US senators introduce online privacy 'bill of rights'

[lotuseclat79]

US senators introduce online privacy 'bill of rights'.

US senators John Kerry and John McCain introduced an online privacy bill Tuesday that seeks to strike a balance between protecting the personal information of Web users and the needs of businesses to conduct electronic commerce.

-- Tom

[nix]

Well, the biggest real threat to my privacy is the U.S. government. And I can't opt out of it, apparently It would be nice if they could enforce the privacy bills that they already have, like the one that supposedly stops NSA from conducting domestic surveillance. The one called the bill of rights. Maybe it would set a good example for the private sector. Until that happens, I have very little faith that Kerry and McCain have anything meaningful to contribute to this conversation.

[dw426]

A few good reasons why the trees cut down to produce the paper upon which this will be written, is worth more than this "bill of rights": http://www.pcworld.com/article/22516...of_rights.html. As always is the case, consumer protection laws come with the "gotchas" and work-arounds.

[CloneRanger]

If those two losers are behind it, then it can't be good for you

[dw426]

Originally Posted by CloneRanger

If those two losers are behind it, then it can't be good for you

It's not the people introducing the bill (in this case) so much as about who the bill will affect. American law is dictated more by corporations, unions and interest groups than the people actually voted in to do the job (as an American myself, that's not talking badly about the country, it's just a fact of life that has been fact for many decades). It's these corporations and groups that render the majority of these attempts impotent. As stated in the article I linked, federal law trumps state law. And, these corporations and groups who are really the ones running the show, run it at the federal level. So, good luck getting truly meaningful legislation not only to stick, but to pass in the first place.

[nix]

The article says the legislation met with a mixed reaction from digital privacy groups.

This is an important step toward the enactment of a comprehensive privacy law for this country," said Justin Brookman, director of the Center for Democracy & Technology's Consumer Privacy Project.

A coalition of consumer groups and privacy advocates welcomed the bipartisan effort but said in a letter to the senators that the legislation needs to be "significantly strengthened if it is to effectively protect consumer privacy rights in today's digital marketplace."

and

"We cannot support the bill at this time," said the letter signed by the Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Action, Consumer Watchdog, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and Privacy Times.

Sounds like they have a long way to go.

[twl845]

This is what I termed at my job as looking busy. The problem is that Senators have to look busy so their constituents will continue to vote for them, so they dream up this stuff to show that they are actively doing things to "help" the people of America. The thing is, if their little Bill goes South, they will say "I was against that from the beginning" when they come up for re-election.

[lotuseclat79]

Privacy 'bill of rights' exempts government agencies.

There is, however, one feature of the bill (PDF) sponsored by senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) that has gone relatively unnoticed: it doesn't apply to data mining, surveillance, or any other forms of activities that governments use to collect and collate Americans' personal information.

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

Law enforcement agencies vacuum up data online, lack reporting procedures.

Police and other agencies are deferring to the Internet for investigation purposes - and a new paper points out is no required report for this activity.

The bill would not include the heatedly debated “do-not-track” stipulation.

-- Tom

[dw426]

Originally Posted by twl845

This is what I termed at my job as looking busy. The problem is that Senators have to look busy so their constituents will continue to vote for them, so they dream up this stuff to show that they are actively doing things to "help" the people of America. The thing is, if their little Bill goes South, they will say "I was against that from the beginning" when they come up for re-election.

They didn't look too busy when the budget was (and still is) being dealt with But of course, you're right, it's a standard tactic to CYA by claiming you didn't like the bill, or pass the blame for failure on to someone else. The Golden Rule in politics is always blame the other party. Even if members of your own party don't play ball, blame the other party. Anyway, someone else mentioned the government being exempt. I'm hoping no one was really believing they wouldn't be exempt. The government will never allow itself to be restricted in such matters.

[lotuseclat79]

Well-Meaning "Privacy Bill of Rights" Wouldn't Stop Online Tracking.

-- Tom

[monkeybutt]

Originally Posted by dw426

It's not the people introducing the bill (in this case) so much as about who the bill will affect. American law is dictated more by corporations, unions and interest groups than the people actually voted in to do the job (as an American myself, that's not talking badly about the country, it's just a fact of life that has been fact for many decades). It's these corporations and groups that render the majority of these attempts impotent. As stated in the article I linked, federal law trumps state law. And, these corporations and groups who are really the ones running the show, run it at the federal level. So, good luck getting truly meaningful legislation not only to stick, but to pass in the first place.

Federal does not trump state law, never has, that's why they are called states.

The problem lies with the Fed itself, they are overstepping their power and have been for some time. It's time for the states to take back their power.

[dw426]

Originally Posted by monkeybutt

Federal does not trump state law, never has, that's why they are called states.

The problem lies with the Fed itself, they are overstepping their power and have been for some time. It's time for the states to take back their power.

Um, do we live in the same country? Federal laws do trump state laws. All the Fed has to do is say the words "national security" or make something a Federal offense, and boom. The Federal government gets into everything, for a good example, see Arizona's ongoing issue (of course it doesn't help when Mexico is getting its say in that particular matter, even though they should have absolutely no say).

Anyway, to reel this back in to being on-topic, I suggest you look a little bit harder. Whether overstepping of power or legal right, the Feds indeed trump the states. As far as taking back power, well, as long as judges keep saying no (see Wisconsin, Arizona, and more), and as long as voters would rather see who gets kicked off A.I and not watch the news, I'm afraid we're stuck.

[CloneRanger]

The constitution is well understood by "THEM" but they choose to ignore when it suits them, which for some years now is Often

Actually all you need is a clued up Sheriff who has the balls to use his Very Wide ranging powers to get things done & prevent "THEM" doind bad stuff

States Can Tell Feds to Shove It

The answer is in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it! That’s right, the individual States can stop .......... -http://www.infowars.com/states-can-tell-feds-to-shove-it-

So vote in a LOT more like him and

EDIT - Don't know what happened to the link, or why the text was repeated ? So i've fixed it.

[nix]

Originally Posted by CloneRanger

The constitution is well understood by "THEM" but they choose to ignore when it suits them, which for some years now is Often

Actually all you need is a clued up Sheriff who has the balls to use his Very Wide ranging powers to get things done & prevent "THEM" doind bad stuff



So vote in a LOT more like him and

I'm not sure the answer to our problems lie with the states, the feds, or a clued-up sheriff, as intriguing as the last possibility is. I'd like to compare this material to that in the link Internet Meltdown posted yesterday. That thread has unfortunately been removed. Did anyone cache the cite for the article he posted?

[JRViejo]

nix, is this the article you are seeking? White House draft bill expands DHS cyber responsibilities

[nix]

Yes, indeed. Thank you so much. I thought it was a good foil for the link in this thread.

[JRViejo]

nix, you're welcome! Take care.