{"id":1162,"date":"2010-12-17T11:39:38","date_gmt":"2010-12-17T19:39:38","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=1162"},"modified":"2010-12-21T00:45:37","modified_gmt":"2010-12-21T08:45:37","slug":"a-privacy-bill-of-rights-proposed-for-the-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/?p=1162","title":{"rendered":"A Privacy Bill of Rights proposed for the US"},"content":{"rendered":"

The\u00a0continuing deterioration\u00a0of privacy and multi-party security due to short-sighted\u00a0and unsustainable practices within our industry has\u00a0begun to have\u00a0the inevitable result, as reported by this article<\/a> in the New York TImes.<\/p>\n

A Commerce Department task force called for the creation of a ‘Privacy Bill of Rights’ for online consumers and the establishment of an office within the department that would work to strengthen privacy policies in the United States and coordinate initiatives with other countries.<\/p>\n

The department\u2019s Internet Policy Task Force, in a report released<\/a> on Thursday, said the \u201cPrivacy Bill of Rights\u201d would increase transparency on how user information was collected online, place limits on the use of consumer data by companies and promote the use of audits and other forms of enforcement to increase accountability.<\/p>\n

The new protections would expand on the framework of Fair Information Practice Principles<\/span><\/a> that address data security, notice and choice \u2014 or the privacy policies many users agree to on Web sites \u2014 and rights to obtaining information on the Internet.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe simple concept of notice and choice is not adequate as a basis for privacy protections<\/strong>,\u201d said Daniel J. Weitzner, the associate administrator for the office of policy analysis and development at the Commerce Department\u2019s National Telecommunications and Information Administration [emphasis mine – Kim].<\/p>\n

The article makes the connection to the Federal Trade Commission's “Do Not Track” proposal:<\/p>\n

The F.T.C., in its report on online privacy<\/span><\/a> this month, also called for improvements to the practice principles, but focused on installing a \u201cdo not track\u201d mechanism that would allow computer users to opt out of having their information collected surreptitiously by third-party companies.<\/p>\n

That recommendation caused concern in the online advertising industry, which has said that such a mechanism would hamper the industry\u2019s growth and could potentially limit users\u2019 access to free content online.<\/p>\n

[The prospect of an online advertising industry deprived of its ability to surreptitiously collect information on us causes tears to well in my eyes.\u00a0 I can't continue!\u00a0 I need a Kleenex!]<\/em><\/p>\n

The proposed Privacy Policy Office would work with the administration, the F.T.C. and other agencies on issues surrounding international and commercial data privacy issues but\u00a0would not have enforcement authority.<\/p>\n

\u201cAmerica needs a robust privacy framework that preserves consumer trust in the evolving Internet economy while ensuring the Web remains a platform for innovation, jobs and economic growth,\u201d the commerce secretary, Gary F. Locke, said in a statement. \u201cSelf-regulation without stronger enforcement is not enough. Consumers must trust the Internet in order for businesses to succeed online.\u201d<\/p>\n

All of this is, in my view, just an initial reaction to behaviors that are seriously out of control.\u00a0 As information leakage goes, the surreptitious collection of information” to which the NYT refers is done at a scale that dwarfs Wiki Leaks, even if the subjects of the information are\u00a0mere citizens\u00a0rather than lofty officials of government.<\/p>\n

I will personally be delighted when it is enshrined in law that a company can no longer get you to click on a privacy policy like this one <\/a>and claim it is consent to sell your location to anyone it pleases.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The simple concept of notice and choice is not adequate as a basis for privacy protections”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":68,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3,47,81,11],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1162"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/68"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1162"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1162\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}