Is online privacy a right or a privilege?

[m00nbl00d]

Originally Posted by Escalader

It's good they paid a fine, but again all that does is create a cost of doing their nasty business. $1.40 a head? That's a joke for a penalty IMHO.

Shutting their site down, and a year in jail for the CEO would be better.

It would most likely still be cheaper to go to jail and the getting the website down.

Those two measures, yes. But, not only those. I would actually make of them an example to everyone else. I'd force them to pay a billionary fine. This would change everybody else's perspective, whenever they consider violating other people's privacy.

I have doubts that such will happen, though.

[dw426]

The problem with the FTC is that are in the business of "recommending" changes, and not really enforcing them. Case in point, online tracking. There are no rules yet, simply guidelines that they hope companies will follow. You can't work like that with corporations. Those "do not track" headers in browsers? Completely ignored according to recent articles. You have to force the issue, not ask politely.

Here in America at least, nothing will change until these "guidelines" become real rules, and enforced at the Federal level. State laws are too easy to get around, and, as we keep seeing, Federal will simply drag them into court and get the laws deemed "unconstitutional". Sadly corporations run the government, so we're pretty much on our own.

[Escalader]

Originally Posted by m00nbl00d

It would most likely still be cheaper to go to jail and the getting the website down.

Those two measures, yes. But, not only those. I would actually make of them an example to everyone else. I'd force them to pay a billionary fine. This would change everybody else's perspective, whenever they consider violating other people's privacy.

I have doubts that such will happen, though.

You are right..... to doubt. Must protect yourself.

[Escalader]

Originally Posted by dw426

The problem with the FTC is that are in the business of "recommending" changes, and not really enforcing them. Case in point, online tracking. There are no rules yet, simply guidelines that they hope companies will follow. You can't work like that with corporations. Those "do not track" headers in browsers? Completely ignored according to recent articles. You have to force the issue, not ask politely.

Here in America at least, nothing will change until these "guidelines" become real rules, and enforced at the Federal level. State laws are too easy to get around, and, as we keep seeing, Federal will simply drag them into court and get the laws deemed "unconstitutional". Sadly corporations run the government, so we're pretty much on our own.

Yes we are alone.

The only thing I can think off that might curb them is public exposure, companies and government hate looking bad.

THEN we can boycott their products and their services.

[vasa1]

Google, Facebook working to undermine Do Not Track privacy protections

Google and Facebook, along with other advertising and technology companies, are working to keep government discussions on "Do Not Track" regulations private so they can twist the definition of "consumer tracking" to the point of offering completely meaningless protections for users.

Using "twist" seems to imply that there's already a legal (in some jurisdiction or the other) definition? If there is, can someone kindly share?

[TheWindBringeth]

Originally Posted by vasa1

Using "twist" seems to imply that there's already a legal (in some jurisdiction or the other) definition? If there is, can someone kindly share?

I think "twist" refers to 'The advertising group insists that its understanding of "Do No Track" means that they can't continue to serve targeted ads at users who opt out, but they can still keep tracking those users' behaviors and collect data on them.'. These companies don't want to stop the data collection and association practices which are at the very heart of the Do No Track concept.

[noone_particular]

Don't expect any legislation or "Do Not Track" options to make any difference. Meaningful user privacy conflicts with big money's bottom line. Governments feel threatened by it. No effective privacy legislation (as per a users definition) will be enacted. On the other hand, they don't want it to appear that they publicly support such tracking of everyone either. What we'll end up with is something that addresses a couple of minor issues like targeted ads but doesn't interfere with overall tracking.

When it comes to information flow, our internet apps are like screens. Business and government might plug a few of the holes in that screen to appease the more vocal and publicized issues (like targeted ads) but the overall flow will not be affected. That said, nothing is stopping us from plugging the holes on our side of that screen. If you want any meaningful privacy, that's what needs to be done. Unfortunately, internet design is constantly expanding the size of that screen and the number of places on our systems that user tracking data gets stored.

It would be interesting to use a combination of folder monitoring and file addition/change detection software to watch the stored tracking data in real time, just to see what, where and how much of it there really is. Once all the locations are found, the stored data can be locked down or deleted in real time or by short term polling of those locations. This combined with strict filtering of browser headers and web content can limit the amount of tracking data they get and force them to store it on their end instead of us storing it for them.

Any existing or pending privacy laws won't prohibit users from implementing their own anti-tracking measures. This will become increasingly more difficult with newer browsers, operating systems, etc. More ways to collect it, more places to hide it, less user access to it, etc. Beyond that, implementing a good anti-tracking setup will probably make you a terrorist suspect and some future variant of national security legislation will make it illegal, at which time we'll have 3 choices.
1, Allow the tracking.
2, Stop using the internet.
3, Stand up en masse and refuse to comply.

[ESQ_ERRANT]

The concept of "INTERNET PRIVACY," as a legal term of art, is an enormously elusive one. To assert that "INTERNET PRIVACY" is either a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE," in some broad sense, gets you nowhere. The problem is, first and foremost, that there is, to date, no comprehensive federal law governing internet privacy generally because, as a matter of law there is no explicit general right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. The question of "PRIVACY" from a legal perspective often turns on the issue of "EXPECTATION." And, in that regard, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information that he voluntarily turns over to third parties. See, e.g., Smith vs. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744 (1979). This would suggest that any attempt by Congress to enact "INTERNET PRIVACY LEGISLATION" will not be an easy one and would, if it is to survive judicial scrutiny, need to be assiduously drafted and narrowly tailored.

[vasa1]

Originally Posted by ESQ_ERRANT

The concept of "INTERNET PRIVACY," as a legal term of art, is an enormously elusive one. ...

Thank you for your entire post. It's useful to know facts rather than opinions.

[safeguy]

My opinion:

Both privacy (and not just online privacy) and the act of monitoring are rights. The key concept that has to be realized here is that each side has a limit to which extent they can claim their rights,depending on several factors such as (but not limited to) the intent, actions, impact of actions, and location.

The issue (that has always been) is that both sides find it hard to find a balance. The problem mainly lies in each side insisting that only their rights matter. For as long as that happens, it is difficult to reach an agreement.

[noone_particular]

The issue (that has always been) is that both sides find it hard to find a balance. The problem mainly lies in each side insisting that only their rights matter. For as long as that happens, it is difficult to reach an agreement.

This is compounded by the lack of a direct voice from the users. They (big money) pretend to state what our concerns are, and in the process they narrow the scope or alter them to suit their "rights". It's hard to get the real issues in front of the public when they control most of the media. Ranks up there with trying to get unbiased, accurate news. Very few ever see the real story.