US senators introduce online privacy 'bill of rights'

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by lotuseclat79, Apr 13, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,103
    US senators introduce online privacy 'bill of rights'.

    -- Tom
     
  2. nix

    nix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Posts:
    257
    Location:
    Miami
    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.
     
  3. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
  4. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    If those two losers are behind it, then it can't be good for you :thumbd:
     
  5. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    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.
     
  6. nix

    nix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Posts:
    257
    Location:
    Miami
    The article says the legislation met with a mixed reaction from digital privacy groups.

    Sounds like they have a long way to go.
     
  7. twl845

    twl845 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Posts:
    4,186
    Location:
    USA
    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. :blink:
     
  8. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,103
    Privacy 'bill of rights' exempts government agencies.

    -- Tom
     
  9. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,103
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2011
  10. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    They didn't look too busy when the budget was (and still is) being dealt with :D 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.
     
  11. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,103
  12. monkeybutt

    monkeybutt Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Posts:
    126

    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.
     
  13. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    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.
     
  14. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    The constitution is well understood by "THEM" but they choose to ignore when it suits them, which for some years now is Often :thumbd:

    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 :thumb:

    So vote in a LOT more like him and :thumb: :)

    EDIT - Don't know what happened to the link, or why the text was repeated ? So i've fixed it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2011
  15. nix

    nix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Posts:
    257
    Location:
    Miami
    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?
     
  16. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,980
    Location:
    U.S.A.
  17. nix

    nix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Posts:
    257
    Location:
    Miami
    Yes, indeed. Thank you so much. I thought it was a good foil for the link in this thread.
     
  18. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,980
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    nix, you're welcome! Take care.
     
  19. nix

    nix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Posts:
    257
    Location:
    Miami
    And importantly, this bill does not create a private right of action. It all goes to the FTC:
    Again, LOL. That's why I wanted the White House Draft Bill link.

    Wow. This bill was drafted by the executive, for sure. And a "privacy bill of rights" that exempts the government. With a possible privacy regulatory body at FTC.

    Add NIST standards for the online identity program:
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=297316

    DHS telling the private sector what is, and is not, critical infrastructure. These are some top-heavy federal plans. And I would say, if you start examining these bills and programs carefully, at the federal level, Keith Alexander, as head of both USCYBERCOM and NSA, starts looking about like one of the biggest clued-in Sheriffs you could imagine. And there are a few other cyber positions as well that are immensely powerful. And a revolving door between public/private sector security jobs. This is not to oversimplify the matter. The point is that we need to examine very carefully exactly the kind of political power structures that are being built around our communications technology, and see to whom the power might flow, theoretically. I mean, it's an exercise in logic, and in possibilities, but an important one.
     
  20. apathy

    apathy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Posts:
    461
    Location:
    9th Circle of Hell(Florida)
    The government does not give you rights. So the idea that they are going to give you some extra privacy is inane. If the gooberment gives you something then they can take it away. We have a bill of rights but it is neither respected or followed.

    Justice William J. Brennan, "The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting."
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2011
  21. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    .

    What :eek:

    Exemption for FB, how nice of them :thumbd:

    https://www.pcworld.com/businesscen...ry_mccain_introduced_online_privacy_bill.html
     
  22. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,103
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.