White House Releases Draft 'Privacy' Bill That's Not Very Good
from the let's-try-again,-shall-we dept
It's been talked about for a while, but on Friday, the White House released a draft of what it's calling a "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights." Conceptually, that sounds like a decent idea, but in practice? Not so much. Yes, it's just a draft, but it's got a lot of vague hand-waving, and basically no one seems all that thrilled about it, either from the privacy advocate side or the tech company side. Also, it doesn't even address the biggest privacy concern of all: government surveillance and snooping.Privacy is, of course, one of those things that can be rather tricky to regulate, for a variety of reasons. Many attempts turn out badly, and don't really do much to actually protect privacy -- while sometimes blocking legitimate and useful innovations. While we're big supporters of protecting one's privacy we're at least somewhat concerned about legislation that appears to be pretty sloppy, and not all that well defined or thought out. This feels like a "we needed to do something, so here's something" kind of draft bill, rather than a "here's a legitimate problem, and here's how to fix it." It feels like a lost opportunity.
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: consumer privacy bill of rights, cpbr, privacy, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No campaign contributions or self-appointed raises until you get it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree not very good - can't use words "data sellers" yet
I have had mathematicians and quants alike agree, even the Anonymous guys that you need an index on who the players are and without a license, well one can easily say "I'm not a covered entity" Here's my campaign that I informally started 3 years ago.
http://www.youcaring.com/other/help-preserve-our-privacy-/258776
Now let's talk "repackaging" consumer data..hmmm..nothing here to distinguish a legal chunk of data or stolen data and this is huge. Look at the Anthem case, one could sit there and create "data for sale" with tons of simple SQL statements and put the stolen data up for sale on sites like this one who are open for posting and selling data, and they don't do anything except collect a fee for the matching of the buyer and seller.
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-data-exchange-buy-and-sell-data-on.html
So now you find flawed data out there about yourself being sold, anyway to track and find the originator with repackaging taking place? No way, burnt myself on that one trying to find the originators of flawed data sold about me.
If sellers and buyers were licensed on legal sales, then we would have a tracking system where consumers could contact and correct flawed data, which we have to do by the way on our own dime too. We license things in this country with a lot less risk, like fishing licenses for an example. Not licensing data sellers is like expecting stock brokers to self govern...not going to happen with the data selling business at $180 billion a year in the US and growing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
political maneuver
First pass a privacy bill to soothe the public, then ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Critical question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Critical question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Critical question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Critical question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Critical question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Critical question
The US Constitution only gave the general government the powers that were specifically enumerated (listed) was the ONLY understanding reached by the states, and held until modern (progressive) unlawful reinterpretations of the Constitution took hold.
Our founders had the ingenious wherewithal to draft a Constitutional model that is based the powers for the general (federal) government that are explicitly spelled out, chiefly in Article I, Section 8 as LAW, the supreme law of this land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Critical question
Partisan nitwit-its strikes again. The only cure I know of is to stop watching Fox news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sec. 403
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Offensive!
The general down grading of American citizen's to mere consumer's allows politicians to rationalize policies that run counter to the wishes of the majority of those citizens, for our own good!
I am an American citizen and until more people demand that they be respected as such, we will continue to be sold out by those who view us as mindless consumers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]