Data tracking poses a 'national security risk' FTC told The massive amounts of digital data being bought and sold — or sometimes freely shared — poses a grave national security risk, according to a former US policymaker and diplomat. During a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) hearing on commercial surveillance this week, Karen Kornbluh, the former US OECD ambassador and FCC exec who …
I wrote about this in my degree project in (checks) 1987. The more data you have, and the ability to process it the more you can discover by "simple" inference.
My point was a connection to the Hollerith census in 1890.
I made the point there was no reason to think that the processing ability would not reach that needed to know everything about everyone irrespective of what they have told you and even more when you add what they have.
So why is this "news" ?
Oh, yes. We wanted cheap shit and damn the cinsequences.
Cheap shit can still be cheap shit without tracking. Ads and ad revenue shouldn't take too much of a dent without tracking. It's not like Adsense et al aren't already extremely picky about the sites they allow ads to be published on.
The only hit will be on marketing departments that will have to look at where their ad was displayed and tick a box next to a domain that says "nope, not again please". Which puts them through the same pain we get put through on a daily basis only it won't be daily for them. Once a week tops.
"... Big Tech isn't held to the same legal and ethical standards as, for example, telephone companies or postal services" - an actuality rather than a supposition right now.
Money doesn't shout - it screams. It screams so loud that the UK govt. is busy dismantling the potentially adequate protections offered by the GDPR, although of course it's never been properly enforced. Action is taken in only a trivial proportion of real cases, the penalties imposed so far on the big tech players have been derisory and no significant change of behaviour is apparent.
It appears that the preferred approach to regulation this side of the pond is emerging as "if they won't comply with the law, scrap the law". It's somewhat promising that the US might be taking a more robust stance.
The UK government (Tories) are treating people like cattle, or fodder, to be used and abused.
Not only do we have new laws to remove the right to protest, such that a prison term is available if it is deemed a nuisance, but the UK people have been sufficiently and perniciously oppressed that they now don't have the gumption or inclination to react.
The government elected by the people, for the benefit of the people, is actively working against the people. Businesses who donate to the Tory party are being protected in deference to the people.
Don't worry, the Tories have it all under control. If a crime such as online fraud increases, they will ensure that crime is reduced. They will just remove online fraud from the figures. As they have done before.
The government elected by the people, for the benefit of the people, is actively working against the people
Liz Truss has said no windfall tax on energy company profits - instead, money for bills will be subsidised by borrowing - borrowing that must be paid for, most probably borrowed in the end from the very same investors who may hold significant shares in... energy companies.;
We pay, irrespective of what comes out of the politician's mouth
We don't have to pay.
The electricity prices are artificially high due to government policy of renewables generating electricity costing the same as gas electricity. So we could pay less for electricity.
In addition to that Tory government has restricted the amount of electricity generated by renewables, which in turn causes price of electricity to be higher.
We are only paying excessively because the Tories have created the system such that we do.
>We don't have to pay
The only legal way I've determined you can avoid paying is by the energy company failing to bill within a year.
Currently, having fun with Eon - they failed to bill a relative on a dual-fuel plan for gas usage for 4 years - they are disputing the normal level of usage and thus what the bill for the last year should be...
>Liz Truss has said no windfall tax on energy company profits - instead, money for bills will be subsidised by borrowing...
She also said she would adhere to "Conservative principles", which she has done; whilst consumer bills will be subsidised her chosen method protects the profits of energy companies. My money is on the energy companies (mostly foreign owned) finding ways to burn their way through the government subsidy and thus requiring more, whilst maintaining dividends and executive bonuses...
Not only do we have new laws to remove the right to protest,
A few weeks ago I had two posts from the same poster show up on twitter
1) quite rightly complaining about plans to limit people right to protest.
2) quite rightly demanding that protests outside clinics where abortion services were offered should be band.
I'm sure there are cases where we would all generally like to see things band and cases where we think that people really should have a right to protest.
I've no idea how to tackle this issue.
People should be allowed to march down Park Lane protesting against the latest lunacy from which ever government are currently in (they're all capable of lunacy).
On the other hand screaming mobs outside primary schools as kids are starting in the morning I'm not happy about.
If I was on a jury asked to decide on the fate of the commuters who physically threw protestors off the roof of a tube train so they could go to work I'd find it difficult to say they were guilty of anything other than wishing to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I suppose these things are never black and white.
I write a lot of stuff as part of my day job, my wife normally proof reads my scrawl and is kind enough not to laugh (at least not in my face) too often.
I can't proof read wot I rote coz my brain remembers wat I rote and so I don't sea wot my fingers have scrawled.
I understand this isn't that unusual.
I don't get my champion proof reader to check all the crap I posset online, life's too short and she can only tolerate so much
@NewModelArmy "Not only do we have new laws to remove the right to protest, such that a prison term is available if it is deemed a nuisance"
The new laws do not remove the right to protest they just bring the laws on static protests in line with the laws for protests that are processions. The new laws are trying the balance the rights of protesters and those impacted by protests.
Something that is certainly needed, as the aim of most large protests is to cause as much disruption and inconvenience to others, which normally means the general public. To me that seems an ineffectual way to protest. Pissing the pubic off is not going to get them on your side
The new public nuisance offence replaces the existing common law offense. It narrows the scope of the offence and lowers the maximum penalty from unlimited crown court penalties, to 10 years’ imprisonment. So a greater prison term was available under the old public nuisance law.
Also if the authorities really want to ban a protest they have the Public Order Act 1986. Look it up and see what powers it grants.
That is sometimes part of the impact intended by protests, to cause disruption, to get the government of the day to recognise the issue being protested about.
People in the UK have become selfish, and being disrupted by a protest was just accepted a few decades ago, now the public are whipped up by the government by claiming protesters are damaging the UK and damaging peoples lives, to complain excessively.
Can you define what a nuisance is ? The law is so subjective, that it removes the right to process based on whims of people. A fly at a picnic is a nuisance, aphids on your roses are a nuisance.
The law was perfectly ok before, and people tolerated protests before. We don't need a new law with excessive punishments.
Protests that intend to cause disruption, are not doing it to get the Government to recognise the issue. They are doing it to pressure the government into acceding to their demands.
”People in the UK have become selfish, and being disrupted by a protest was just accepted a few decades ago”
No, it was not just accepted, the public were no more tolerant to their lives being disrupted then, than they are today.
Then again maybe the UK is more selfish, after all there are so many people today who believe they have the right to tell us how to think and act, what is acceptable and what is not. Who believe that their cause is just and anyone who disagrees is to be shouted down and reviled. That the rights of their cause override any other rights.
”Can you define what a nuisance is ?”
Yes I can.
”The law is so subjective”
The law is subjective and may not accept my definition.
”that it removes the right to process based on whims of people.”
No. the law attempts to balance the right to protest against the rights of others. The right to protest is not absolute, it does not trump every other right. I am sure you will disagree, as you see the rights of others as whims.
” The law was perfectly ok before”
If you believe that then you missed the point, I was making about the new public nuisance offence. The new law does not introduce the possibility of a custodial sentence, that possibility already existed in the law it replaced. The new law reduces the maximum penalty to 10 years and also narrows the scope of the law. Therefore, the new law does not remove the right to protest the old law would have already done that.
” We don't need a new law with excessive punishments.”
Oh, we need the old law with greater excessive punishments!
For a bit of fun, try 'Mark Thomas: My Life in Serious Organised Crime'
"Mark Thomas tells of his campaign against the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, part of which requires anyone wishing to protest in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament to obtain a permit from the police. Mark has done this hundreds of times."
(Parliament introduced this mainly to stop Brian Haw, a peace protester, who camped for a decade opposite the HoP... except they forgot to make it retrospective!)
Quote #1: 'Fitzgerald called on the agency to "rein in commercial surveillance" by limiting wide-scale tracking and profiling of consumers...'
Quote #2: "Data that is deleted after it is no longer needed is no longer at risk."
Note that quote #1 talks about "commercial" snooping. Note that Edward Snowden had rather a lot to say about "government" snooping....which is always given a free pass to snoop anywhere!!
Note in quote #2 the use of the word "deleted". This word is rather hard to define, because:
(a) Most organisations (both commercial and government) have MULTIPLE backups of all their data, often going back years.
(b) Deleting single elements of data from one backup is usually either impossible, or prohibitively expensive.
(c) So when an organisation assures Jane Doe that her data has been "deleted", you can be sure that this assurance is a downright lie.
Neither of these quotes should give anyone any assurance of future privacy. Both quotes simply tell me it's the usual smoke and mirrors associated with marketing the idea that "SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING ABOUT PRIVACY"......absolutely not!!!
P.S. Take a look at a UK example: The Royal Free Trust handed over the private medical records of 1.6 million citizens to Google/DeepMind. The law in the UK at the time (GPDR) required the consent of each citizen. In fact not one citizen was asked for their consent. So much for laws about data privacy.
P.P.S. Peter Thiel and Palentir (yes....really) are in line to slurp ALL UK private medical records. I wonder if Peter Thiel will be asking consent from 60 million people....or will it just be a replay of the disgraceful Google/DeepMind slurp? Take a guess if the law (GDPR) will be followed.....
Government and commercial snooping are distinct and different phenomena. They're undertaken not only by different people, but for different reasons and in very different ways.
It's not unreasonable to try to tackle only one of the two. To suggest that any effort is worthless unless it immediately solves every problem is pure whataboutism.
Which ones? At best tracking and profiles is designed to extract more money from customers - and that's without the most nefarious marketing techniques to drive customers' behaviour.
Chambers of Commerce are part of the problem - they just see their wet dreams coming true - just like in "Idiocracy", where ads has a religious-like following up to watering plants with an artificial beverage instead of plain water.
I can only assume they mean the "to gain benefit from (something); profit" definition of benefit, the consumers being the consumers of said data (big tech).
> businesses' data collection and retention practices also aid foreign cyberspies
And I guess the reply of the "$12 billion surveillance-for-hire industry" will be: "somebody please think of the children, and most importantly, our bottom line"...
Seriously, since when does common sense stand any chance against millions and millions of dollars spent in lobbying and backscratching? Think of all the arguments that "surveillance-for-hire industry" can dish out, starting with the terminally corny "think of the children", up to purportedly helping crime fighters (this being the obvious purpose of tracking cookies after all, isn't it).
And of course "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. So -- are you a straight, god-fearing and law-abiding patriot, or some criminal commie pervert?".
"Nothing to hide" So why do you have locked doors, curtains/blinds on the windows, lock box/safe, bank account(s), VPN, encrypted email, firewall, account passwords, PIN number(s), use an alias instead of your real name online, lock your car, paper shredder...etc. We all have something to hide, we all want some level of privacy and security in our lives and personal information.
You okay with the Government eliminating encryption and having your banking, healthcare and other information sent clear text? You wear your name, social security number, birthday, phone number and address on a badge for all to see? Of course not! So you DO have something to hide. Such a lame defense!!!
> "by remembering the tremendous benefits consumers derive from our data driven economy [...]," Crenshaw said."
I don't believe my ears (well, eyes), it's like the drug cartels claiming "the tremendous consumer benefits of their drug driven economy"!...
Yeah well, there are benefits, and they are in their pockets, whereas the wasted, destroyed lives are not their problem, after all nobody forced that junky to overdose, now did he.
It sort of began with the credit reporting agencies in the 70s. Why would you bank sell information about you regarding trustworthiness? And some of the biggest offenders are the very same ones.
The whole selling of data without my consent is totally wrong. All you can do it just pollute the pool to make what they have worthless.
Yes, the horse has been long gone. The barn has rotted out of existence. The forest has retaken the pasture. Even the horse has died and fertilized its resting ground.
The momentum of data collection has become so great.
They who collect are not drinking from the pool but are profiting from it. Those who are drinking from it cannot tell if it is polluted and the profiteers are certainly not going to tell them.
"The US Chamber of Commerce not only took issue with data privacy mandates, but also with the FTC's word choices including "harms" and "commercial surveillance," which it said suggests that businesses are using consumer data for nefarious purposes"
I must counter with:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surveillance
Nothing nefarious there. It's just another word describing an activity that humans do. Which is what the US CoC should have said instead of throwing words around that they clearly do not want to understand.
It is the intent, the desire, or the motive behind an action that makes it nefarious.
It is clear what the intent, desire, and motive of US Corporate data collection is. You just have to want to know.
If you don't want to know then let me be the first person to welcome you to the Fourth Branch of Our Government.
I'm for privacy myself -- If someone wants total privacy they should be able to have it, and companies should not automatically have the right to sell, collate, and resell each and every bit of private info they can get about you. In the US, I think the only data that privacy is taken seriously is medical records -- HIPAA is no joke and strictly enforced; but even then, it's literally medical records, once you've bought anything medical-related they're free to buy, sell, and trade that and infer what medical conditions you have from it.
I think the "Oh no, China!!" stance is daft. But, if the US policy shifts towards a pro-privacy stance, even if it's for what I think is a spurious reason, good!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
