outlier. I would wager that a majority of insurance seeking americans never evened learned about the concept of marginal utility, those that did were introduced during a semester of highschool or college and have been drowning in a sea of corporate and government propaganda designed to make them forget ever since.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142533)

Took away your right to a lawyer.
Took away your right to a trial.

Nope, plenty of lawyers and trials everyday here in the US of A.

There are even more cars than lawyers, but we don't have a right to a car (in the same way that a right to a trial was enshrined). Sure, cars aren't illegal In the same way that lawyers aren't illegal, but if you're suspected of something terroristy enough, you'll get a hellfire missile from a drone whether you're an American citizen or not. No lawyer, no trial. And that is unprecedented in the US. Violent response is reserved for someone who is being a present danger, not a potential future or prior one.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h (1)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142301)

I gotta wonder how long we're going to keep hearing how awful Obama is as hard-headed Republicans struggle to rationalize the 8 years of Bush Jr. that they voted for.

--Jeremy

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142617)

The awful part of Obama's presidency is the continuation of Bush's national security policy. Warrantless wiretapping, assassinating under age American citizens, keeping Guantanamo bay open, failing to prosecute anyone for torture. He stayed in Iraq until the last minute set by the Bush administration. All right, good he killed OBL. Now can we GTFO of Afghanistan? Can we stop war mongering with Iran?

Let's not forget his economic policy. Employ the exact same people who caused the problem, and watch them bail out their cronies and wonder why jobs aren't coming back. He didn't do a damn thing to ensure that banks were actually lending out the free money they handed out. He didn't prosecute any senior bank executives for the massive fraud that caused the crisis. Compare with Ronald Reagan who put nearly 1000 bankers in jail for the much smaller S&L crisis. Didn't prosecute anyone for perjury in the robosigning fiasco either. He's prosecuted plenty of whistleblowers and medical marijuana suppliers though.

I thought Bush was the worst president ever. I'm not sure anymore.

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141831)

+1 Funny!

Re:You are incredibly naive if you believe Obama h (1)

unr3a1 (1264666) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142647)

Since when do we need any privacy bill of rights? The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution already applies here. Or at least they should.

Also, calling it a "bill of rights" is extremely deceitful about what a bill of rights is. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are rights that protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT. This 'privacy bill of rights' conveniently EXEMPTS the GOVERNMENT from it's protections. So in reality what this is doing is conditioning people into falsehoods regarding privacy, and the bill of rights.

1. Privacy is only applicable to private institutions, and the people should not expect privacy from the Government.

2. A 'bill of rights' again does not apply to the Government, but instead private entities. This is extremely important when the Government decides to pass laws that are in direct violation of the Bill of Rights. To say it won't happen is naive, as it already has happened (PATRIOT Act and NDAA being two examples).

Obama's Privacy Bill of Rights: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141403)

Oooo! Oooo! Another 'privacy policy' change! brought to you by...

Google! The world's favorite home page.

Pull the other one...

Gotta bridge...

No, wait, I mean, wonderful Florida swampland.

Law and Order anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141405)

... not least among them the companies aren't required to respect the rules laid out.

LOL'd. Hard. But seriously.. It's not funny.

Companies? (4, Insightful)

mmcxii (1707574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141415)

I'll worry about that once we get a half ounce of respect from our so-called leadership that craps on our rights like it was their job.

Keep your eyes on both hands, boys and girls.

Not surprising it doesn't apply to corporations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141489)

Our existing Bill of Rights is meant to protect "the people" from the (federal) government. Not state governments, not corporations, not your neighbor.

And as others have already pointed out, I'd be more interested in having our government abide by the Bill of Rights we already have. E.g. no more warrantless searches to fly.

Privacy wrt corporations we can legislate, though that assumes that our legislators have a backbone and/or aren't in the back pockets of the corporations. IOW good luck with that.

Leave Obama alone!!! (4, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141503)

I can't understand you people! President Obama is doing everything he can to help the people of the world and you whiners complain about your precious privacy! I hope he turns the NSA, CIA and FBI loose on you people and hunts everyone of you down and sends you to Gitmo. See how you like your precious privacy then!!!

Obama 2012!!!!

Re:Leave Obama alone!!! (0)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141565)

+1 Naivete

Re:Leave Obama alone!!! (1)

wzzzzrd (886091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141617)

+9000 WOOOSH

We DON'T need yet ANOTHER "Bill of Rights"! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141505)

First, every website had to have its own "Privacy Policy."

Now, we need a federally-mandated one?

Anyway--a quick search reveals numerous existing "Bill of Rights," for example:

Voter's Bill of Rights
Patient's Bill of Rights
Donor Bill of Rights
Academic Bill of Rights
Landowners Bill of Rights
Taxicab Rider Bill of Rights (NYC; Ha! Figures!)
The eBook User's Bill of Rights
Visual Effects Industry Bill of Rights
Merchant Bill of Rights
Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill of Rights

* Stop calling anything but our original Bill of Rights a "Bill of Rights" -- to do so is to diminish its significance and uniqueness

* With so many "Bills of Rights," collectively they mean little--just like so many "Privacy Policies"

Bills of rights stop the government. (5, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141521)

That's the whole point of rights. All the rights in the bill of rights are negative rights. They don't tell people they can do stuff they say the government can't stop them doing it.

So for example, the freedom of speech doesn't say I can stand on a soap box and sing show tunes backwards. It says the government can't stop me from doing that.

It doesn't stay you can have a religion or beliefs. It says the government can't stop you from having them.

So on and so forth. They're more about restraining the government.

So... Is that what Obama has done here? Has he said the government can't do certain things? Because I rather doubt it. And if he hasn't then he's not offering anyone rights so much as putting additional regulations on ISPs. That isn't a right. If he wants to give me a right then he can agree the government will leave the internet alone.

Re:Bills of rights stop the government. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141731)

Shuddap you dumbass tea bagger!

Rights come from what the majority votes them to be, right now the majority should vote to kill all the teabaggers and give their stuff to the occupy people.

Corporations = new government. (1)

tizan (925212) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141903)

Corporations and cartel are what the government used to be...so coorporation cannot do certain things to individuals...and that is the bill of right !

Re:Corporations = new government. (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142787)

Really? How many millions of people have corporations killed in the last 100 years? Because governments have probably killed at least a billion people over the last 100 years.

There is no comparison. Saying corporations are the new government is ignorant.

Re:Bills of rights stop the government. (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142549)

"Rights" are a rhetorical device. I can more easily convince you that my policy should be followed if I appeal to some mystical authority by talking about rights. I don't mind this conceit as a rule. My point is it's a bit silly to define rights as restrictions on the government's power when the term has no real meaning. Obama('s underlings) seem to be using it precisely as rhetoric here.

Strictly speaking, your assertion

All the rights in the bill of rights are negative rights. They don't tell people they can do stuff they say the government can't stop them doing it.

isn't true. For instance,

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...

This gives a right to accused persons. It does not say the government can't stop people from doing something.

Re:Bills of rights stop the government. (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142587)

As to the rights of the accused, it limits how much time the government has to present its case.

Effectively it says " the government must be ready to try a case shortly after arrest"...

Thus it remains a restriction on government action. You can't arrest someone and then not try them for years. The government must be ready to go to trial within a specified time or the accused must be released.

Try to explain Obama's position in the terms I used. You'll find that it's hard for you to call anything a right that isn't effectively a restriction on government power. That's all rights are... they just tell the government what it can't do to people.

You get (1)

sixtuslab (1130675) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141545)

vanilla rights. Now, get back to your room, muahahaa.

Re:You get (1)

wzzzzrd (886091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141653)

rights, rights, baby.

Offtopic: Share (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141599)

What the hell is with this "Share" link and can I make it go away? /. has been Web 2.0-ing what used to be a very clean interface
I've stuck with the Classic Discussion System for a reason

Re:Offtopic: Share (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142253)

Just override the existing CSS rule by doing this:

a.comment_share_toggle.btn:link
{
visibility: hidden !important;
}

No end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39141603)

Everything Obama does is "just the beginning."

Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court... (2)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141627)

Words are easy. Actions are harder. Here's an ABC reporter taking Obama's press secretary to task for using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court again and again.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/wake-reporter-deaths-syria-white-house-grilled-aggressive-154806577.html [yahoo.com]

Real privacy (4, Insightful)

Larry_Dillon (20347) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141757)

First, how about giving email the same level of privacy as postal email?

The problem with these rules are that bad actors don't have to follow them. We need things like actual end-to-end encryption so companies and malicious individuals can't snoop. (see Code is Law, Lawrence Lessig).

Data ownership (5, Insightful)

Dave Emami (237460) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141783)

... our data belongs to us, not to companies that happen to collect it.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I disagree with the underlying assumption that data belongs to you by virtue of being about you. Take it down to the simplest level: Adam sees Bob crossing the street. "Bob crossed the street" is the data, an observation that belongs to Adam (the observer) not Bob (the observed), by virtue of now residing in Adam's brain, which belongs to him, not to Bob. Everything else is just communication, storage, analysis, and technological assistance. It comes back to this fundamental point once you remove the obfuscating details, and Bob doesn't acquire the right to perform a partial lobotomy on Adam just because he doesn't like what or how much Adam knows about him, or whom Adam might tell, or what decisions Adam might make based on what he knows.

This assumes, of course, that Adam didn't violate Bob's rights in order to make these observations -- he didn't trespass by breaking into Bob's house, for instance.

Re:Data ownership (4, Interesting)

randy of the redwood (1565519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142727)

Actually, I agree. I'd go a bit further, and if we all agree that for these free services (gmail, facebook, etc.) that we are the product, not the service, we should be very careful about how much restriction we want to put on these providers.

I'd vote that they MUST tell us what they keep, so we can decide if that price is fair for the service received.

I'd vote against mandatory restrictions on what they can keep. I am willing to pay some level of privacy intrusion, just like I am willing to pay some amount of my attention by accepting advertisements in TV and web pages, so that I can avoid paying actual currency for many services these 'free' vendors provide.

Re:Data ownership (3, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142829)

Okay, but now assume we're not talking about some observation Alice (I like Alice as my A name better) made about Bob while Bob was out walking, but some personal information Bob specifically gave to Alice because Alice was doing something for Bob where she needed that information.

Nobody else needs that information. Bob has not agreed to let it be shared with anyone else. He gave it to her because it was necessary, not because he wanted to have everyone know it. You can say "tough shit" and then forced everyone to choose between having every fact of their life known or not getting anything done. I think a reasonable society can find a better middle ground.

Alice doesn't need to be lobotomized. She just needs to respect Bob's wishes that she not share the information with anyone else without his permission.

Why's that so much to ask?

Of course there's no substance to it. (2)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141899)

If there was substance, it would be meaningful and might offend someone - either his corporate donor/masters, or his slavering popular worshipp...er, followers.

The previous president was no substance, and no image.
The current one has improved, he has "image" out the kazoo.

What a joke. (3, Interesting)

Loosifur (954968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141919)

Everything listed in the "Privacy Bill of Rights" is common-sense, caveat emptor-type stuff, or is easily handled by a standard contract. But by making it part of a "Privacy Bill of Rights" enforced by some government agency, it implies that these "rights" are bestowed by the government, which means that they can be repealed in the future, which would actually harm privacy.

Maybe Barry should start small. Say with the whole indefinite detention thing, or maybe just something simple, like taking it easy with the drone strikes on American citizens abroad.

Typo (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39141927)

Is not "our data belong to us", is "YOUR data belong to us".

DUP (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39142111)

If courts would rule justly on the existing 4th Article of the Bill of Rights, this point would be moot.

White House PDF (2)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142203)

Here's the actual document [whitehouse.gov] . Appendix A contains the "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights". (There's a link in TFA, but for those who want to skip to the source, here you go.)

Unintended Consequences (2)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142697)

The problem is that this document never defines what it means by either "consumer" or "personal data" (although there are suggestions they're both far broader then we'd normally use the terms: "Still, data brokers and other companies that collect personal data without direct consumer interactions or a reasonably detectable presence in consumer-facing activities should seek innovative ways to provide consumers with effective Individual Control."). Given this will get the typically clueless implementation that Congress invariably comes up with on technology matters, this creates all kinds of possibilities for abuse.

Does The Church of Scientology have a right to control the content of its Wikipedia page? If a news organization does an undercover investigation of corruption at some company, do they have to approve the distribution of information that gets collected? Is talking about who's funding a particular interest group allowed?

wookie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39142767)

i'm betting this fluff piece is all about slowing down the TOR and "encrypt everything" rate of adoption. The FBI and NSA want your data to be readable and if you keep trying to hide it from advertisers the FBI and NSA have trouble tracking you.

They are tracking you.

really.

Data ownership (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39142871)

It should be obvious that data, naturally, is not owned by anyone. Laws which say otherwise lead to human rights abuse.

It /may/ be a good idea to make it illegal for companies to collect and use data for targeted marketing but even in this case such a law should have nothing to do with "data ownership".

Can we please drop this "intellectual property" oxymoron before we develop technology to monitor peoples thoughts.

Non-consensual mind reading (radio telepathy) (2)

FShima (2581323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39142923)

This has no protections whatsoever against government agents using synthetic telepathy [tinyurl.com] to read your mind remotely. So this is just more government PR baloney based on making people believe that we're still using obsolete technology, when in fact they've been doing the "alien" abductions and putting the electrodes in people's brains for years now.
Load More 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>