The Tightening Net: Part Two 245
The United States (with the help of some European Enlightenment radicals) invented the legal notion of individual, constitutionally- protected privacy, even if contemporary American citizens seem content to surrender it to government and corporations. The modern-day United States has few mechanisms for protecting privacy when it comes to personal data.
Some European countries give citizens legal control over their personal data, and forbid the transmission of personal information from one source to another without the individual's permission. They also have government agencies responsible for monitoring violations; citizens can turn to them for help. And even in most European countries, citizens surrender confidentiality when buying homes or cars or applying for bank loans. Generally, they can rest assured that the information they surrender won't be sold or passed along without their approval.
Canada, which has a privacy commissioner, has recently enacted a bill requiring companies to ask permission before collecting personal data; it also requires that they tell clients why they need it and who will see it (most Americans happily turn over their phone numbers to clerks at chains like Radio Shack and Toys 'R Us when they make purchases). But it's almost inconceivable that similiar legislation or a privacy commissioner could get past the thousands of corporate lobbyists encamped in Washington. Corporations have become the primary contributors to national political campaigns. They have powerful lobbies in Washington, where individual consumers seem to have few, if any.
The list of reasons for collecting personal data keeps growing. Federal law requires some employers to notify the government of newly-hired employees so that governments can garnish the wages of people delinquent in their child support payments. The government also screens for terrorists, tax cheats and illegal immigrants. Corporations use software programs to screen for anti-social or other "problem" behavior, and check employees against vast databases of crime and debt. Schools are deploying software programs to look for potentially violent students. Some states require that anyone who works near children go through computer and database checks for criminal histories, particularly sex offenses. In an increasingly phobic and fearful culture, it seems that privacy is sacrificed everytime a law enforcement or other perceived threat is raised.
Privacy problems are the underside of the information revolution. As the Net makes the collection of information easier than ever, it also points out one of the principal ironies of technology: Advances are almost always a double-edged sword. Software collection programs present society with access to information, advanced research and marketing techniques, but also with complex new problems, few of them being addressed by government, politics, the tech industries themselves. People are at the mercy of credit-reporting companies who can dig up all kinds of information and, in effect, punish them without perspective or due process. Getting accurate information and redressing errors is like getting tech support: it's supposed to be possible, but just try it.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote of every American's right to an "inviolate personality," a zone of privacy around their intimate behavior and personal lives. That zone has vanished, in part due to harassment laws and other legal evolutions, but also, increasingly, because of software and mushrooming databases. Code has become a social instrument beyond the wildest dreams of many of its creators.
Banks and insurance companies have a right to see customers' credit and payment histories. But lesser infractions used to be forgotten, and individual bankers or agents had the power to make individual judgments. Computers now make information available to companies that wouldn't have had access to it, and software programs make decisions about reliability and risk. The entire process has become simultaneously impersonal.
Although there are some statutes of limitations on bankruptcies and debts -- after seven and, in some cases, ten years, according to federal law, bankruptcy can't be legally used against you and some debts must be forgiven -- there are no procedures for eradicating this information, or even for knowing how much companies are considering it. Personal data survives in databases for all time. And companies increasingly distance themselves from the source and repository if the information, the database collectors themselves. That makes accountability even harder.
Don't lenders, insurers, and colleges have some responsibility for making proportional judgments of their own, for studying the relative merits of each case and make individual decisions? Or will they blindly followed credit-tracking information, no matter the sometimes punitive impact on people?
In his book "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace," Harvard's Lawrence Lessig explains that the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees Americans the right to some measure of privacy, was conceived at a time when the prime technology for invading privacy was trespass. "Imagine then," writes Lessig," that in 1791 protecting against physical trespass protected 90% of personal privacy. The government could still stand on the street and listen through open windows, but the invasion presented by that threat was small, all things considered. For the most part, a regime that protected against trespass -- or unreasonable search and seizure -- was also protecting privacy."
When telephones appeared, this protection eroded. Private information was transmitted via phone lines. Rather than 90% of privacy being protected by the Fourth Amendment, only 50% was, estimates Lessig. Ever since, protections against privacy have not even remotely kept pace with technology. The boundaries around the reasonable information that banks, insurance companies, government and other institutions need to perform their legitimate business have been overrun. And corporations, not governments, have become the most wanton violators of privacy. One reason individual citizens feel apathetic is that they see little harm in Wal-Mart getting data about their shopping habits, or in Amazon selling lists of the books they like to other companies.
The public's fear seems to center on government, not corporate, intrusions of privacy, although polls show that fear of companies misuse of personal data is growing rapidly. But with corporations growing increasingly enmeshed with the political system, this may become an even more significant political issue, although it was never raised in the presidential campaign. History suggests that governments can change character -- Communism and witchcraft were crimes under some governments, not another. If the federal government should bow to corporate pressure and get serious about pursuing hackers and crackers online -- this doesn't seem a remote possibility -- people might regret looking the other way as their privacy is sold off bit by bit. Should today's citizens come into conflict with their government, there'll be no dearth of information about who and where they are, what they've read, bought, watched, and how they handled credit cards when they were 19.
Seemingly small transactions often have enormous implications for people's lives. The free flow of information is a noble notion, but it's becoming a frightening one as well.
US is going down hill (Score:1)
all about corporations and money. If something
isn't done soon, I predict another civil war within
the next 100 years. Sometime before then there will
be a mass exodus. Other countries do a much better
job at upholding their founder's original constitution.
I'm on my way out in four more years.
Re:Canada's "Privacy" Commissioner (Score:1)
Re:Privacy online is overrated (Score:1)
"Someone has information about me because I chose to give it to him"
versus
"Someone has information about me that I didn't choose to give"
See, you have a choice. You can choose not to give information about yourself. There are tradeoffs--some people might not deal with you because of this--but this is self-limiting; if you refuse to buy a product from anyone who wants your telephone number, you're creating an untapped market, and untapped markets attract suppliers.
Katz confuses these categories by going from wiretapping to credit histories to giving your phone number at Radio Shack in the same breath. I think he's doing it deliberately, so that he can scoop up the deservedly bad reputation of wiretapping and smear it all over Radio Shack.
Tapping my phone lines, bugging my home, looking through my windows with a telescope--those are _involuntary_ privacy violations. I have no choice about participating in those things. (Ironically (but predictably), the European countries Katz applauds, where citizens "own their own data", typically have less protection against this kind of intrusion than the U.S.)
This also applies to trading information that wasn't supposed to be traded--I made a choice based on a claim that my information wouldn't be given away, and that claim turned out to be a lie. It's fraud. There are laws against fraud. There are courts that enforce the laws against fraud. We don't need a new system of laws and Privacy Führers to prevent a specific kind of fraud.
It seems that Katz's diatribe against "privacy invasion" is an indirect attack on another target: "unaccountable institutions" that "make decisions that affect our personal, financial, and work lives." This is his problem--he doesn't like institutions that aren't 'accountable', which he defines in terms of elections and public referenda. Katz demands that no one be allowed to do anything that 'affects' him in any way without submitting it to a vote.
The practical problem (I'll leave the ethical problems alone for the moment) with his little statist fantasy is that historically, the free market has been much better at enforcing accountability than _any_ government, elected or otherwise. Politicians lie; businesses have to deliver, or their competitors will.
If Katz wants to criticize the free market, he should do it honestly instead of disguising his argument as concern for our privacy.
Go on, Katz, say it: "Workers of the world, unite!" And if you're not going to say it, shut the hell up.
Re:Interesting to look at who the offenders are... (Score:1)
I'll agree with you that the agencies shouldn't be able to sell your info. But putting restrictions on the aggregators is like saying, "Yeah, I see the sink overflowing, but what we really need is more and better mops to clean up the floor." What we need is to turn the faucet off. If privacy regulation is in fact needed, I would think that the government should start with the beam in their own eye.
Once it leaves the government's hands, they have lost all control. All government agencies are accountable, for the most part, (ultimately) to the citizens of that country. (Yes, I know there are major exceptions.) If there is enough uproar (as there was a few years back about driver's license records, which enabled a stalker to find, and ultimately murder, a sit-com actress) the government will change its laws.
But the info didn't magically 'leave the government's hands'. It was sold, and your privacy with it. The plac to start is to stop the government from selling the info in the first place.
Right now, privacy is being treated as an opt-out process- I would prefer if it was, by default, opt-in. Since we don't necessarily know all the data that is collected about us, I want all information about me to be considered private, and let me decide what is to be made public.
If a private company wants to distribute it, they should have to tell me what information they are selling and to whom. I would prefer it if my state would not distribute this information, but ultimately, it will have to be a federal action that forces privacy. As it stands now, if it is not expressly prohibited, it is permitted.
Agreed, for data collected by the state (state in the broader context of government). It's bad enough that they collect the data in the first place, but to sell it, that's ridiculous.
As for information given to marketers, banks, etc, the onus should fall on the consumer to read the fine print (or lack thereof). Caveat emptor. If Joe Public went into a transaction remembering that the lack of a policy is a policy (a policy of doing whatever we goddam well please with your info), this wouldn't be a problem.
Regulation is not the solution to stupid people giving out info to a web site that they'd never give out over the phone.
(to be truthful, it appears that for the most part, we agree, unless, I'm being particularly dense and failing to catch on to your irony)
We do. My major peeve, as stated above, is that we're setting the fox to guard the henhouse. We should at least hobble the fox first.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...ain't privacy fun...
You have as much privacy as you want (Score:1)
If you don't give your info out, people don't have it. If you don't specify that it be kept confidential, it won't be, nor should it be.
Your article fails to make a compelling statement of the 'problem', in its unabashed eagerness to offer up government regulation as the solution.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
P.S. Wired 9.02, pp 74 Online Privacy, by Stuart Luman. You've been scooped on this one.
...regulation cures all ills...
Re:Interesting to look at who the offenders are... (Score:1)
I would agree, but only if you make that provision when giving the info to me. Anything given is implcitly given without restriction. Unless that restriction (that only I can use the info) is made explicit, I ought to be able to do whatever I please with it. If there is no privacy policy listed, don't give the info to that person.
It's like giving money to panhandlers. A handful of change (generic demographic data), hey, who cares what he does with it. A hundred bucks (name, DOB, SSN, address, phone number), one ought to be looking for some reasonable assurances that the money will be spent in a way I see fit.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...the more we keep discussing this, the more we agree...
Interesting to look at who the offenders are... (Score:1)
Note that the examples you've listed are all examples of governmental agencies selling your info. These would be the same folks Katz would like to 'protect' us from privacy loss. Tres ironic.
Personally, I see your point, but public record is just that, public. Private info, on the other hand, should be private unless you give out rights to it. However, if there's no stipulation when the info is given out, caveat emptor.
Or we can just pass a law, and the problem will go away.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...ever since I got this hammer, everything looks like a nail...
Re:Child care teachers being screened (Score:1)
everything is for the children!
think of the children!
Re:Amendments (Score:1)
> 1) You're a radical lesbian feminist, so you
> have the right to speak on the subject. OK, so
> all us non-radical, non-lesbian, non-"feminist"
> (although I may classify myself as a feminist,
> depending on how you define the term) people,
> especially white males (like me), better shut
> the hell up and listen to their betters?
> Uhh...no.
That's not what I said.
I'm using 'right' as in 'something to which one has a just claim'. I don't consider people who say they aren't feminist *and* have no real clue what feminism is about (in any of it's permutations) to have much right to speak of it and be believed or taken seriously, in the same sense I consider the loweliest script kiddie who runs a linux box at home to have more right to speak of linux than a well-qualified (on paper) 'computer expert' who has never touched linux and only knows about it from MS and other anti-linux sources.
Case in point: I went to the local small computer shop today, and the guy behind the counter told me he doesn't run linux because 'it only runs on Intel motherboards and doesn't support sound' -- if you know anything about linux, you know that's wrong. By the same token, there is an unfortunetly common belief that feminism (especially radical feminism) requires that one hate men (as opposed to challenging patriarchy -- the two are vastly different, and hating men not only is not helpful, it's counter productive) -- recently a young woman who told me that she was anti-feminist also told me that she felt that feminism's main message was that if one didn't hate men one was a 'disgrace to your vagina' -- if you know anything about feminism you know that this is not an accurate portrayal of feminist theory or philosophy.
Perhaps I should have used 'expertise' -- if you like, s/right/expertise there. I don't do semantics arguments.
> 2) There is something wrong with the CONCEPT of
> a white male? a) What is the concept of a white
> male?
The concept of 'white male' requires two concepts, race and sex.
Race is the concept that there are different groups of people that can be separated on the basis of their skin color. Racism is the concept that various values of a human being (their fitness or non-fitness for various things) can be judged by their race.
Sex is that concept that there are two (in some cultures more, but in the U.S. only two) groups of people, separated by certain apparent characteristics -- usually considered to be genetilia (not chromosomes -- how many people do you know have actually had a chromosome check?) and some secondary characteristics -- breasts or lack thereof, facial hair, etc. Sexism is the concept that a person's fitness for various things can be judged from their sex.
It's commonly argued that race is a 'real' thing -- while I"ll grant that both heritage and skin color are actual realities, race in this country is a social construct. This can most readily be seen in the fact that the definition of who is 'white' has changed over the past 200 years (i.e. Irish in the 1800s in most parts of the country were not considered to be white -- italians and jewish people of european origin have also not be considered white at various points) and the fact that skin color often seems to have little to do with it. My skin is lighter than that of most 'white' people, yet I am not white because my grandmother was japanese (I also have two great-great-greats that were native american, one sioux and one cherokee, but it's likely that if I did not have a japanese grandmother I would be considered white). Why is race important then, if it's so amorphous? Because it's used to decide *who* has privilege (see racism) and by privilege I don't mean who gets a limo or lots of money -- I mean who doesn't get pulled over because they don't 'look' like they should own that nice car, who is seen as a threat when they walk into a convenience store late at night, who is likely to be stopped because they don't 'belong' in this neighborhood, who gets service in a store vs who gets ignored because they don't 'look' like they'll have money, who gets loans vs who doesn't. There are tons of studies showing that all other things (income, dress, etc) being equal, people of color are still *much* more likely to deal with the above than white people. If you don't deal with these things, than you're not likely to realize that *not* dealing with them, in this society, *is* a privilege.
Sex is similar, though a bit more problematic, because there *is* actual difference between males and females, and the vast majority of people biologically only fit into one group or the other. Those who aren't born with clearly male or clearly female genetilia are generally surgically altered/mutilated at very young ages to conform to societies expectations (usually 'into' females because it's a technically easier task to 'construct' female-looking genetilia than male-looking genetilia) (Incidently a good book along these lines is _Gender_Shock_). So while biological sex is 'more' real than race, it's still not the 100% that the societally constructed concept of sex is (don't believe me? I genderbend on a regular basis. It amazes me how strong the impulse in people to assign a sex to someone is.
Again, sex is important because (and, outside of mating behavior, *only* because) it strongly affects how people are treated by other people -- who is considered techinically competant, who is considered to be 'easy prey' for rapists, muggers, etc (not that men never are raped or otherwise violently attacked - but both happen significantly more often to women), who is considered to be authority (ever had your computer componants or car parts or furniture automatically given to a male companion? Had it happen so regularly that you're shocked when someone actually gives it to you? Ever had anyone assume that you didn't know anything about your car/computer/tools/exercise equiptment because you were male? All this is privilege as well), how much you make (see http://news.excite.com/news/zd/010116/16/it-pay-w
So the concept of white male, in our society, is the person with 'default' privilege -- you will reliably be represented in media and in society (this analysis does not include class, sexual orientation and a number of other attributes which are similar to race and sex in that they are used to discriminate).
> b) Why is it a problem?
because the concepts exist to exclude and discriminate against groups of people, as groups.
> If there's a ruling elite in america,
Are you saying there is not?
> it is
> neither identically nor exclusively the domain
> of white males.
Up until a generation ago you'd be wrong. Now there are a number of 'token' women and people of color in some positions, however, the vast majority of those in power are still white males.
That said, ruling white males are a very small subset of all white males -- as I said, the problems were not caused by every individual white male, however, every white person benefits from white privilege (and some of us who are not white but pass for it as well) and every male benefits from male privilege (regardless of color) and white males benefit from both. Thus, white people, and males and especially white males are in positions to challenge this privilege, but often don't -- mostly out of ignorance (often willful, but that's another post)
> Most of us white males have to muddle along on
> our own, without even the chic of radical
> lesbian feminism to help us make sense of our
> pathetic, misguided lives.
Most of us non-white males muddle through the same stuff, without the nifty bits of privilege, making it that much harder. While I find radical feminism to be useful in interpreting the world around me (as, say, quantum theory is useful in interpreting our universe) I would hardly call it chic. In some ways it's empowering, enabling me to see that there are patterns, that I'm not imagining the things I see, and that there are others who have come up with strategies for dealing with the inevitable problems that come up, as well as for 'fixing' the system -- in other ways it's depressing, because it would be nice if I were the only person who has had to fight some of the battles I have -- not for me, but for the rest of the world. 'Chic' is just not a word I'd use to describe it.
That said, I'm sure that, should you be politically minded, there are plenty of political ideas and philosphies that could help you make sense of your life. (Actually, radical feminism also holds that patriarchy harms men, though not really in teh same ways that Promise keepers thinks)
Re:Amendments (Score:1)
> mill Slashdot fare.
Thanks. I try hard to remember that I've been arguing on-line for about nine years (since I was thirteen
> since the
> basic discussion here has centered around what
> does and does not constitute a "right", it's not
> a good term to throw around loosely.
Agreed. I forgot vinnie rule #1 (think, then type, not the other way around
> It seems like, at the very basic level, you are
> fighting against human xenophobia and stupidity.
Well, I'm not sure stupidity is exactly the right idea here -- very 'stupid' people (the mentally retarded) are often the *least* prejudiced people. Very inexperienced people (young children) generally also lack prejudice (of the sexual and racial kind -- they are very prejudiced towards their families and people they know, but in a young child this is probably good for survival) except that they've been taught (generally by their parents, but also from TV and the few societal influences they've been likely to encounter). There was a time, when resources were much scarcer (while there is still resource scarcity, there is definetly enough *resources* for all people to eat, which thousands of years ago was not the case) that choosing your family or group or tribe over others was *vital* to your family's survival (and therefore your genes..ultimately we are still DNA's way of making more DNA, whatever we wish to think
At one point all of this was necessary for survival, but I think (and can argue) that these attitudes are counter-productive (and somewhat counter survival, but probably not enough to darwin them out) and therefore should change for the benefit of all people.
> it's going to make them almost impossible to
> fight against.
Well, if you look at history, there is progress being made. To look at the United States (which is, honestly, the only place I can intelligently discuss right now. I keep meaning to learn more about world politics, but time/energy/yeah, I'm sure you know the excuses here), before the 1860s, it was considered okay to keep humans as slaves because they were another color (and during colonial days slavery of whites was allowed, though the politics around this is very different than that of black slavery in the U.S. [and I should note that I'm using politics in the sense of the way humans organize power -- in the 'office politics' sense, rather than necessarily in the government sense, though the former does encompass the latter), later that century black people were given the right to vote, in the 1920s women finally got the right to vote, civil rights movement made great advances in the 1960s (certainly, racism et al still exist today, that's what started this conversation, but it's definetly *less* than what it was in the 20s or 50s) and the women's rights movement in the 70s also made advances (again, sexism exists still, but not to the same extent). This history gives me hope that with continued work, education, activism, etc that someday (maybe generations from now) it *won't* exist.
Even if I'm wrong about this, there's a great essay about racism (written in the late fifties, I think) that argues that racism will never die, that black people will never be considered equal to rights, however, the author argues that that doesn't release anyone with a conscience from the duty of fighting racism anyway, because it's far better to go down fighting than to live on one's knees.
> I'd argue that these persons do not provide an
> accurate representation of white males,
They aren't meant to represent white males -- in fact, white males certainly *don't* have monopoly on thinking that a female will not know about cars or computers (or any other sexist behavior). Nor is that behavior 'better' when other women or people of color engage in it. What males (in this case color doesn't matter so much, from my view, though someone who is clearly of color might disagree with me) have a monopoly on is assumed competance -- by males and females (and others).
Your thought experiment has merit, but that wasn't the situation I was talking about.
Two friends (male and female) walk into a car/computer store. They go to the counter, and the counter person greets them, looking at the male, and asks him what he wants. The female pipes up with her list, and the counter person puts it on the counter and asks the guy if that will be it, the girl says yes, the counter person finally gets the clue and asks the girl if that will be cash or credit.
This is such a normal occurance in my life that mostly I just shine it, though occasionally I'll throw in a smart ass comment on my way out about computers/cars not requiring penises...
Another occurance that used to be common (when I worked as a PC tech at computer stores) customer comes in (normally male, though males *are* overrepresented in the set of 'customers likely to talk to the PC tech' so that may just be a statistical artifact) and when he discovers that a *girl* is working on his computer (or has been sent out to answer his questions) he asks 'Can you please get a real tech?' (best answer, "I am a real tech" and if that doesn't work I'd employ a technical I used to call 'beating them over the head with technical terms' -- you can probably guess what it entails -- in some techs this is normal behavior, but I generally try to go out of my way to make sure that non-technical people understand what I'm saying, I consider the former to be not nice behavior, though sometimes justified)
Similar things used to happen when I worked tech support (I'm now a sysadmin, and while I get an occasional surprised coworker I haven't had to deal with customers in a while)
> you might have a case to argue that that
> individual is sexist.
I think I do here, but more, I think that it shows a pattern of 'normalized' sexism. We aren't talking one or two or three cases here, we're talking onces every two or three days, for *years*, in the case of the work related ones. In the case of the store incidents, I generally frequent the same computer stores once I find the ones I like, so they tend to clue on to me pretty quick (though my experience has been that they clue to *me* not *women*).
Discussions with my female friends have shown similar patterns (my favorite is my best friend, who is, if possible, louder than I am, who has a very clearly female name, yet sales clerks, wait people, etc are *consistantly* returning her credit card to her husband -- occasionally (and I have witnessed this) when he says 'This isn't my card' the wait person will say 'but I'm sure that this is your check' -- while my friend is sitting right there! Valets also hand her keys to him all the time. He says it's made him much more aware of daily discrimination women face (hmm..perhaps men should date at least one woman with more money than them at least once in their lifetimes
> You've still got a long way to go to prove that
> white males control the power structure of the
> worldAs far as whether there is a power elite in
> America, I'm holding on to my romantic notion
> that there is not against all logical analysis.
> Please be careful about bursting my bubble. : )
Well, since that there is a power elite in America is an inseperable part of 'there is a power elite in America and it is almost exclusively white and male', I'm not sure how an effective argument could *not* burst your bubble.
That said, some obvious facts that support this are:
A. The U.S. Congress is still vastly white and male, though there are both women and people of color represented, they are underrepresented compared to the population of the U.S.
B. We have never had a non-white, non-male president
C. The majority of the supreme court justices are white and male
(thus, the three major branches of our government are very largely white and male)
D. Nearly all of the heads of large companies are white and male
E. the last Forbes 'top ten richest people in america' list I saw was all white, and while there were three women on it, all three were from the same family and had inherited their money (the walton family, that started walmart, as I recall)
F. The heads of major news outlets are nearly all white and male (possibly all, I don't know of anyone who is not, but it's possible there is some member of the board I don't know about, so I'll hedge here)
As I said before, just because you are white and male does not mean you are likely to be a person in power, but if you are a person in power, odds are overwhelmingly that you are white and male.
> If you proceed from the assumption that white
> males are going to treat you (a woman)
> differently than they would treat a man, you are
> engaging in exactly the sort of behaviour you're
> arguing against.
Agreed. And I don't proceed from that assumption, but I also don't ignore that behavior when it happens (regardless of the person's race or sex).
Re:Amendments (Score:1)
> environmentalists,
if you haven't noticed, the majority of environmental activists are white males, so I find it highly suspect that they are blaming you, because you are a white male.
> racist race warlords (self-appointed "civil
> rights leaders"),
I sincerely hope that you aren't trying to imply that all civil rights leaders are racist race warlords (there are a very few who are of color, there are a hell of a lot more who are white males) -- for the non-racists race warlord civil rights activists, please see feminism
>and feminists stopped blaming the troubles of
>the world on me just cause I happen to be a
> white male. Hey, I didn't ask to be.
Cluephone here -- (and I'm a radical lesbian feminist, so I think I have some right to speak on this subject) -- no one is saying, you, Dannon, are the cause of all evils because you are a white male. The *concept* of white male -- the whole societal philosophy that allows the concept of "white male" to exist (and no, neither feminists nor racial minorities invented the concept) is the problem. And I know you didn't ask to be, I didn't particularly ask to be a mixed race dyke myself...it just happens (in the most literal of senses) -- that said, there's no escaping that you benefit from the privileges accorded to white males in this society, as I benefit from the privileges accorded to white women in this society when I pass for white (which is fairly often, I'll admit -- not entirely by choice)
Certainly, the societal framework that feminism (and civil rights movements) works against is generations old -- no one living now had any say in it's beginning, but we all have a little say in it's demise.
explain the difference in... (Score:1)
2. YOU, providing information to a company that you think will be kept in confidence only to have that company share said info with many other companies without permission.
troll (Score:1)
Re:Genetic discrimination is nothing new (Score:1)
Insurance company statistics are designed to do one thing and one thing only: wring as much money from the populace as the law allows. Since the law requires me to carry car insurance, this is a Bad Thing.
And lay off the ad hominem attacks. They don't add anything to the discussion.
Re:Amendments (Score:1)
1) You're a radical lesbian feminist, so you have the right to speak on the subject. OK, so all us non-radical, non-lesbian, non-"feminist" (although I may classify myself as a feminist, depending on how you define the term) people, especially white males (like me), better shut the hell up and listen to their betters? Uhh...no.
2) There is something wrong with the CONCEPT of a white male? a) What is the concept of a white male? b) Why is it a problem?
If there's a ruling elite in america, it is neither identically nor exclusively the domain of white males. Most of us white males have to muddle along on our own, without even the chic of radical lesbian feminism to help us make sense of our pathetic, misguided lives.
Re:Amendments (Score:1)
Your use of "expertise" in place of "right" does indeed clarify your meaning. Although I'm not one to pick semantic nits either, since the basic discussion here has centered around what does and does not constitute a "right", it's not a good term to throw around loosely.
It seems like, at the very basic level, you are fighting against human xenophobia and stupidity. All of the "structures" (my term, encompassing all of the sociological interactions you mentioned above) you describe have developed over many thousands of years of history. I'm not trying to argue that that makes them right, but it's going to make them almost impossible to fight against.
Let me address specifically your points about treatment of females by service (car and computer) personnel. First of all, I'd argue that these persons do not provide an accurate representation of white males, and they certainly aren't the ones at the top of the sociological power structure.
As for your point about computer parts, let me put forth a thought experiment.
Two men walk into a computer store. One is tall, has red hair, a big voice, and smiles a lot. (like me) One is shorter, quieter, some might say less obnoxious. The lummox (me) walks up to the counter, and starts talking about computer parts. Would it be surprising for the clerk to direct his responses to the quiet person? Yes. If the quiet person happened to be a woman, it would STILL not be surprising if the clerk spoke to the lummox, since that is the person who initiated the conversation.
In other words, if you argue that you commonly go into computer (or car) stores, exhibit a basic understanding of what's going on, and the clerks STILL talk around you to a (possibly male) companion, you might have a case to argue that that individual is sexist. You've still got a long way to go to prove that white males control the power structure of the world. (I, for instance, do not have a decoder ring...)
Let me put it to you this way. If you proceed from the assumption that white males are going to treat you (a woman) differently than they would treat a man, you are engaging in exactly the sort of behaviour you're arguing against.
As far as whether there is a power elite in America, I'm holding on to my romantic notion that there is not against all logical analysis. Please be careful about bursting my bubble. : )
Re:Genetic discrimination is nothing new (Score:1)
I think it's reprehensible that insurers charge males more than females for car insurance. Just because they're doing it now doesn't mean it's OK.
Re:the next 4 years are going to be scary. (Score:1)
Re:Privacy online is overrated (Score:1)
The problem is not that the information is known, but that it will be used for unethical discrimination. Medical information, sexual orientation, disabilities, race, etc., can all be used improperly. I don't think we will have much success trying to outlaw the transfer of this sort of information (privacy laws). After all, isn't "Information wants to be free." one of our mantras. Instead, we will have more success outlawing improper use of this information (discrimination laws). Complete success is unlikely given that it is all too often easy to make up an acceptable excuse for not hiring so-and-so. But I think will be a more successful approach than trying to bottle up information.
Privacy protection without means to enforce it (Score:2)
But, I suppose, if you're totally willing to trust your government with everything, ie. a cradle to grave welfare state, you might was well trust the nanny state to protect your privacy.
The other side of the coin is to take responsibility for your own protection by arming yourself, against intruders or a dangerous government.
The problem is not that the data exists. (Score:2)
The problem isn't that the data is visible. The problem is that it's only visible in one direction. Companies can know everything about YOU, but you can't know anything about what their doing with this data, and often you can't check up on it to see if it's right because you don't even know it exists.
If individuals lose thier privacy, then so too should corporations. Either total privacy for all or total publicity for all - nothing in-between.
Re:Lies, damn lies, and customer-supplied informat (Score:2)
The thing is that much of this sort of behaviour is counter-productive to getting more accurate or personally applicable company->consumer communication.
Corps do the same thing to consumers all the time. Customer support centers where the 'manager' is the person in the next cubicle over. When I ask people in corperate offices who has the authority to say yes, they "don't know". Then I ask, 'who do you report to?', they "don't know". Sure.
Best Buy won't tell people that their returned merchandise policy is 'put it back on the shelf'. Just try asking a store what their markup is on an item sometime. Why not?, they gladly collect info on how much you paid for your car, house, anything. How many times have you asked a store what is the difference between this name brand item and that generic brand one (obviously the same product w/ a different nameplate) and they tell you 'just the price'?
Some software companies are even going so far as to attempt to squash reviews and benchmarks in order to deprive the public of information that would help to make a wise purchase decision. There must be a big advantage to knowing more than the person across the bargaining table! (that should be obvious).
Insurance companies increasingly use personal info to defeat the purpose of insurance (spreading risk). Instead, you can afford insurance only if your odds of actually needing it are smaller than the chance of being struck by lightning in a cave, twice in one day. If there's any chance you might (god forbid!) make a claim, you'll probably be better off putting the premium payments into a money market account.
If you don't happen to fit their profiles of average people, you'll find that services are denied to you based on their misinterpretations of your personal data. Sometimes, consumers (citizens) have to lie in self defense. Imagine how much worse it would get if the corperations had a higher confidence in the accuracy of your profile.
In other words, corperations DO NOT have your best interests at heart. They don't have a heart and their only reason for being is to make as much money as they can. Pride and self esteem are for privately owned companies only. They are not interested in giving YOU what you actually want, they are interested in giving you a little as possable in exchange for what THEY want.
Looking at things another way, TRW et al charge money for a copy of my credit report, and corps pay it. The information must have value. I notice that they didn't pay me for MY information.
Implicit restrictions (Score:2)
Why should "given without restriction" be the implicit ruleset for personal information? It certainly isn't the implicit rule for most intellectual property... I have dozens of CDs, books, EULA-free software packages, etc. which I was not only given by their original owners, but which I paid money for, and which I didn't make any agreements about at the time of purchase! Should I be able to whatever I please with them?
Society already agrees that we don't need an explicit contract to be signed every time copyrighted material is traded; we have copyright law which codifies a set of implicit agreements. Would it be such a stretch to change the implicit agreements for personal data to reflect a similar retention of control?
Re:Child care teachers being screened (Score:2)
And yeah, I'm deliberately using the +1. If you don't like that, blow me and my karma both. This is a serious problem: some moderators don't understand the purpose of moderation. It's not to encourage concensous, but to encourage discussion.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Child care teachers being screened (Score:2)
At least that is the way it is supposed to be...
--
Re:Privacy protection without means to enforce it (Score:2)
But this idea begins to sound like the word "socialism," which the American public has been brainwashed to believe is bad.
At this point, I believe it's too late for the American government to be changed toward a socially-responsible model. The Corporations own and control the government, now, and they will most emphatically *not* give up that control.
The sad truth is that the American public will receive only those socially-responsible programs and benefits that the Corporations determine are best for advancing their own goals.
In short, y'all are fucked. Get used to getting shafted!
--
Re: (Score:2)
Re:US is going down hill (Score:2)
When will the USA catch up? (Score:2)
Privacy is not the only area where the USA talks big, but has actually fallen behind other countries.
America claims to be the "Land of the Free", but a greater percentage of its citizens are in prison than in any other democracy.
Speaking of democracy, isn't that one of the things that Americans think is so great about their country?
Do I even need to mention the farce that they called an election? The world leader in technology, inventor of the internet, and they don't even have a modern voting system. It would funny if it wasn't so sad.
Since the elections, I've heard people (particularly Republicans) state that America is not a democracy, its a republic. Fine, but don't try to pretend the people have any say.
Human Rights...
Don't even get me started on this one. What other civilized country still excecutes people? This is something that 3rd world countries are great at, as well as places like China and Iraq. But the USA? How can a country that is so ahead economically, be so behind in social policy and human rights?
(My guess is that it has something to do with religion, but thats just me...)
(Excuse me while I put on my flamesuit now...)
Re:Privacy online is overrated (Score:2)
Re:Privacy online is overrated (Score:2)
Re:Privacy online is overrated (Score:2)
And how do you get an efficient infrastructure? By tailoring it to meet demand. I think it is safe to say that there's nothing wrong with *agregate* statistical data, right? (I.E. "43% of the people going to Amazon.com look at books, 12% of those, actually buy books.")
Consider Amazon.com. The efficiency of their infrastructure is not merely about how many books they can ship in a period of time, or how many hits their web site can handle, but how many *orders* they get per dollar spent on business development (including marketing).
What is more efficient for Amazon.com? 100 customers who each come and buy 1 book, or 10 customers who each come and buy 10 books. The latter. Why? Because there is overhead to processing an order. So clearly, multi-item, and repeat purchases are important to the efficiency of their operation. How do you achieve that? Traditionally it's done via the 80/20 rule. You can get 80% of your customers to behave in the manner you desire with 80% of the effort, and you ignore the other 20% since that would consume the "other" 80% of the effort.
Personal targeting allows businesses to operate *much* more efficiently. Amazon.com can suggest items to me that I am likely to want, and can hide stuff I'm unlikely to want which makes me more likely to buy multiple items or order again. I do, in fact, like this feature.
I do not like the idea that Amazon.com would sell this information, or that it could be used against me by 3rd parties -- that is where the biggest privacy-related problems lay.
-JF
Re:Bill of Non-Rights (Score:2)
Instead, true rights are things that nobody can do to you: own you, hurt you, take your property, stop you from saying or writing something, or going somewhere, or meeting with someone.
A "right to a job" imposes an obligation on someone else to provide you with a job. True rights don't interfere with anyone else's rights.
-russ
Re:Bill of Non-Rights (Score:2)
-russ
Re:When will the USA catch up? (Score:2)
Are you trolling? Are you seriously suggesting that with regards to human rights, the "Judeo-Christian ethic" has been responsible for it all? (I guess it's a silly question, because that's exactly what you wrote.) Certainly, several aspects of the "Judeo-Christian ethic" have served to further human rights in the world, but there are plenty of religions and philosophies on this ball of rock and to claim that one (and one alone) has a monopoly on the Golden Rule (the basis of any measurable morality) is sheer lunacy.
Also, another clarification: The "United States" does not execute people.
You must just be making this stuff up as you go along. The United States does indeed have a federal death penalty. Between 1927 and 1963, the United States executed 34 people. In 1988, the death penalty was revived by adding a statute related to drug kingpin murder. In 1994, the Congress expanded this to some 60 other offenses.
David Paul Hammer, who was going to be the first federal prisonor executed since 1963, was granted a stay after a federal appeal (his execution date was originally set for November 15, 2000.) Just because the federal government doesn't run Ole Sparky 24/7 Texas-style doesn't mean it doesn't have death penalty provisions, because it does.
Re:Canada's "Privacy" Commissioner (Score:2)
Genetic discrimination is nothing new (Score:2)
Only in one respect--you can determine someone's sex without performing a genetic test. Still, people have no control over surrendering information about their sex, nor can they determine it.
If it's OK to discriminate for car insurance on the basis of sex, why not health insurance on the basis of other factors?
Re:Lies, damn lies, and corporateinformat (Score:2)
the information they give me is:
-we have product foo
-it does bar, and generally monkeys around beter than anything else [for this price]
-it'll cost you this much
gues what.. if I want bar and some general monkeying around, I'll look up the information (independant tests usually from specialist mags or consumer orgs) or ask in a couple of stores about what there is, and at what cost. this would bring down cost for the product, since there's no more millions gone on so-called info. I would be a lot less annoyed, and so would many many people with me. all this better communnication talk is the difference between carpet-bombing and laser-guided smartbombs. the result is destructive and everyone would be better off without it.
//rdj
PS. less trees will die too
Didn't Information want to be Free? (Score:2)
Perhaps (and I stress this is just a loose thought) the real beef is with big corprations?
Re:Why do you need to put your kids in child care? (Score:2)
Be aware that there are a lot of situations to consider. If you were in a situation where you were capable of being a parent, and then your situation changes, you can't go back and unhave the kids.
And these people don't have families? No retired grandmother to help out? I may be far from the norm, but I have a huge extended family. I've been helping raise my little cousins for so long I have no desire to have my own kids! Whenever my mom needed some help with me and my brother she could call one of her sisters, or her mother, or my dads mother. What happened to the american extended family?
Kintanon
Re:Why do you need to put your kids in child care? (Score:2)
Kintanon
Re:Lies, damn lies, and customer-supplied informat (Score:2)
Bang on. I actually work on the bleeding edge of online advertising (as a developer). We are working on bringing the Fortune500 companies online; delivering an advertising model that will enable them to get favorable ROI. And I really do think it comes down to the value we place on our privacy. Definately the most important factor in a successful consumer-tracking model is that it is an 'opt-in' system, not 'opt-out'; that is, a company does not start communication with you until you SPECIFICALLY request it (by interacting with a banner online, for instance). The point is, for fortune 500 companies, it already is opt-in for the most part. Coke would never send you unsolicited email. Allowing them to track the data of consumers who want to be tracked makes everyone happier, and probably does something to keep those companies off the backs of those who do not 'opt-in' to be 'tracked'. And don't make any conclusions as to the severity or level of detail in 'tracked'; right now, all ad companies can track is browser, ip, os, area code, and time data. Nothing personal, but information that still might give a company insight into increasing its Return on Investment (ROI) on a given campaign, and thus allowing them to actually show
I find it all quite exciting; I started working this job feeling ethically uncomfortable, but the stipulations as to how the ultimate decisions must be in the hands of the consumer has convinced me that I am a part of something which is better for everybody in the long run.
My original point was that if that 'opt-out' option is available, it's better for everyone, including, I believe, you, to opt-out rather than supplying bogus information. Never will companies stop trying to track the consumer's behaviours (and in the future, it will be less of a 'tracking' and more of a 'listen to what the consumer has to say'), so bogus information will only lead to incorrect targeting and more wasted dollars, paper, and electrons.
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
Re:Copyright (Score:2)
"All Rights Reserved."
Remember, when you give your signature, you [potentially] are waiving certain rights. Include the above phrase to keep all that you can. (Make sure it is JOINED to your signature, not seperate!)
WHY do you think companies have this everywhere?! They are legally a person under the law, so use the same laws they do, to your advantage for a change!
Another interesting tidbit, is that the Queen of England is a corporate sole [marquisfms.com]. And the Governer General of Canada! What do these people know that most people don't?!! Black's Law Dictionary gives a hint "in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had."
So if a person is a corporate sole, do they have to pay estate tax on their death?
Do you own research though. For other ways to protect yourself, you can read the Frog Farm FAQ [nettrash.com]
--
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." - Thomas Jefferson
Re:the next 4 years are going to be scary. (Score:2)
From the NSA FAQ [nsa.gov]:
Couldn't the Agency simply ask its allies to provide them with information about U.S. persons?
We have been prohibited by executive order since 1978 from having any person or government agency, whether foreign or U.S., conduct any activity on our behalf that we are prohibited from conducting ourselves.
Therefore, NSA/CSS does not ask its allies to conduct such activities on its behalf nor does NSA/CSS do so on behalf of its allies.
Re:Privacy protection without means to enforce it (Score:2)
Well, at least you have a grasp on what the second amendment is all about. That said, the "right" to arm oneself against government intrusion is woefully outdated to the point of naivite. If you and your friends took up arms against any government action, all the way down to resisting arrest, you'd be dead before you could even recite the second amendment.
The constitution effectively means nothing anymore for citizens wanting to "protect" themselves in the intended fashion. You're not allowed to have munitions that would pose a serious threat to the government and they're legally entitled to shoot you if you get dangerous with the weapons you DO have. At this point in history arming yourself just makes you more of a threat to yourself and your family than you would be unarmed. Get over it.
the next 4 years are going to be scary. (Score:2)
Our privacy rights are going to erode so fast that it really can't be called "erosion," it'll be more like "excise."
Re:Interesting to look at who the offenders are... (Score:2)
True, but the companies to keep our eyes on are the private corporations buying that information and selling the data about us. They can aggregate it, correlate different information and come to their own conclusions. This aggregation is what "data mining" is all about. What if the database is screwed up? Will you be able to find out before it screws up your life? You miss out on a job? You miss out on a home loan? There are mechanisms to correct mistakes, but they are universally slow.
Once it leaves the government's hands, they have lost all control. All government agencies are accountable, for the most part, (ultimately) to the citizens of that country. (Yes, I know there are major exceptions.) If there is enough uproar (as there was a few years back about driver's license records, which enabled a stalker to find, and ultimately murder, a sit-com actress) the government will change its laws.
A company is only accountable to its shareholders. If the company runs afoul of the law, and is punished, ultimately the shareholders pay the cost. That company has no obligation to the public, other than to obey the law.
Right now, privacy is being treated as an opt-out process- I would prefer if it was, by default, opt-in. Since we don't necessarily know all the data that is collected about us, I want all information about me to be considered private, and let me decide what is to be made public.
If a private company wants to distribute it, they should have to tell me what information they are selling and to whom. I would prefer it if my state would not distribute this information, but ultimately, it will have to be a federal action that forces privacy. As it stands now, if it is not expressly prohibited, it is permitted.
(to be truthful, it appears that for the most part, we agree, unless, I'm being particularly dense and failing to catch on to your irony)
Re:Interesting to look at who the offenders are... (Score:2)
Absolutely. As a citizen of a country, we have a right to at least try to affect the policies of the government. Unless you're a shareholder in a company, you don't have any grounds to ask a company to restrain itself. If you're not, you can ask, but they have every right to ignore you.
Or, consider this it boils down to who "owns" that information- My private information is mine- I should retain ownership, and from that, control. If I give it to you, you can use it, but you should have no right to distribute it further, unless I grant you that right.
But this makes me wonder, What are the negative results of restricting my private information? I might miss some direct mail, I might miss out on some unsolicited credit card offers. What else? Has this been touched on elsewhere in this article's discussion?
Re:Interesting to look at who the offenders are... (Score:2)
There is one point where we disagree-- What I would like to see, which would be a huge change in the way we think about our private data, is that, by default, all private information is private. If there is any personally identifiable information (name, address, SSN, etc.), it would automatically be deemed private. It could be collected without explicit permissions of the "owner" of the data, but it could not be distributed without the permission of the "owner." If you can't gain the permission of the owner? You can't distribute it.
I have some difficulty with the panhandler analogy: once I give money away, really, I have no say. I would like to know that my money is going to food and shelter rather than Maddog and Marlboros, but I have no say. Enough pennies will make a million dollars... This data can be aggregated to something much more valuable. It is about data security- when I used to work with classified data, we got annual briefings on OPSEC -Operational Security- which basically meant, keep everything to yourself, because you want to deny "the enemy" any sort of information advantage. Something you may think is trivial may be the key to tying together a whole raft of data. Enough generic demographic data can zoom right in on an individual. I want to be able to trust who I give my information to, and make sure they don't use it against my wishes. There does need to be some higher controlling authority- and in this case it is the government.
Can it happen? I don't know. Making and enforcing these provisions would be daunting, but I think it is the direction we ought to go towards, less will be equivalent to no privacy at all. Data storage and processing power keeps getting cheaper, without some restriction on the collection and sharing of personally identifiable information, there eventually will be no such thing as privacy.
(Whoowhee, I'm sounding like a real zealot. Guess I ought to go back to my cabin and finish my manifesto.)
Re:Take the US spin off... (Score:2)
Oh, of course, it's Katz on
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Take the US spin off... (Score:2)
Here in the UK we _do_ have rights of data access. For once our Government has done something quite well. The Data Protection Act [dataprotection.gov.uk] Was originally drafted in 1984 (the irony!) and has been amended a few times since. In action, it works - I have requested credit profiles for myself for the nominal charge of UK £1, and received the information quickly and without quibble.
Pity about the mess that is RIP, though... Stand [alltheweb.com] has a good writeup about it...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
You get what you pay for... (Score:2)
Americans always want everything for nothing. Slashdot is particularly good at this behavior. If you don't want the companies whsoe services you use making money off of the generated inforation, be prepared to make it up out of your own pocket.
Thats life as an adult, folks.
Privacy NOT constitutionally guaranteed (Score:2)
Re:Privacy protection without means to enforce it (Score:2)
Just curious about what seems to be a "magical talisman" theory.
My impression -and i could simply be misled by my local news!- is that the police tend not to go away when the induhvidual reponds to the warrant by brandishing a firearm. In fact, far from turning around and leaving, police all over the area seem to discover a renewed and invigorated interest in the brandishing induhvidual. But that's only my impression. The gun-toting among us no doubt have kept very scrupulous records on these situations and their outcomes.
What must the score be up to about now?
Police:0,
gun brandishing, warrant repudiating residents: 117,355 ?
What? You say it's the other way round? Can't be!
Re:Amendments (Score:2)
I'll buy that. It's highly unlikely that I'll ever be in the mining, cattle, lumber, or oil business, being a computer engineer, but if I ever do end up in these businesses, I'll do it only on land that I own. And since it will be my own, and I give a hoot about my own land values, you can rest assured I'll take damned good care of it.
II: You don't have the right to rile up your dittoheads by blaming all their personal problems on environmentalists (tree-huggers), immigrants (racist term of the month), and feminists ("feminazis").
Fine by me. Though it'd be nice if the environmentalists, racist race warlords (self-appointed "civil rights leaders"), and feminists stopped blaming the troubles of the world on me just cause I happen to be a white male. Hey, I didn't ask to be.
VI: You don't have a right to criminalize victim-less behavior so that you can sell extra helicopters to Columbia, have an excuse to violate the original Fourth Amendment through illegal search and seisures, and basically try and enforce a police state.
I couldn't agree more. Arresting folks for being high in public makes sense to me. Same as throwing folks in the drunk tank if they've had a bit too much and are wandering the streets. Arresting them on the suspicion that they've got a little bit of a plant in their own house, however, is ludicrous.
VII: You don't have a right to the possessions of others. But, if you're a criminal junk bond salesman or inside trader, you'll go to a minimum security prison with a big screen TV and get to live a life of leisure.
I won't disagree, our prison system's messed up. Like the guy in Shawshank Redemption said, "Funny thing is, on the outside, I was an honest man. I had to come to prison to become a crook."
X: Agreed.
Thank you.
---
Bill of Non-Rights (Score:2)
This seems about as good a discussion as any to share something I got from a friend lately. It was supposedly written up by a member of my state's legislature. Can't verify the source personally, but I do agree with the sentiment.
Articles for the Constitution
We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great- great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal bedwetters.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of Non-Rights.
ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc. but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. if you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII:
You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like; however, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world, and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
ARTICLE IX:
You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE X:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, it is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.BR
---
Re:The Constitution is no guarantee. (Score:2)
---
Re:Daycare should be discouraged, it's anti-family (Score:2)
Now we know he also has a similar psychanalitic issue with Sweden. No wonder, the reasons are approximately the same (although I assume his antipathy towards Sweden is much less viceral).
Will all this being cleared up, Mr Potter, may you please answer this simple question: what is your definition of "spiritually malnourished", how do you measure that, and how do you observe the consequences? I'm sure your answer will bring us plenty of light, and plenty of fun.
Re:john katz != journalist (Score:2)
What he should have done is written the summary on the front page portion, copied it onto the article body since people seem to expect that, then an <hr> and then the article.
Re:Privacy protection without means to enforce it (Score:2)
Yes, but what about other people on the street? Mugger accosts grandma, grandma yells, suddenly 3 guys have their guns out. Oh, he drags grandma into an alley and shoots her. Do you really think those 3 guys would let him get away after shooting grandma? I wouldn't.
Wow, you've gotten mugged 7 times? I would've thought the muggers would have learned their lessons after the first 6...
Yes, but it's a question of balancing risks. Right now robbing people carries a certain risk level. If those people started carrying guns, the risk level goes up. Obviously not everyone is going to have a gun, or use it, or be a good shot. But what are you, the mugger, going to do if suddenly there's a fairly good chance that your victim, or a bystander, will have the means and motive to fight back? Eventually you're going to give up and switch to stealing TVs from warehouses, and everyone will be happier.
--
Oh Katz please get a clue. (Score:2)
Re:When will the USA catch up? (Score:2)
Not so, the jury does not decide who lives and who dies - the jury merely delivers the verdict. It is the Judge - an arm of the government - who decides on the sentence, ie who lives and who dies.
Perhaps some courts do things differently, but I'm guessing phrases like "they call him the Hangin' Judge" suggest it is government power
Besides, if genuinely were a "jury of my peers", they would be my peers, not a non-random selection of people in whoose bigoted eyes I probably look like a young thug...
(I live in a place where the word "youth" is used as a synonym and/or euphimism for "thug" in the newspaper, and likewise in the minds of Decent Folk).
Re:the next 4 years are going to be scary. (Score:2)
So what if the watchdogs do know it's going on? They are toothless and can do nothing about it, let alone try to prove it.
Since when has the law been an effective barrier to intelligence when the agency in question simply cites "national security" whenever someone seeks evidence, and so halts the inquiry right there?
In those very rare instances when sufficient authority and teeth are made availible to an inquiry, the cases I've read about or seen seem to have only two possible outcomes:
1) Blatent, routine, and arrogant disregard for the law, civil rights, etc is uncovered. Or,
2) Tough questions are simply not asked, answers are not verified, evidence is not required, just a political PR exercise.
I find the overall picture worrying.
It's not a big conspiracy, it's just that these people believe they are acting for a higher purpose. Just like the cop who plants dope because he knows the guy is dealing to kids, yet will walk and keep dealing unless they have something on him. It works great, until the authority's judgement is so insular and the corrupt practices so routine that innocent people regularly become victims. And I know enough innocent victims to think that we're already there.
I've been told Dubya believes that the accidental execution of innocents is a price worth paying to be able to execute criminals. The causes are everywhere. When justice can be sacrificed for some vague "greater good", things get dangerous. I'm glad I'm not a black man (let alone a black man with an intimitating physique...)
The NSA might claim they don't use foreign intelligence when it involves US citizens, and it might be their "official" policy too, but at the actual operater level, where the rubber meets the road, I would be very surprised if it wasn't almost routine.
Re:the next 4 years are going to be scary. (Score:2)
Put simply, whistleblowing is illegal when it regards intelligence activities. Apprently it "compromises National Security". Ok ok, in many countries whistleblowing is technically not illegal, but in reality, a potential whistleblower is walking a legal minefield in which whistleblower defence is NOT guuarenteed, and there are a whole lot ways that it might be denied, and then you are food for the wolves.
The other thing is that (IMHO) people working and living in the intelligence culture are unlikely to see much wrong with things we would find intolerable, and so unlikely to risk their livelyhoods whistleblowing.
I've followed a few cases where innocent victims managed to raise hell. The end result is either the fuss dies down and is forgotton, or a toothless inquiry is made to reassure everyone that it won't happen again, or in one New Zealand case, the laws were changed in such a way that satisfied the public and the intelligence agency - the change INCREASED agency power, but appeared, to the layman, to do the opposite. The Privacy Comissioner was Not Impressed, but the government of the day never paid much attention to him anyway.
Re:the next 4 years are going to be scary. (Score:2)
Versus Clinton, who used the FBI to gather dirt on his enemies? Come on.
--
Duh -- Freedom goes both ways (Score:2)
Of course the United States is not going to be as aggressive as European countries on this issue, because the US is the home of freedom. Freedom of speech cuts in a lot of directions, from the right to send you advertisements in your mailbox (which is why spam will never go away) to the right of someone to repeat information that is known about someone else.
You can't have freedom's upside without freedom's downside. For every instance that socialistic countries crack down on something you like (privacy regulation), there are a hundred ways they crack down on something you won't like (France's anti-nazi nonsense).
--
Re:Privacy protection without means to enforce it (Score:2)
Here here, god forbid anyone get the idea that government could be part of society rather than an evil entity trying to control it.
Of course, I can see where your confusion comes from - our government in its current state at times is an evil entity trying to control it. So how about this - why don't we bring government back to the people. Why not give small, locally elected bodies a great deal more power? I think that's something most of those who espouse the views contained within your message (read: the far right) would agree with. That way, a cradle to grave welfare state could be the local community helping itself, and not having to do stupid things like checking that the insurance you bought (you know, from that faceless corporation that is trying to control you and is collecting information on you) covers this particular disease or treatment method.
Take arms against the government? Rather like the Bolshevik revolution then?
Oh, and though you'd hate to admit it, those small-but powerful local governments are called Soviets, a Marxist-Lenninist idea. Its a shame Stalin was more interested in state-run capitalism than Communism, and so didn't implement them.
<sigh>
When will people realise that the government really needn't be their enemy? If only we are prepared to stand up and change it for the better, we can all be the government. Advocating random shootings really helps no-one except gun-manufacturers.
--
a big part of the problem (Score:2)
While we are guarenteed that we won't be prohibited from exercising free religion, for example, there is no guarentee that people and the government will not know what our religion is. Similarly, a hundred years ago you could walk around town, and, if you knew the gossips, get all the dirt about who I had been flirting with, whose flowers my dog dug up, etc. Now the inquiring person doesn't have to leave his house, but this is only a difference in degree not kind.
As true as Lessig's observations are, they are not entirely relevant here. True, your house was private in the time of the Constitution, but still if you welched on bets or screwed up your accounts the whole town would know, b/c you didn't do that kind of thing in your home, instead you did it out in public, at the bank, etc., i.e. in a non-protected environment.
Your public actions are public knowledge. The notion that judgements are now made on the numbers and not on a personal level is not a result of more data being forfitted but instead due to the power and efficiency of databases and computing in general. There has never been anything preventing companies having guys follow you around and see where you shop, it is, after all "a free country" to quote the maxim, but it's not efficient.
the problem, in the end, and in my opinion, is not that our public actions are public, but that the private acitions of corporations, because by the silliness of the law they are considered individuals, are private, however. if people decide to hate us based on our dog in that flower bed, though, they have every right.
--(Harvard's) b1nd0x
It's scary. (Score:2)
It's alot easier to see the negatives in a situation and I was guilty of it when it came to personal information being collected and used. When one looks at it from the standpoint of keeping violent children out of our schools, making sure support payments are made, or keeping terrorists out of our countries. It is too bad that collected information is seldom used with ones judgemtn and too often read in black and white. It is this information that could make living life difficult for a respected member of society that made one mistake in the past.
Come on now... (Score:2)
For crying out loud, Jon. The concept of personal privacy doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. Every single time you start waving the "And You Can Thank The United States For..." banner over your head like a lunatic, you not only make yourself out to be more of an ass, but you provide immesurable cannon fodder for equally idiotic people to perpetuate the "Americans Are Big Headed Blithering Idiots" mantra.
Yes, the United States have revolutionized modern government, and they stand as an example to the world in many things. No, not everything you touch can be turned into Home Team Glory. The government of the United States was crafted by a group of genuinely brilliant men who based much of their own thought on generations' worth of work done by European thinkers, scholars, leaders, and revolutionaries. Your assertion that "some European Enlightenment radicals" helped the United States invent personal privacy is about as accurate as me asserting that Europe provided the framework for personal privacy, and that framework was first implemented by some Colonial separatist radicals.
Why do you insist on labeling everything you see as good and just in this world as American?
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Re:Privacy online is overrated (Score:2)
As for online privacy not being as real a concern as, say, your example of medical information, where do you think companies interested in your medical health are looking? It's not just your doctor's notes they want to see. Insurance companies would also be fascinated to see how often you read the 'Cancer Survivor' type of site. Or to track down every comment you've made at the 'Need For Speed' race car site.
Just because you can't imagine the danger that will come from losing online privacy, it doesn't mean it won't later come back to haunt you once you've lost it.
________________
Copyright (Score:2)
All personal data (C) 2001 All Rights Reserved This copyrighted information may not be transmitted or, duplicated in any form without the written permission of the copyright holder.
I wonder if you could sue a company for copyright infringement, if they violate that statement.
Lobby Groups (Score:2)
Right there. That's your problem. Not just for this, but for most of my big issues with the US. Lobbying (in my opion) totally perverts the normal course of government. How can government govern for the people where there are a whole army of people, paid for by a distinct minority, who have the power to influence the opinions of many senior senator and representatives.
Granted, some good bills have been passed due to lobbyists, but they were bills that, in a lobby-free environment, would have come around anyways (assuming a semi-sentient government). Put all groups equal before the house. End lobby groups.
No more lobby groups, and you get bills like one for privacy and one to stop Alaska being turned into a large oil refinerny to happen naturally.
Re:I'm here to tell you it is a problem. (Score:2)
Um... Jon... (Score:3)
It's one of the great shames of the United States in this day and age, but it's true.
----------
The glass is half empty so smash it? (Score:3)
(1) Ya can't fight city hall so don't try.
(2) Lie Lie Lie.
(3) No privacy is the price ya pay for keeping molesters off the street.
(4) Privacy is an overrated concept promoted by those socialist pussies in Europe.
And they call me cynical?
If you think laws guaranty your personal emotional completeness you are a delusional weenie. That doesn't mean we don't need to have some standards and guidelines.
How do you know you weren't turned down for a loan, not because of your credit risk but because of your medical history.
How do you know you weren't turned down for a job because of your video tape rental records.
The point is, children, that you need to establish some basic protections or expectations of privacy in order to claim that they exist at all. Or would you rather see an eBay marketplace with lists of all of the a.b.p.e newsgroups you fetish around in?
A few historical clues (Score:3)
Have you been studying your history?
England's history is filled to the brim with revolts by powerful barons [britannica.com] (see Magna Carta [britannica.com] , Oliver Cromwell [britannica.com] ) against weak kings who were consequently unable to see their power (and thus the power of the State) constantly eroded. The net result is that during the industrial revolution, when the bourgeois seized economic power, they frowned upon the power of the state to interfere with their profits. The british empire is filled with private corporations that had their own armies to enforce their own justice over conquered lands (like the East India Company [britannica.com], the Hudson's Bay Company [britannica.com]- which still exists to this day [hbc.com]); of course in no way that "justice" is geared towards the well-being of the people who lived there first - for example, the HBC forbade indians to trade furs amongst themselves (as they did for thousands of years), but instead, they had to SELL them (for trinkets) to the HBC, and, of course, indians had to buy it from them if they needed furs).
The net result is a mindset which sees all evil in whatever the State does, and turns a blind eye to the worst abuses by private citizens, a, perhaps, every private citizens aspires to be a Bill Gates.
With such a mindset, it's no suprising that citizens see nothing wrong in being screwed by private enterprise (after all, they might, one day, become big enough to screw smaller fry) but jump to the ceiling each time the government steps in to protect smaller people.
--
Canada's "Privacy" Commissioner (Score:3)
It's something akin to the new $182,000/year "Ambassador to the Environment" position conjured up for a retired Liberal...
Well... (Score:3)
First of all, if your credit report looks like someone wiped their ass with it, ie, someone with five pages of past dues, overdraws, and collections, nine times outta ten you ain't gettin the loan. It's simple economics. You can stand on a soap box and say that it's private information, but when your talking money, it turns into another issue. Especially when it's not your money to start with.
I know we'd all like to forget those times when we forgot a credit card payment or we let a bill or two go astray. But that's not the banks fault. They're simply covering their ass, so to speak. You can't expect a lending institution anywhere to simply try to forget that you let your payments go to collections and your loans foreclose then say, "Well, we knew you had to buy groceries, so it's okay."
If you can't afford a loan, don't get one. It's as simple as that. If you can't afford a credit card, don't get one. Rinse, Wash, Repeat. It's not anyone's responsibility but yourself to keep track of your bills, and you can't just be forgiven for them overnight.
But there is a flipside. If you've shown improvement over the last long while--and I'm talking years here--then even five pages of bad credit could still get you a loan. But you have to be willing to pay off what you owe, or be making headway doing so.
Credit Bureaus weren't made so banks could nose in on your business. They were made because banks were tired of getting ripped off.
Of course, I don't have to add (but I will) that politics are everything and if you know the loan officer at your local bank then you're probably more likely to get the loan. I hate to put it that way, but it's true. Just ask the girls with the big breasts and how much trouble they have getting their car fixed.
Evan
misterorange.com [misterorange.com]
The Constitution is no guarantee. (Score:3)
That we've failed to enforce the Constitution is hardly the fault of our government. Governments have a certain nature -- to take away freedom. Woe until any citizenry that forgets that as ours has.
-russ
Re:When will the USA catch up? (Score:3)
A lot of this is because people have recklessly assumed that they have the right to introduce mind-altering substances into their systems. Clearly, this is immoral and should be illegal, unless the substance in question has a billion-dollar Congressional lobby, in which case consumption of the substance is to be celebrated and encouraged. After all, smoking cigarettes and drinking beer is the American Way, and those who think differently should pack up and move to Havana. (Just don't try to bring back any of those cigars when you come back to visit.)
Since the elections, I've heard people (particularly Republicans) state that America is not a democracy, its a republic. Fine, but don't try to pretend the people have any say.
Four (and eight) years ago, when Bill Clinton won the electoral college and popular vote but failed to win 50% of the total vote because of the presence of Ross Perot, many of these same Republicans were saying the same things that Democratic partisans are saying now. "Woe is us! How can we live in a country where a man is elected president without even winning a simple majority of the votes?" Of course now that their man has tiptoed into the Oval Office without even getting a plurality of the popular vote, their tune has changed. (It's not about, the popular vote, don'tcha know.)
The reason is simple: partisan Republicans are ridiculous, damnable hypocrites. Of course, so are partisan Democrats. Anybody with a partisan agenda is a hypocrite, because your vocation requires you to put a favorable spin on anything that goes (or doesn't go) your way, regardless of things that have been said or done in the past.
What other civilized country still excecutes people?
No civilized country executes people.
(My guess is that it has something to do with religion, but thats just me...)
Capital punishment is compatible with Scripture. The electric chair is completely and wholly inerrant.
Re:Lies, damn lies, and customer-supplied informat (Score:3)
My bad. Those whose views you espouse. (It's just that the only people who've phrased it the way you did have been direct marketers ;)
>social patterns and behaviour are irrevoricably changed by new technologies
Interestingly enough, I agree with you here - but come to the exact opposite conclusion, namely...
> I know more than a few marketers who's attitudes towards consumers are almost direct reactions against consumers' attitudes towards marketers.
>The point is, I'm no coperation-lover,
Don't mistake my loathing of certain marketing techniques with a loathing for corporations in general. I like corporations. I work for one and invest in several others, tech and non-tech alike. Profits are great. (Though I'm speaking for myself here - there are just as many slashdotters who loathe 'em)
> You sound like my counter-culture friends who would rather spend a good night out culture-busting than figure out an alternative for the corperations (who are too lazy and focused on their core business to pursue such alternatives); that is, a cheaper, better, more cost effective, easier way of advertising that doesn't piss everyone off.
In honesty, I think you and I are aiming for the same thing (less-intrusive and obnoxious advertising) here; we just have different strategies of getting there, because part of my goal also includes a privacy factor; it's none of your business what I read/watch/listen to, which is why I try to deny you that data.
When I enter bogus demographic data, my intent is to devalue that data pool. If I'm successful over the long term, companies will realize that direct marketing campaigns - ranging from telemarketing to junk mail to spam - generate poor returns on investment. And they will have to find better ways of generating sales. (Which is, ultimately, what I think you're after too, except that you place less value on privacy than I do, because you see privacy as a commodity to be traded away in exchange for less-intrusive ads, whereas I see it as an inalienable right, for which ad agencies have yet to offer me anything remotely near what I'd "charge" for it.)
[I'm going to continue to assume that] You're in the ad business - you know as well as I do that the cheapest and most effective method of advertising is word of mouth. Not slapping the word "viral" onto a glorified chain letter, but real people spreading the word that someone concentrated on their core business and developed a superior product than that of their competitors.
To pick an example of what I mean by "real" word-of-mouth vs. "let's generate some buzz" campaigns, six months from now, we'll have all forgotten about "Ginger". But we'll still be having the P4-vs-Athlon "bang-for-buck" debates because AMD, two years ago, bought some smart engineers and came to market with a product that provided lots of bang for very little buck. AMD got where they are today without a penny spent on guys in bunny suits or blue face paint.
If you wanna make an even more direct comparison - Coke vs. Pepsi. No "AMD is better because of technical reasons" here - but if you look at revenue growth, it's all about profit margins at the soda fountain, not the can in the store. KO can show as many CGI-rendered bears and happy teenagers sitting around campfires or howling at trains as it wants, but over the past few years, PEP's been getting the higher-margin and better market share by concentrating on the fountains in the theatres and restaurants.
Which is to say that word of mouth doesn't have to be at the consumer level, nor does it have to be based on technical superiority - it can be at the small business level, based on sound pricing strategies too.
Re:Lies, damn lies, and customer-supplied informat (Score:3)
The thing is that much of this sort of behaviour is counter-productive to getting more accurate or personally applicable company->consumer communication. Companies actually (gasp) use this information to determine how to best initiate information, and what sort of information to give you. The thing I find mind-blowing is that people complain how companies never do things the way they want, but turn around and throw as many cogs into their consumer-profiling analytics as they can. Did you know that if a company could give you what you actually wanted, they could ease up on the geurilla or trick-the-consumer style tactics? Ask Coke or Microsoft! We dont like them because they can rarely afford to target their enormous consumer-bases with customer-granular communication. (Imagine if the fist time you heard of Microsoft, they offered to send you sports scores to your cell, or a free software package of your choice along with Win98, which you (or 98% of computer users) will get anyways.) They would
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
Re:Lies, damn lies, and customer-supplied informat (Score:3)
Who said it was me?
Also, track records arn't applicable with respect to new consumer-behaviour-tracking technologies. One of the very foundations of technology, society and values studies states that social patterns and behaviour are irrevoricably changed by new technologies. That is, if you can only look backwards, you'll never be happy with the future. I know more than a few marketers who's attitudes towards consumers are almost direct reactions against consumers' attitudes towards marketers. There's no use arguing who started it now (never mind that these people are your family, your neighbours, and maybe even you, depending on your job and employer); we might as well just make amends and figure out a way of making things better for both 'sides'.
The point is, I'm no coperation-lover, nor do I work for one, endorse one, or play one in a movie, but you're a fool if you think they're going to magically go away if you whine and wave your arms around enough. I'm much rather figure out a way of sleeping with the enemy, and getting a good lay out of it. You sound like my counter-culture friends who would rather spend a good night out culture-busting than figure out an alternative for the corperations (who are too lazy and focused on their core business to pursue such alternatives); that is, a cheaper, better, more cost effective, easier way of advertising that doesn't piss everyone off. Including yours truely.
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
Re:The Constitution is no guarantee. (Score:3)
Excellent point! The problem I see is that people just dont *care* that their rights are being eroded. As long as it isnt in *their* doorway that it is happening. If a lot of the people who support the actions of the ATF and the gun-grabbers woke up on the wrong end of a search warrant and suffered a day of gestapo tactics until they found out it was a false report or mis-typed address (and that happens) they would think differently.
If they were on the wrong end of a drug raid, or if they had a suit slapped against them by a woman who could, simply because the legal system allows a woman to claim assault, tho prove no damage or even prove that it happened. Course, they are trying to CYA themselves, so that if it *did* happen they "did the right thing". Then the charges are dropped.. and there is *no* penalty.. bringing a false suit is not a crime anymore, in certain situations.
Feel good laws pretty much mean losing ones liberty, ones rights. How is it any worse for a jew to spraypaint a synagogue than a white guy? Is it any worse? what is a "hate crime".. isnt a crime a crime? No.. we all feel we are part of one little elitist social group or another, and demand special protection above and beyond the constitutional guarantee of "equal protection". (some are more equal than others).
And we gladly give these freedoms up. Daily. Parents have basically given up the right to raise their children for fear that one child might get hurt.. the state can now take your child because you spanked him/her. This is wrong.
(yet, you will be held accountable if your 17 year old skips school.. you *cannot* discipline them.. but you must control them. how is this to work?)
Those of us who are scared, and think the government is making a slow, deliberate and shadowed grab at *all* the rights we hold dear, those of us that fear a "one world economy" and fear "the world bank" and the UN, are labeled. Crazy. And god *forbid* you should be a christian and have these views, because you are automatically the "opressor" and the person most in need of losing your rights, so others can "catch up" to you.
Its crazy, but most just laugh it off to paranoia.
"When they came for the jews.. I did nothing.. for I was not a jew....."
you know the rest of it.
Maeryk
Re:Bill of Non-Rights (Score:3)
I have the right to walk on by a person in suffering. However, I also have a personal code of ethics. According to my code of ethics, it is wrong to exercise this right. This is called responsibility. Rights are enforcable. Responsibility is not.
But according to my ethics, it is also wrong of me to deny another of this right. I can't force other folks to be responsible. I can do my damnest to persuade them, but if they won't be persuaded, it's between them and whatever Higher Authority they may or may not believe in.
---
Education is essential (Score:3)
Until more people in the U.S. start to remember that the customer is in the driver's seat[1] and absolutely refuse to disclose data which isn't relevant, privacy is lost.
[1] Try it, it's fun. I love going into a store, paying cash, and have them ask for my phone number, social, etc. That you "have to have it for your records" is entirely your problem, not mine. You can leave it blank, make something up, or I'll buy somewhere else. "Oh, you need my social for insurance? But I didn't give you any insurance information, and besides, I paid cash already. You're not planning to defraud my insurance company, are you?"
Re:Privacy protection without means to enforce it (Score:3)
Yep yep yep, spoken like a true Yank. Someone wanders onto your property, feel free to blow them away. Dang gov'mint raises taxes, head on down to the local IRS or Post office, and start blowin' those thievin' scum away ... {/sarcasm off} Of course, then the numerous members of the local police take you down. Which is why there are certain laws necessary: the imbalance of power between an individual and an organization can be staggering.
In the US, a citizen can still take the IRS to court to appeal a decision - admittedly, it's getting too costly for the average citizen to do, but at least the option is still there. You want to control your personal data? How the f$ck do you expect to get all the various companies - credit agencies, banks, credit card companies, marketing companies, to name a few - which store your personal date, to just delete it? Do you think your resources could make the slightest difference if you tried to sue, when compared to the gazillions of bucks they can spend to shut you up? Do you really want to spend weeks on the phone or writing letters to these companies, and, even if you do, are you sure you've got them all? Not to mention your letters/calls are going to be treated with the same degree of concern that they reserve for buzzing gnats ... squashed, and thrown in the trash.
The individual can still make an impact on their gov't representative. Which is far, far more than you're going to have on a corporation, unless you take the McVeigh route.
BTW, apologies to any non-English speaking Japanese seeking directions accidentally blown away by US citizens '...taking responsibility for their own protection by arming themselves ...'
I wondered how long it would take... (Score:3)
Looks like 8 minutes.
Wow, you really held yourself back this time.
Good job of combatting the sterotype of gun-packing Americans. Do you still think that amendment has any bearing on your lives today? Do you still think any problem or issue can be solved by a gun? Interesting.
Here's to hoping you grow up as a nation one day. Your neighbours to the north would certainly appreciate it.
People are trained not to care (Score:3)
For a brief period in the 60s and 70s, cultural assumptions about corporate power shifted merely enough to allow such impertinent questions to be asked in the mainstream media -- and for fledgling regulation to emerge in legislatures. Not only was such regulation inadequate to the job of preventing the eventual corporate state, but in areas ranging across environmental, labor, fiscal, and energy controls, we've seen it eviscerated since the 1980s.
Here we are twenty years on. Corporate power is ever ascendant, with politicians from both parties its handmaidens. In this era, how would we save privacy? How can we hope to do that when we can't even stop corporations from polluting? From laying off workforces and merging like mad DNA to boost stock values? From annointing its own as our political leaders? The loss of privacy is of a piece with these other losses: it, too, has been sacrificed for the golden virtue of business efficiency -- for the faster track to profit.
Privacy, as Brandeis recognized, is a bulwark against power. You cannot discuss privacy absent an equation which also measures the power that threatens it; or put another way, any bulletproof vest is pointless without taking into account what kind of bullets might be fired at it. The executives have the best guns. And the vest-makers all work for the executives. Bad time to dress for battle! What are we going to wear?
"E-commerce" shoulders some of the blame.... (Score:3)
Only a handful of the 100 most popular online stores give shoppers adequate privacy, according to the EPIC ( it's a Washington-based privacy research group). The group's research focuses on whether sites use profile-based advertising and whether they use cookies in their site operations, both incredibly controversial practices on the Internet. The also focus on retailers' compliance with "Fair Information Practices''--those are basically guidelines that provide basic privacy protection for consumers--which *none* of the companies in the survey addressed properly, according to EPIC.
It's a shame that the US doesn't seem like's it'll follow other nations' lead in the privacy issue-- legally enforceable standards of privacy are necessary to ensure compliance with Fair Information Practices, and new techniques for anonymity are necessary to protect online privacy. The ECIP released a report last year on December 17th, that found that 18 of the leading shopping sites did not post a privacy policy, 35 of the sites have profile-based advertisers operating on their pages, and 87 of the e-commerce sites use cookies.
EPIC also reported that many privacy policies are "confusing, incomplete and inconsistent."
Doesn't surprise me. The stated policies of most big shopping sites run the gamut from bad to atrocious. People should have the right to buy without being tracked and without having their personal information sold
Re:Lies, damn lies, and customer-supplied informat (Score:4)
And this is my problem... how?
Sounds like a problem for wannabe-privacy-invaders. My heart bleeds.
What about those of us who just don't want the "information" you "want to give" us, because your track record has demonstrated, time and time again, that you'll abuse it.
We don't like you. We don't trust you. And we will not cooperate with you.
Re:Privacy protection without means to enforce it (Score:4)
If you're an economic elite that comprises a small fraction of the population but needs to get a majority (well, except for this year, maybe!) of the vote to rule, then selling an idea like this to the humble folk is a pretty nifty thing to be able to do. The day the unwashed masses start demanding the same consideration from government that you do, well...
Child care teachers being screened (Score:4)
I believe this is ABSOLUTELY necessary for all child care facilities. Do you really want some sex offender, particularly a pedophile, playing with your kids? These checks take a couple of days and are not a big deal.
However, I'm in one of those states that do require it and I know first hand that a lot of daycares do not run this check. Mostly because they are so understaffed that unless the candidate looks seedy, they will most likely be hired. I could go into an entirely off-topic rant on how day care staff need to be paid more if there is ever going to be GOOD day care out there. But I won't go into that.
The Importance Of Privacy (Score:5)
The REAL privacy issue has to do with false (and occasionally deliberately false) or misleading information being circulated as absolute fact.
(If it's on the computer, it -must- be true... ...mustn't it?)
Everything you do leaves a paper/electron trail. Sometimes this is a good thing. Sometimes, it can be so shockingly abused that it's amazing anyone's still living in the US.
Have you =EVER= had any kind of parking ticket? That might not be bouncing round the police database any more, but any unscrupulous department could sell that data, without you ever knowing. Suddenly, you stop being employable. No explanation is ever given. After a small fortune is spent, you discover that some popular vetting company has turned your long-forgotten parking ticket into a "Current Police Record" and a "History of Illegal Activities".
Then, there are those times that personal names get confused and the wrong database entry is updated. Your local supermarket's computer decides you're dead. Your mail gets halted. Your credit cards are cancelled. Your bank accounts are frozen. Your driving licence is void. All automatically. And fixing one DB is pointless, because any automatic update'll pick the error right back up again.
Want to find yourself homeless? Just irritate a friend of someone you want a line of credit from. "Denied Credit" does -NOT- look good on a credit check.
Or maybe you want to work for a high-tech company involved in banking, credit, stocks or computer security. You'd better hope that your neighbor's brother's daughter's friend has never shaken hands with a drug dealer. It'll get onto your record the moment anyone does a paranoid background check. And once you're listed as a "Known Associate" of a "Potential Criminal Family", how long do you think you'll last in any top job?
Re:Privacy online is overrated (Score:5)
Medical data, address data, demographic data, habit data, all of that is just data. Rest assured that if things continue as they are, all of these will continue to be abused. Do you think your insurance company might find it interesting to add to their profile about you that you like to visit microbrewwry web sites? (Hmmm... liver problems in the future in X% of cases.) Or add to their statistical models that as an avid computer game player, you are X% more likely to have heart and obesity problems?
As advertisements get more focused, won't your grocery store want to know what you're allergic to, or if you're lactose intolerant? Hope you're not too embarressed about these things (as some people are!) because now your grocery clerk knows about it (when you handed them your Personalized Coupon for 15% off Soybean Milk.), and who know who that bored gossiping jerk might tell? Think Microsoft might want to know if you visit Slashdot a lot? Here comes the onslaught of "Why NT is Better Then Linux" ads! Think the Federal government might just decide that frequenting Slashdot is a sign of dangerous computer skill? (Why this might be bad is left as an exercize for the reader.)
Privacy concerns can be fruitfully divided into discussions about the exact way your privacy is being violated, but at the present time with the present policies, all privacy violations are important.
In a way, the "lesser" ones are more important to Slashdot frequenters, because it's obvious how insurance company privacy violations affect people, and a lot of people will stand against it. The more subtle, but nearly as powerful taken to its extreme (where it is busily being taken to while we sit complacent) privacy violations of watching what sites you visit, what you spend, how often you spend it, where you spend it is far more difficult to understand.
Consider... if I knew your surfing habits precisely, how much would I know about you? If I read everything you ever posted? Would I be able to guess with some level of statistical certainty (which is fine with insurance companies!) that you have some disease? Dangerous political views? Personality profile? (Bet you didn't think of that!) How would you like to be rejected for a job because your Anger Index was 32 too high... back in 1992?
Privacy concerns are not overrated; indeed, the more you understand about computers, the more you really look to see what's already going on, and the more you extrapolate into the near future (to say nothing about the far future), the more you realize that they are seriously underrated... mostly because they are difficult to understand easily. Regrettably, they are still very real.
PS: As for the idea that companies need detailed data about you to function efficiently, that's just plain bullsh*t. What they need is an efficient infrastructure, good lines of internal communication, good management, all the traditional stuff. Only marketers think they "need" detailed data about all of their hypothetical future customers. (Note nobody complains about data companies need to function... surely Amazon needs to know where to ship that book to... while this could be worked around it's not really worth the effort at this time.)
Re:You have as much privacy as you want (Score:5)
Much easier said than done. Some things can't be kept out of the public record- such as deed information- I've bought 2 houses, and I have no choice but to have that information available. I don't mind if the local public utility uses it to send me a letter informing me of something they have to do in the right-of-way. On the other hand, this same database is *SOLD* by the state (I'm in the USA) to direct mailers, Mortgage companies, and so on. My vehicle registration information has been sold. I've asked for them not to, but the lists go out immediately after the registration, but the "opt-out" takes up to 8 weeks, and I have to opt out of each individual VIN registered to me, I'm given no option to blanket-deny any requests under my name.
You don't have to give your information out, but life can be pretty hard if you don't. Depending on your state, you could: not hold a driver's license; not hold real property; not have a bank account; not have a credit card.
If you ever get a chance to use Lexis-Nexis, look up information on yourself. It is pretty scary what can be found. There *should* be controls on who and how they can access my private information, and the information kept on me should be available *to me* so that I can review it. Unless there are laws for this, none of the data-aggregation companies will be accountable for the information they gather.
Lies, damn lies, and customer-supplied information (Score:5)
One thing to keep in mind is that most Americans don't necessarily look at privacy issues in the same way as many posters on /. do. I was shocked to see my fiance actually take the time to send in the warranty card on a $40 blender she bought. Her thinking (i.e. "it may break and I may need to get it replaced") was obviously not the same as mine (i.e. "we are going to get even more junk mail than we already get."). I'm of the opinion, if you have a receipt and your blender's broken and it's worth more than the cost to ship the damn thing to Cuisinart, then you can get it fixed. If you don't have a receipt it doesn't matter if you sent in the warrantly card or not. Okay, so much for that rant.
The next thing I noticed, however, was that all the personal information was incorrect. Salary was different, personal interests were different, etc. etc.. Her name and address were correct (i.e. if we needed a replacement blender, we could get it), but all the marketing info was BS.
I do this as a matter of principal; keep seperate web-based email addresses, my "salary" ranges from 0-10,000 to 250-500,000 depending on my mood at any given time, my job title similarly varies, etc. etc.
In other words, businesses may be getting more and more info, but is any of it any good. And, what is the cost of seperating the good info from the bad?.
I'd like to add one more point, however, any information we are forced to give accurately (for a driver's liscense, bank loan, etc.) should be strictly protected.
Privacy online is overrated (Score:5)
There's a lot of paranoia amongst the tech-savvy populace of the net, and yet there seems to be a consistent failure to grasp the fact that current concerns about privacy are unwarranted and overrated.
Why is privacy overrated? After all, we live in a consumer society where we demand value for money and quality service from the corporations that provide everything we need to live, and information is the lifeblood of these ideals. Without reliable information corporations aren't going to be as efficient, and in a free market economy such as ours, this harms us all in the long run, far more than the trivial loss of privacy that comes from a company knowing how often you read /.
There are real privacy concerns out there which we should instead be addressing instead of whining about how companies compile online demographics. For instance, the need for privacy for medical information is paramount, and yet sorely lacking in America. With the increasing use of genetic technology in medicine, we either need safeguards to prevent insurance companies from declining "high risk" people, or a socialised health care system in which we can be guaranteedt treatment no matter what.
But the issue of online privacy is only really of interest to people who spent too much time online, and too little time in the real world.