Archive for the ‘EPIC’ Category

Advertisements

c/o MontrealGazette

“Thanks to new laws and technologies, authorities track and eavesdrop on Americans as they never could before, hauling in billions of bank records, travel receipts and other information. In several cases, they have wiretapped conversations between lawyers and defendants, challenging the long-established legal principle that attorney-client communication is inviolate.”

:::MORE HERE:::

Here is second life for news that matters. 

Enlarged@EPIC’s Privacy.org 

*Infographic WHO’S TRACKING YOU? (left) c/o Privacy.org

BTC — It’s been a very big day for digital privacy policy and the Internet on Capitol Hill and the day isn’t even over yet.

As the result of a 5 – 0 vote, the FTC released it’s official framework to limit 3rd party browser surveillance from cookies and collection of broswer histories.  Media questions raised towards the FTC’s cautious steps out in defense of consumer privacy were answered summarily, “that’s why we are putting this up for comment.”

The matters of concern were mainly directed at a new “Do Not Track list”; which was compared to a Do Not Call list for 3rd party telemarketers.  Consumers should able opt-out of browser data surveillance by adding their information to consumer protection list.  However, due to the review period, FTC enforcement measures towards the adoption of Do Not Track are still unformed, uncertain, appearing unenforceable. FTC mentioned they “were not in a place now to deal with deceptive commercial practices”.  Retroactive enforcement of privacy on information collected and a Do Not Use list were considerations that seemed to take the FTC panel by surprise. Questions about the scope creep of the decision and current data collected were almost censured by moderators who demanded the identity of privacy labeled press in attendance.

The FTC Chairman’s tone of concern over tracking was not as greatly angled towards consumer publics as it was advertisers, browser companies and industry who rely on corporate data surveillance for marketing information.   “I would not personally opt-out of 3rd party…, but that’s why we are putting this up for comment,” said FTC Chair, Liebowitz.  The trial run of new versions of privacy protection seems to be at the behest of industry vs. the consumer.  While this was made fairly plain, questions were raised about consumers accessibility to the use of new privacy controls in browser technology.  The FTC acknowledged users are largely uninformed of what their options are towards operating evolving browser versions and hidden privacy settings on current browser technologies.

As an experiment, I looked into my own browser security; which had undergone several weekly updates.  The security settings had changed.  There were a mountain of cookies and stored sites in hidden browser histories I didn’t know I had.   The box for “show my location” had been automatically checked.   I had opted out completely for Google Buzz yesterday only after pop-up options were made available.  The public, indeed, still bears the burden of personal privacy vigilance over browser data surveillance; while government bodies catch up to pilot consumer protections. In the meantime, we will watch and see if Google and other 3rd party data brokers are really on their best behavior.

Here is second life for news that matters:

HuffPo: Will we get a “Do Not Track Me” list ?

The FCC’s Net Neutrality Announcement: The Good, The Bad, and What It Means for You

POLITICO: Hill Based News roundup for FCC, FTC moves on the BIG DAY for Digital Privacy

WIKILEAKS DAYTIME SOAP EPIC CONTINUED… Will Asange be prosecuted or arraigned? US Cyber-attack retribution billed as “weak” @WIRED.   And its gets worse.. watch this.

http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1

THE PROPERTY OF DIGITAL FINGERPRINTS – Cookies get fingered again for new digital privacy identity treachery @normative

5-11 Official Release


12 States overlooked with opposition to the Real ID Act


WASHINGTON -Advocacy researchers concluded late last week that only 13 out of 25 States were recognized for rejecting federal Real ID Act.  The flaw was first noticed during a hearing where legislation was reconsidered for  replacement by the PASS Act, July 15th.

Misinformation is currently billed as the primary cause of confusion. Local and national media reported large variances in the number of states opposed to the national identity program, ranging from 11 to 43.  Researchers from the ACLU, Electronic Privacy Information Center and the 5-11 Campaign sponsored a cohesive total of States after finding consistent errors in national reporting following the hearing.

There was no response from Homeland Security when asked about the reason for the discrepancy.

PASS Act to Continue Majority of Real ID policy

The PASS Act would carry forward the majority of the Real ID language, to the dismay of State level opponents to the Real ID Act.   States rejected the federal law due to the program’s lack of consideration for privacy, identity security and expensive compliance costs.  Edits to current federal law are viewed by PASS Act’s proponents as a way to incorporate privacy considerations and a way for States afford to implement the program.  

In a highly indirect alliance, supporters and opponents of the Real ID Act have come out against the newer legislation.  Those in favor of the Real ID Act say the PASS Act isn’t secure enough to stop terrorists.  Those opposed to the Real ID Act say the PASS Act goes against States wishes to reject an unfunded mandate and a way to outmaneuver State laws against a national identity boondoggle.

The Real ID Act originally was passed as a rider to a 2005 supplemental defense and tsunami relief appropriations bill.   Information about States who passed local laws against Real ID are listed below.
###
STATES WHO PASSED LOCAL LAWS AGAINST REAL ID 
STATES WHO PASSED LAWS OPPOSING REAL ID
TOTAL : 15 

AK, WA, ID, AZ, MT, OK, LA, GA, SC, NH, ME, VA, MN, OR, MO

STATES WHO PASSED RESOLUTIONS OPPOSING REAL ID
TOTAL : 10 

HI, NV, UT, CO, NE, SD, ND, AR, IL, TN

STATES WHO FILED LEGISLATION THAT DIDN’T MAKE IT in ’09
TOTAL: 7

IA, PA, WI, KY, TX, CT, MA