White House's Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is misleading, doesn't solve the real problem
Summary: We're still subject to unreasonable and unsafe demands by those we need to do business with, study with, or get care from.
Any time the government of the United States does anything with the intent of protecting privacy, it's worth applauding. Unfortunately, sometimes those moves seem more like public relations ploys than actual solutions.
This may be the case with the newly announced Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.
In spirit, the idea is to give consumers the right to decide whether or not browsing activity should be tracked, how data is retained from advertising networks, and other basic Internet privacy activities. The actual guidelines for the Consumer Privacy Bill or Rights are quite broad, as CNET's Elinor Mills reports.
The problem is this approach completely misses the privacy violations perpetrated against Americans by the authorities they trust.
Back in 2009, I wrote an article for FrontLine Security Magazine entitled, "Is Your Doctor, School or Government Putting You At Risk for ID Theft?" In it, I described how schools would often demand an identity-theft kit worth of information from their students, how doctors offices required an excessive supply of personally identifying information, and even how government agencies would publish personal information online.
None of these privacy transgressions (and the dozens of others we all encounter as part of our functioning in modern society) are addressed in the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. We're still subject to unreasonable and unsafe demands by those we need to do business with, study with, or get care from.
I'm glad to see a small step taken by this government to address privacy issues, but I have to be honest. I'm far less concerned if Google knows I went to yet another muscle car web site than I am that my doctor's office insists on keeping copies of my drivers' license in a manila folder along with an image of my credit card, my social security number, my home address, my various phone numbers, and my health records.
I call on the government and, specifically, the White House to expand this so-called "bill of rights" to protections that really matter. After all, the FTC tells us (PDF) that there are millions of identity theft and fraud complaints each year. This is where we need to be putting our attention.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
What rights? There all rapidly being voted away.
I guess I could sleep better at night knowing my government is allowed to warrantlessly tap my phone, internet, place tracking devices on my car and categorize me as a terrorist if I pay with cash or need some peroxide for something. Does this mean that my country can hold me in a cell for the rest of my life because I pay with everything in cash? Right now it does.
A government of the people, by the people ...
The fact that an opt-out policy is used almost universally clearly shows that this is a government of the corporations, by the corporations. Individual Americans are consumers, not citizens.
We're all bozos
RE: We're all bozos
Case-in-point, the U.S. National Do Not Call Registry exists to protect consumers from telemarketers. Consumers must explicitly request that their phone numbers be placed into the Registry. It's opt-out and has been from the very beginning. The federal legislation underpinning the Registry includes:
o Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
o Do-Not-Call Implementation Act of 2003
o Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007
Why isn't the Registry a list of consumers that [i]want[/i] to receive telemarketing calls? [i]This[/i] is what opt-in looks like. Big Mommy? I don't think so.
Really, Sometimes?
"Any time the government of the United States does anything with the intent of protecting privacy, it???s worth applauding. Unfortunately, sometimes those moves seem more like public relations ploys than actual solutions."
The bill is nothing but feeding hot air to the ignorant and uneducated
doctors electronic medical records
http://www.familypracticenews.com/views/the-office/blogview120216/keeping-credit-cards-on-file-faq/3cf39f1e76.html
Sorry, you miss the point
But there also is a real problem with this bill of rights that you didn't mention: It is the number of occurences of the word 'should' in the text: 19 times in 7 paragraphs! That's what you get when influential groups have taken care that you don't really want to change anything really and this will not change anything in reality. Or does anyone think it will cause someone to put some multibillion dollars worth opportunities at risk because someone wrote he should not do it?
Privacy
Impossible goal