More Privacy Laws Don't Mean More Privacy

from the think-this-through dept

There's evidence that we're about to see a big new push in "privacy" laws at both the state and federal level, and while privacy is important, these laws often do the exact opposite of what they're intended to do. They, like so many laws, do a lot more to give politicians headlines so they can say they protected constituents' privacy, but the reality is quite different. A recent Forbes article explored what a mess privacy regulations have become, basically creating huge bureaucracies in order to comply with the laws, but having little to do with actually protecting privacy. Instead, the added regulations have just created the need for people to sign various consent forms that they don't understand, and limited certain types of useful information sharing, while making it that much more difficult to accomplish certain basic tasks. And, on top of everything, in some cases it's actually increasing the privacy risk, by requiring the collection of certain "private" info in a database that now makes it that much more vulnerable.

No one denies that protecting privacy is important -- but that's not what's being done. Instead, politicians are rushing through legislation to make it look like privacy is being protected, when all it really does is create extra burdens on both companies and users without any corresponding privacy benefit.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Hollywood's Favorite Lawmakers Preparing Next Level Of Draconian Copyright Laws

from the because-ProIP-wasn't-enough dept

Because (of course) last year's ProIP bill that (once again) strengthened copyright laws wasn't enough, Hollywood's favorite lawmakers all got together outside of LA and complained about how copyright laws needed to be even more draconian. They once again quoted the same mythical stats about the damage done by infringement, and didn't hear from a single defender of the public or someone who could explain the basic fact that strengthening copyright law doesn't solve anything. Instead, they just complained, blamed pretty much every foreign country (other than France) and insisted "something must be done!"

Apparently changing their business models to adapt to a changing marketplace has yet to be considered. Not when all of these Congressional Reps from California have no problem swallowing made up stats and misleading fear mongering from an industry unwilling to embrace new business models. Instead, they blame everyone else, including apparently a major session blaming Canada. It's still not clear why Hollywood thinks Canada is such a copyright pariah. The country already has pretty strong copyright laws and doesn't seem to be a haven for piracy at all.

The only country they did seem to like? Apparently that would be France, which just sneakily (after most of Parliament had gone home for the night) passed a three strikes bill. The entertainment industry execs seemed to think this might be a perfect solution -- once again looking to kill off any opportunity to create a better business model, and instead piss off fans and drive them further underground. It's like seeing the same dumb horror movie over and over again, where we the consumers/audience keeps yelling out "no, don't go in there!" and yet they still go in there, make the same mistakes over again and end up only damaging themselves. Is it really that difficult for them to recognize that the business model is the issue, and no amount of increased copyright protection is going to change that?

In the meantime, it's pretty sickening that our elected officials would choose only to hear from one extremely biased side on the debate, and will now introduce legislation that bails out that one industry at the expense of the public. Clearly, these hearings were not to "hear" anything new -- but to put on a puppet show prior to already written (by the industry) legislation to be introduced.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Mostly Toothless Video Game Bill Passes the Utah Legislature

from the where-are-the-regulations-against-silly-regulations? dept

The Utah legislature has seemed strangely obsessed with technology issues this session. Perhaps spurred on by a questionable BYU study on the problems created by video games, the Utah legislature has passed a bill promoted by disgraced lawyer and anti-videogame activist Jack Thompson to regulate the sale of video games to minors. The good news, as Ars Technica reports, is that the law was largely defanged during the legislative process. Under the final version of the bill, retailers would not be liable for selling M-rated video games to minors if they'd put their employees through a training program. They'd also not be liable if the children had gotten the games by lying about their age. With that said, there's still plenty to object to here. For starters, the legislation punishes retailers for failing to follow their published policy on video game sales. That means that a retailer that has a strong policy against selling to minors will face more liability if it breaks that policy than a retailer that doesn't have such a policy. This could have the perverse effect of discouraging retailers from adopting strong policies against selling violent video games to children. It will also force a lot of retailers to put their employees through "training" programs that may be completely unnecessary. But probably the most serious problem with this legislation is that it may be an opening wedge for future regulation of video game sales. Expect the same interest groups that pushed this legislation through to come back in future years with bills that would close the "loopholes" in this year's legislation.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Are Industry Best Practices Enough To Protect Net Neutrality?

from the no-sticks-anymore,-just-carrots dept

For the supporters of net neutrality, an Obama White House, Genachowski FCC and Democratic Congress seemed to be the magic combination to ensure an open, non-discriminatory Internet. However, one of the key proponents, Representative Boucher, has recently suggested that he is switching tactics, "scrapping the idea of pursuing legislation mandating an openly accessible Internet in favor of negotiations with stakeholders aimed at reaching a comprehensive accord." An agreement upon industry best practices could, in theory, be a good way to protect net neutrality, but there are causes for concern.

As Techdirt contributor Tim Lee pointed out in his paper on net neutrality, the unintended consequences of legislation may be costly and inefficient. So, voluntary agreements could create a flexible, realistic approach to protecting an important principle. Something similar happened with the Global Network Initiative that brought together Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!, along with academics and human rights organizations, to agree to a set of principles and enforcement mechanisms to protect and promote free expression and privacy around the globe. But the motivating factor of this agreement was the threat of legislation following very humiliating Congressional hearings on American Internet companies' dealings in China. By creating a voluntary set of best practices, the Global Network Initiative sidestepped the unintended consequences of poorly drafted legislation. The ISPs could do similarly, but by publicly stating his change of tactics, Boucher may have removed the motivating factor.

Another key to any agreement would be competition in the ISP marketplace. In Norway, where they recently created a similar agreement between ISPs and consumer protection agencies to mandate non-discrimination of networks and endpoints, the ISPs are in a competitive sector. Because ISPs there recognize the competitive advantage of staying neutral, there is a force pushing them in that direction. In the United States, the driving force was largely the threat of legislation, and hopefully that is still there as Boucher guides the ISPs towards his comprehensive accord.

Kevin Donovan is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Kevin Donovan and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How Do You Legislate Fewer Attacks On Homeland Security's Network?

from the it's-called-wishful-thinking dept

While it is a bit troubling that the Department of Homeland Security has had some computer security problems recently, it's difficult to see exactly how that's solved by legislation. But, of course, to politicians with a legislative hammer, every little problem looks like a nail. Thus, we've got politicians proposing cybersecurity legislation that would require Homeland Security to decrease the number of successful cybersecurity attacks against its network. While that's certainly an admirable goal, it's not as if DHS was purposely letting the attacks go through before, and will suddenly shape up just because of this new law.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Oh Look, Once Again A Judge Has Tossed Out Video Game Sale Ban As Unconstitutional

from the yes,-again dept

Over and over and over and over and over and over again, state politicians have been passing laws that ban the sale of certain video games to children and every single time the laws are struck down as unconstitutional. Yet, local politicians keep proposing similar laws. Why? Because it gives them a talking point for the next election and making it look like they're "protecting the children" (even if the law does no such thing). However, what they're really doing is wasting taxpayer money, because every time one of these unconstitutional laws is passed, the state has to go to court to defend it, only to find it thrown out again. The latest state to waste taxpayer money over this? My home state of California, who has now had its law thrown out as unconstitutional, just like all the rest. Let's make this clear: more than ten states have passed these laws and not a single one has been found to be constitutional. Any politician passing such a law these days knows that they're wasting taxpayer money on a law that will undoubtedly be found unconstitutional -- and yet they do it anyway. What does that say about the politicians pushing such legislation?

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Senate Proposes Giving The FCC Authority To Regulate Internet Content... For The Children

from the but,-of-course dept

Long ago politicians figured out that the way to get controversial or overly broad legislation through Congress was to simply say it's to protect the children. No politician wants to see a commercial from opponents in their next election about how he or she voted against protecting the children. However, it's for that reason that you should look extra carefully at such legislation, as it very rarely actually does much to protect any children, and quite often sneaks in things that are quite dangerous (not just to children). The Senate Commerce Committee has passed a bill, for the children of course, that would push the FCC to investigate next generation "v-chip" technology to allow parents to block their kids from seeing certain content. Now, it's a noble idea -- but in practice... it can be quite troublesome. As Sean Garrett highlights, the law actually is a backdoor way to allow the FCC to regulate online content. Right now, the FCC can only regulate content broadcast over the airwaves, though there have been some efforts underway to give them regulatory say over other content as well. However, doing that directly would be controversial, so this bill lets them sneak the FCC's regulatory authority into the internet tent, for the sake of the children, of course. One section would require the FCC to look into new content controls for all "wired, wireless, and Internet platforms." In other words, it would open the door to the FCC having some regulatory power over all forms of content. That's well beyond the FCC's charter and should be seen as quite problematic, especially since there's a huge difference between broadcast content and communications. Unfortunately, this legislation seems to think that communications networks are no different than broadcast systems.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..