Trump Administration Asks For Public Input on Data Privacy (cnet.com) 117
The federal government wants to know the best way to protect your privacy online. On Tuesday, the Department of Commerce released a request for public comments as it outlined the Trump administration's approach to consumer data privacy. A report adds: In the proposal, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a branch under the Commerce Department, recommended privacy regulations focused on giving users control over how their data is used by tech companies. The proposal comes a day before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is set to hold a hearing on consumer privacy, with companies like Apple, Google and Amazon testifying. The Commerce Department found public concern with how personal information has been used by tech companies and is taking a "risk-based flexibility" approach for privacy regulations. "The administration takes these concerns seriously and believes that users should be able to benefit from dynamic uses of their information, while still expecting organizations will appropriately minimize risks to users' privacy," the department wrote in the document.
Like they'll actually listen to us (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, considering how the children talk about President Trump, I fully expect the responses to be well thought out, useful responses.
Who am I kidding, it'll be a bunch of "orange headed, cheeto man" and "small hands" and "impeach!" bullshit.
Interesting suggestions, not bumper stickers, work (Score:3)
My experience with the public comment process is that some types of comments have worked, some don't. We got changes we wanted, when we used certain approaches.
Regulators already HAVE the bumper stickers. As you mentioned, saying "impeach Trump!" isn't going to inspire any edits to the regulation. Neither is "fuck Facebook", or anything else that fits on a bumper sticker. A bumper sticker slogan won't give regulators any new information or new ideas on which to base changes.
My experience is that sending wel
Kohath the jokebitch making NSA partisan now? (Score:1)
You must be some kind of "born in 2013 baby" because the NSA has been spying on everyone since the 70's. Only a moron would try to blame Obama for that lol. #Get tested Kohath you partisan faggot.
(It's even funnier when you back a traitor like Trump and THEN try to go after Obama using decades old arguments as if brand new)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_Wind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)
http://digitalmanticore.com/?tag=national-security
https://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-prism-k
Re: (Score:2)
That everybody does it defense is incompatible with the my team is Good, the other team is Evil storytelling.
Re: (Score:2)
He was responsible. The President is responsible for the activities of the people who work for him. That’s the job.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe Trump has stopped these programs and what's your evidence?
Doesn't the continued use of these programs under the Trump administration make Trump just as guilty as you claim Obama is?
Hypocrite much?
Re: (Score:3)
So why are you so focused on Obama? He's one of a long line of Presidents who've been at best passive participants in this going all the way back to Jimmy Carter.
Why are you focused solely on Obama if you are as clean and pure of motive as you claim?
Re: (Score:1)
It continued and expanded under his watch, and Obama went to bat for them by lying to the public, on camera, about it.
Immediately after his lie, the truth was exposed widely (anyone with a brain already knew, but the general populace was willing to believe Obama and his media puppets).
They ARE listening to our phone calls. They ARE reading our emails.
Re:Kohath goes right from partisan to lying faggot (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh really? Then are we to presume the con artist is responsible for the FCC lying about being "hacked" when the Net Neutrality public response was out, when in reality they were overwhelmed by people who wanted to keep NN in place? Instead, the head of the FCC used at least one person's dead mother [wnyt.com] to post a fake comment [techdirt.com].
Or how about the former head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, who was essentially bought by big industry, who spent taxpayer money like it was water, had a security detail to rival the president's, who had secretive rooms installed (at taxpayer expense), and got a sweetheart deal from an energy lobbyist on a condo rental?
Or the head of FEMA who used government vehicles to drive back and forth between his home in North Carolina and Washington, a six hour trip, each weekend [politico.com]?
Considering all the scandals in this administration, it doesn't appear the con artist cares one wit about the activities of those who work for him. Even more so when one considers the criminals who worked on his campaign and are going to jail.
Re: (Score:3)
Which I personally think is a mistake in the constitution (it may shock some to hear, but it is not a divinely inspired document). Why should every other citizen, politician, and official be subject to the criminal laws of the US except for the president? The impeachment process is ineffective since it's far too political, and of the very few times it has been used it has been highly political and used to get rid of someone unpopular with the congressional majority. In essence, if the president is popula
Re: (Score:2)
Because if anyone with access to a Grand Jury could indict the President, then every election cycle we'd have a half dozen or more local prosecutors creating politically motivated indictments to get their name in the papers and create bad press for their political enemies.
It already happens at the State level, although typically in States with split political control and a level of animosity like they have at the Federal level.
If anything, we need more restrictions on criminal indictments, like a Grand Jury
Re:Kohath the jokebitch making NSA partisan now? (Score:4, Informative)
Testimony, is by definition, evidence. We now have sworn testimony that Trump participated in multiple felonies. This testimony was from Trump's own long-time lawyer.
https://www.apnews.com/74aaf72... [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct. Cohen's testimony didn't mention Trump by name. It mentioned an "unnamed federal candidate that Cohen worked for". Since Cohen never worked for any other candidate, who do you think it's referring to?
That's why Trump is referred to as an "unindicted co-conspirator". This is a common formulation in criminal cases that involve elected officials. I remember when an earlier incarnation of Tru
This should be easy to write (Score:2)
Whatever you (the gov't) doesn't want anyone to know about all your "dealings", and the efforts you take to ensure such "dealings" remain secret and hidden from public view....apply to all citizens.
Problem solved /h (maybe)
Can you blame them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bond... James Bond.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Require companies that intend to collect ANY personal data to put up a bond commensurate with the type of data they collect. If they are found to have sold the data, or allowed through negligence the data to be stolen, then the bond immediately pays out to the effected people, without so much as a whisper from a lawyer.
I know that's all a fantasy, but really these companies need to know that they can't treat people like assets.
Re: (Score:2)
I like this idea, as long as the pay out is at least $1000/user. For sensitive data let's say $10,000 to start, with yearly automatic inflation increases.
Facebook (Score:3)
You get into the habit of using facebook single sign on for a majority of web pages and apps, then you find out facebook buys financial banking data to tie to your account, then they get voting data, surfing history, contacts. Nobody knew back then that facebook would buy companies up, gobble data, to have such indepth view into everyones lives. Its not a cute and fun social networking site anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course some people knew. A bunch of us. We just weren't posting about it on Facebook... cause obvious reasons.
Of course, whenever someone says "nobody knows", what they almost always mean is "I didn't know".
Re: (Score:1)
Or, more accurately, "I didn't think"
I dont expect privacy anymore. (Score:1)
If they're not sharing some info now they will later. We don't have enough laws to protect it, and I really doubt we ever will. Even if the laws say they can't do X, how can you prove they are?
I say the only two options are live in a hermit shack or just accept it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
that need voiced
[] To be
[x] Not to be
That answers that, I guess.
Dear DoC Spam (Score:1)
Dear [DoC]. I strongly [urge/recommend/ask] the DoC to [rescind/overturn/undo] the rules [set in place/laid down] by [Obama/Wheeler/both], which [take over broadband/control the internet]. [Normal people], as opposed to [elitist liberal bureaucrats], should be able to [use/purchase] the [services/applications/products] they want. The [Obama/Wheeler/both] plan is a [betrayal/exploitation/corruption] of [data privacy/the open internet]. It [undid/reversed/broke] a [light-touch/market-based/pro-consumer] [appr
Consumer data policy - everything gets hashed (Score:3)
Imagine a consumer data policy where every user has a hash key they can revoke at any point which would leave data encrypted anywhere he or she has shared it. In order to display an unscrambled picture, the social media site or other tech company would run the user's saved key against another decentralized key authority (like the Bitcoin blockchain or one of the many other crypto blockchains). The user could revoke the key by having control over the decentralized address and remove the designated social media site's individual user key.
Then.. for the law.. Make it illegal for any site to store unscrambled/decrypted photos, video, or other media of user's specifically encrypted content. So, a user could share unscrambled pictures to Facebook.. or encrypted pictures to facebook with an unlock hash key..
I don't have the idea completely thought out.. but ultimately a user should have control over his or her specifically private shared data. Specifically private shared data would be any data shared explicitly to a single party with no intent to distribute to everyone. ie: sharing data to only my 'friends' on Facebook
Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
Trump Administration Asks For Public Input on Data Privacy
Trump's corrupt, useless, so-called "administration" is asking for public input on something, I'm sure so that they can do the opposite.
As Admiral Akbar said, "It's a trap!"
So fucking tired of this shit.
So where is the link? (Score:1)
There's no link anywhere to provide your input. Nothing on CNet's site in the story (well, duh, they don't want the restrictions), but I couldn't find it on the DoC's National Telecommunications and Information Administration's website either.
Is this a farce?
Re: (Score:2)
CNET is a farce, yes, as are Slashdot's "editors".
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/feder... [doc.gov]
Re: So where is the link? (Score:1)
Thank you!
Re: (Score:2)
in Europe, the people have the upper hand on large corporations in influencing government.
Unfortunately it is not that obvious. Lobbies are strong in Brussels, and in fact I still do not understand how the GDPR made its way. Look at how hard it is to forbid glyphosate usage, for instance.
The Elephant in the closet (Score:2)
Fuck You, CNET (Score:5, Informative)
Because CNET doesn't want you actually expressing your thoughts on privacy, I'll provide the goods: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/feder... [doc.gov]
On behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is requesting comments on ways to advance consumer privacy while protecting prosperity and innovation. NTIA is seeking public comments on a proposed approach to this task that lays out a set of user-centric privacy outcomes that underpin the protections that should be produced by any Federal actions on consumer-privacy policy, and a set of high-level goals that describe the outlines of the ecosystem that should be created to provide those protections.
Written comments identified by Docket No. 180821780-8780-01 may be submitted by email to privacyrfc2018@ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted by email should be machine-readable and should not be copy-protected. Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 4725, Attn: Privacy RFC, Washington, DC 20230.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be posting this on FB, if nothing than to have my Trump-hating & privacy loving friends (and "friends") tied in a knot. As for me, I'd say, do it like EU's GPDR, but only for very large companies.
Re: (Score:2)
sexconker announced:
Because CNET doesn't want you actually expressing your thoughts on privacy, I'll provide the goods: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/feder... [doc.gov]
Somebody with points, please MOD PARENT +1 Informative.
Also, msmash, please include the above link in TFS.
That is all ...
Where you can actually comment (Score:3)
ISPs and credit reporting agencies too? (Score:1)
I'd be great if this can include ISPs, cell phone companies, and credit reporting agencies too. I'd really like to opt-out of their data collection.
Re: (Score:1)