NY Times Editorial says: PASS PRIVACY BILL!

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by luv2bsecure, May 20, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. luv2bsecure

    luv2bsecure Infrequent Poster

    Feb 9, 2002
    Great News! The New York Times, in an editorial in the Sunday edition, is calling for citizens to call their elected officials and urge them to support the Online Privacy Act! Don't let some who are opposed to one small portion of the bill concerning non-identifiable information help kill the best privacy bill ever sent to the hill. I hate adware as much as anyone, but it's peanuts compared to what we GET in this bill!

    John..........Editorial Follows

    Protecting Online Privacy
    The dark side of the Internet revolution is the unprecedented access corporations now have to our private information. Financial data, Social Security numbers, home addresses — all can be collected when we go online and sold to third parties without our knowledge. A bill working its way through the Senate, the Online Personal Privacy Act, would give individuals more control. It includes an array of common-sense protections, like a requirement that consumers give their consent before companies sell or trade their Social Security numbers.

    The bill faces fierce opposition from the technology, financial services and health care industries. Its opponents will not admit that there is money to be made invading privacy and selling sensitive information.

    Instead, they have introduced an array of red herrings, like objections that the bill does not do enough to protect privacy offline. But offline privacy is a separate issue that can be addressed with a separate law. They are also upset that the bill gives individuals whose privacy rights have been infringed the right to sue. But the only way the law will have any force is if companies know they can be held accountable by their victims.

    Tom Daschle, the Senate majority leader, should make this bill a priority. The House needs to pass its own bill, which will require going back to the drafting table: the privacy bill it has now is toothless, and far worse than the Senate version. With Republicans in charge of the House, Republican congressmen who care about privacy will have to fight for a stronger bill.

    Opponents of online privacy are making a cynical calculation. They know that killing the bill means a lot to some generous campaign contributors. And they are betting that no one else is paying attention. But poll after poll has found that voters care deeply about how data is collected about them online. And many will be collecting some information of their own — on which way members of Congress vote on this important bill.

    copyright 2002 New York Times
  2. Checkout

    Checkout Security Rhinoceros

    Feb 11, 2002
    I wish the UK government had as much respect for its own people.  I really do.
  3. Mike_Healan

    Mike_Healan Registered Member

    Mar 6, 2002
    If this is that Hollings privacy bill, then it's a bad idea. It protects data that is already largely considered off limits such as social security and medical data, but makes it legal, by act of Congress, to engage in trading/collection of other personal data. Your name, address, email address, browsing habits, etc will be fair game under Hollings' bill.
  4. luv2bsecure

    luv2bsecure Infrequent Poster

    Feb 9, 2002
    That is a complete and total LIE put out by the right-wing Republicans who want to defeat this bill at all costs to protect their big business interests who pay for the GOP campaigns who, in turn, once elected, do their dirty work for them. Read: Make them even richer.

    Thanks to Salon.com and freelance writer Chris Wenham for totally falling for the lie and not even reading the bill to see if what they claimed in the article was true! They have helped spread the DISinformation and have brought people like yourself, Mike, who SHOULD be with us, NOT against us.

    Quoting Mark Rotenberg, Executive Director of EPIC, on what concerns you:

    The Act makes an important distinction between Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (SPII). The first is generally subject to the opt-out approach, while the second would require opt-in. While many privacy experts, including me, have favored the opt-in rule for all transfers of personal information, I believe the approach set out in the bill can be made to work. It reflects a general recognition that there is a distinction between medical and financial information on the one hand and the type of paper towel or lettuce we buy on the other. It also follows an approach that is increasingly found in Europe and other regions of the world to make clear that a stronger privacy standard should apply to more sensitive personal information. The definition of Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information set out in the Act reflect both a commonsense understanding and the practice that is currently evolving.

    This bill is supported by:
    Electronic Frontier Foundation
    Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
    Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
    Senator Phil Gramm (one conservative Republican who strongly supports privacy rights on the Internet!)
    The ACLU Freedom Network
    Internet Privacy Coalition
    The Online Privacy Alliance
    Editorially supported by:
    Wired Magazine
    PC Magazine
    Fred Langa
    David Coursey: Anchordesk
    and everyone else concerned with online privacy who has read this bill.



    Passing on disinformation without knowing what the hell you're talking about will help kill this bill. It is NONIDENTIFIABLE information that will be allowed to be collected and traded - as it is now, albeit with new restrictions. That's the downside of the bill - but we lose nothing. However, we gain SO MUCH!!! This bill is chock full of what privacy advocates have been asking for.

    To oppose it based on poor reporting, hidden agendas and typical right-wing tricks to protect their wealthy friends that make up the Corporate Nation is a terrible, terrible mistake.

    If you doubt the above - READ THE BILL.

    I'm sorry for being harsh here and I apologize in advance. I have worked hard on this and I know this bill is ten times better than anything we could have even dreamed of just a short time ago!

    "The makers of our Constitution...sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of the rights of man and the right most valued by civilized men."
    -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v. United States (192:cool:

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.