New Privacy Law Introduced... But Government Is Exempted

from the and-let's-dump-the-4th-amendment-while-we're-at-it dept

Wed, Apr 13th 2011 2:57pm — Mike Masnick

A lot of attention is being paid this week to Senators John Kerry and John McCain introducing a Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights, which would require companies to tell consumers exactly what data is being collected about them while also keeping that information safe (as if companies get hacked on purpose?!?). The proposed law does not have, as some expected, a "do not track" provision. This is a good thing. Still, it does seem a bit odd that these Senators are acting all concerned about individuals' privacy rights... at the same time the federal government is working hard to get around individual privacy rights and demolish the 4th Amendment.

Along those lines, it's quite notable that the provisions in the bill do not apply to the government. As Jim Harper asks in that linked article: "What's a bill of rights if it doesn't provide rights against the government?" Seems like an important question -- not that it's likely to get answered.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 4th amendment, privacy

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

iamtheky (profile), 13 Apr 2011 @ 3:46pm

The proposed law does not have, as some expected, a "do not track" provision. This is a good thing.

We cant get wittily led to draw the correct conclusion its just handed out now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Carmichael, 13 Apr 2011 @ 3:51pm

The Constitution is just a suggestion, like speed limits; you don't HAVE to do everything it says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ash, 13 Apr 2011 @ 3:59pm

Reasoning
"The proposed law does not have, as some expected, a "do not track" provision. This is a good thing"

Can you elaborate on why this is a good thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Apr 2011 @ 4:34pm
  
  Re: Reasoning
  Can you elaborate on why this is a good thing?
  
  "Do not track," was going to be a disaster. Browsers are implementing do not track technology themselves. We don't want the gov't mandating it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pips, 14 Apr 2011 @ 7:04am
    
    Re: Re: Reasoning
    I would rather know when I click a link on Google to wipe all the data it has on me that Google itself has wiped it. A web browser "do not track" is not going to go onto Googles servers and wipe my data.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 13 Apr 2011 @ 4:15pm

In fairness to Senators Kerry and McCain, I can see how it might be unwise to attempt a one-size-fits-all approach to rules on collecting data. Law-enforcement agencies are going to need a different set of rights and responsibilities -not necessarily stricter or looser, but different- than a commercial organisation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 1:23am
  
  Re:
  Then mandate that further investigation requires a warrant. Not that hard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fzzr (profile), 13 Apr 2011 @ 5:29pm

Minor nitpick
The title should probably read "new privacy bill". I didn't watch all those schoolhouse rock videos for nothing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BongoBern (profile), 14 Apr 2011 @ 8:00am

Government Internet Spooks
Since I have nothing to hide from the government I shouldn't give an ass rats, but I do. We have to be very careful how that wagonload of lawyers on Capitol Hill words its terms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan Diederich, 14 Apr 2011 @ 8:31am

Re: Re: Re: Reasoning
That may be true, but the government wont go into Google's servers and delete it for you.

You are a consumer, not a sheep. If you are displeased with the way a company you use (such as Google) is handling privacy, dont use them.

The government doesnt need to fix our problems, we can fix them ourselves. If the common man gave a hoot about privacy, and Google really was a big infringer, then no one would use them.

In addition, your logic is flawwed. The browser option would have no power over information already collected, rather it would prevent additional information from being sent.

If you used the new browser from the beginning, you wouldnt have to worry about whether or not Google deleted the info, because it never would have gotten there.

Companies will always collect info, and it is quite neccesary to do so on the internet. Without information collection, you would never get relevant ads, search results would skew, and you would get spam from foreign countries.

The key is what type of information is collected. Is it private info? Is it your name and likeness? Or is it just a list of keywords you frequent to allow more relevant ad delivery.

I for one, am perfectly fine with the latter.

So many examples correlate with this one.
Why should healthy food be mandated? Why not just teach people to eat healthy?
Why should fuel efficient cars be mandated? Teach people to use less energy and care for the environment.
And why the f would you force green light bulbs? Not only do they contain mercury (and really, are any of you going to dispose of them properly) They are cheaper to operate, the consumer would have chosen them eventually anyways.

Forcing it down my throat will only make me want to disobey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]