We Need A "Do Not Track" List
Over a decade ago, the federal government did something which made people's lives better. A law was passed by a Republican House and a Republican Senate and signed by a Republican president, and it has demonstrably made people's lives better. It was called the "Do-Not-Call Implementation Act" and it created a government database where private individuals could voluntarily add their phone number to block its use by telemarketers. So far, it's been a smashing success, and the law was improved by making the list permanent (so people don't have to keep signing up for it) in 2007. Also in that year, a survey showed that 72 percent of Americans had registered for the list. The time has now come to build upon this landmark legislation and create a "Do Not Track" list, to further protect consumers' privacy.
While I have to admit that the recent news that Senator Dianne Feinstein has discovered a new love for the Fourth Amendment, when she realized she was being spied upon by a government agency (and which she is now being roundly ridiculed for, due to her previous lack of interest in upholding the Fourth Amendment for ordinary Americans), this is not actually the subject I'm writing about today. I admit that the news did inspire this column, but only because of a peripheral issue I noticed as a footnote in one of the Feinstein articles. President Obama's deadline for coming up with a plan to replace the N.S.A.'s bulk telephone metadata program is approaching at the end of this month. One of the suggestions made when Obama first announced this shift in policy never got the attention it deserved, perhaps because at first glance it sounded better than what's going on now: instead of the N.S.A. collecting all the telephone data (some suggested), why not have a private company do so instead? That way the big, bad government couldn't access the data without a court's approval.
Nobody ever offered up any details to this harebrained scheme. What company would go into this business, after all? Just vacuuming up telephone data and then creating a massive database of it all would be the business' main function, and doing so would be expensive (to say the least). But who would be its customers? The federal government might be convinced to pay for the data searches it required, but would that bring in enough money to fund the massive computer server installation it would require? Would the business somehow be legally barred from making any other sort of profit off the information it collected, or would it be free to sell the data on the open market? Is that really a better scenario than the N.S.A. holding the data in the first place? At least the way things are now, your telephone metadata isn't being sold in bulk to anyone willing to pay. Or maybe it is, but at least it's your own phone company doing the selling, and not some third party you've never even heard of.
Americans are now being tracked as they've never been tracked before. What is normal and accepted these days sounds like a tinfoil-hatted paranoiac's delusion from just a few decades ago, in fact. Imagine meeting a conspiracy theorist from the 1980s, if you will, and telling him that computer tracking chips have not, in fact, been implanted in everyone's brains by a secret government program, but instead we have all gone out and paid our own money for computer tracking chips, which we all then voluntarily carry around with us at all times. These chips track our location at all times, courtesy of a network of "global positioning" satellites put in space to do so, and the data is then harvested by the government without scary government doctors ever having to implant a single chip into a single baby's brain. The 1980s conspiracy theorist would probably chide you for coming up with such an unbelievable theory, and refuse to accept that we'd all ever pay our own money for such chips. Until you showed him your cellphone, of course.
Last week, CBS ran a segment on 60 Minutes about how much we are tracked online. "Data brokers" know an amazing array of things about anyone who surfs the web with any regularity, and they will happily sell this information to anyone who wishes to purchase it. The list of information tracked was a long and detailed one: name, sex, birthdate, religion, medical history (including prescription purchases), sexual preferences, what you buy, where you go, where you live, and so on. Also recently in the news was a story about companies that do nothing but track license plates of all the cars on public roads. They amass license plate data and then sell it, which together with vehicle registration records, gives any purchaser a complete record of everyone's travel. These days, it's hard to identify any piece of data which isn't tracked for hundreds of millions of Americans on an ongoing basis.
Americans, as things stand, don't have an explicit constitutional right to privacy. There is no privacy amendment (even though it'd probably be a good idea). The law is, quite obviously, on the side of those tracking and selling all this data. This is what needs to change.
We need a "Do Not Track" list, to compliment the "Do Not Call" registry. How it would work would be simple. You would go to a website (or call a number) and add your name to the list, on a voluntary basis. Nobody would be forced to use the list if they didn't want to, in other words, just like the Do Not Call list. On the website, you would make your own choices about what you didn't want tracked. You could list your name, or your computer's I.P. address, or your vehicle license number. There might be a row of checkboxes to select what level of privacy you desired, containing things like your birthdate or your prescription drug records. The amount of information you provide would be entirely up to you. If you didn't want to add your license plate number, then you could still have your name or your computer on the Do Not Track list, or vice versa.
Once on such a list, third-party private companies could not track your data. Period. Any data brokers would have to scrub their databases of everyone on the list before selling their data to any third party. This would include people who track website usage, medical data, license plate data, phone data, and any other personal data collected by a company without the consumer's knowledge.
As I said, it's a pretty simple idea. Do Not Track means do not track. At all.
The data brokers are currently operating in Wild West fashion. There are few rules to constrain them. They are breaking new technological ground -- even a few years ago, it would have been impossible to gather license plate data on such a scale, for instance. And in the data feeding frenzy, the consumer has almost no protection for the most private pieces of data about them.
So before anyone rolls out their "let's have a private company do what the N.S.A. is currently doing" plan, let's instead concentrate on the other side of the issue first. It is high time for Congress to take up the subject of consumer privacy. After a decade of the wildly-successful Do Not Call list, it is obvious that such a government system could be set up and could work as designed. OK, well, maybe hire someone different than the Obamacare website guys, but still....
Kidding aside, the only thing lacking for the creation of a Do Not Track list is political will. The core idea was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by George W. Bush, so there shouldn't be any ideological or partisan argument to even be made. The public would (if their enthusiastic acceptance of Do Not Call is any indication) be overwhelmingly in favor of such a law. Civil libertarians from both sides of the aisle could be the ones to boldly push such a bill -- say, a bill co-sponsored in the Senate by Rand Paul and Patrick Leahy. Freedom from unwanted tracking could be a rallying cry just about any politician should be able to support.
Do Not Track. It's simple, really. I don't want to be tracked. I don't want my name sold, my personal information sold, or my physical location sold. Period. I bet I'm not alone in that feeling, either.
We need a Do Not Track list. And we need it now.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
OK, that offline and annoying thing known as "real life" has been interfering in my time allotted for answering comments here, and I do apologize for that. I'm going to start from last Monday and work my way forward, although I can't promise I'll get up to date. In any case, here goes, and sorry for the break in service, as it were...
-CW
Well, I only made it up to last Tuesday. I'll get to the rest of it tomorrow, promise...
Anyway, check out last Monday (Crimea) and last Tuesday (poor, minimum wage) to see my comments. And sorry for the delay, once again...
-CW
As much as I'd like to be able to opt out of tracking, I think it would be difficult to implement (much less enforce) a central Do Not Track list. If I'm being called by telemarketers, I am aware of it, and can file a complaint against the callers if I have put my number on the Do Not Call list. How would I know if I was (or was not) being tracked by anyone, even if I did register myself on a Do Not Track list?
I do wish the law required an affirmative "opt in" requirement for any type of sharing or sale of personal information acquired by the myriad commercial & governmental entities with which we do business. But enforcement in practical terms would be very difficult for this idea as well.
Over a decade ago, the federal government did something which made people's lives better. A law was passed by a Republican House and a Republican Senate and signed by a Republican president, and it has demonstrably made people's lives better.
As I am wont to say, CW...
You set the standard... Wish more would follow you.. :D
Michale
The 1980s conspiracy theorist would probably chide you for coming up with such an unbelievable theory, and refuse to accept that we'd all ever pay our own money for such chips. Until you showed him your cellphone, of course.
"Do you know where I can get a signal for this??
(holds up cellphone to show 1973 John Winchester)
"Yea. How about the starship Enterprise."
-SUPERNATURAL, In The Beginning
:D
I understand why you would want to see such a thing happen, but it simply won't work..
And here's why..
The DO NOT CALL list is (somewhat) effective and is desirable because there isn't any National Security Concerns in having telemarketers contact people...
Put another way, if DO NOT CALL legislation was to come up under Democrats and Obama wanted to call people to pitch obamacare, you can bet that DO NOT CALL would never have happened..
But there ARE legitimate National Security concerns in being able to track people.
And, unfortunately, in the world we live in the line between National Security use and commercial/for profit use of tracking data is nearly non-existent..
DO NOT CALL was passed because the government did not have a pressing need to call people on the phone..
DO NOT TRACK legislation will never see the light of day because the government DOES have a pressing need to track people worldwide..
Welcome to your Democrat government. This is the bed ya'all made.. Now ya'all have to lay down on it..
But, credit where credit is due. At least YOU are making noise about it..
Most just blindly follow Obama and the Democrats with nary a whimper of protest...
So, kudos...
Michale
The global nature of communications has caught up with the effectiveness of D-N-Call to a significant degree.
Your mom get a recorded telemarketing call at 9 PM. You dutifully track down the number for her and make a complaint.
A few days later, you get the same telemarketing recording at 9PM, but from a different phone number.
Repeat.
The numbers originate from outside the US.
Some big name US corporations are involved in this crap, notably in the home security industry. They seem to be targeting the elderly. My mom, still using a land line, is like a sponge for this dodge. If you call the Big Corporate Sponsor to protest, you get some polite nonsense about sub-contractors and nothing happens. In fact, if you've done any business with the offending corporation in the recent past, they are probably operating within the law, or close enough.
Three points:
1) The criminal mind is endlessly creative.
2) US law only applies in the US, communications are global.
3) Where are the predator drones when you really need them? I want to see pink telemarketer mist!
Can you imagine the impact of effective Do Not Track???? The economic model of the Web disappears.
The value of Facebook, Google and lessor minions collapse to a singularity.
The US Economy might actually have to start making real things again, or if that's impossible, start offering services actually useful to the public.
OH, THE HORROR!
The US Economy might actually have to start making real things again, or if that's impossible, start offering services actually useful to the public.
OH, THE HORROR!
WOW...
And I thought *I* was sarcastically cynical... :D
Michale
Edward Snowden looms over Pulitzer Prizes
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/edward-snowden-pulitzer-prize-washington-post-guardian-nsa-104608.html
I'll say one thing..
If the Pulitzer Board doesn't award the Pulitzer to Greenwald et al, it will confirm what many Americans already know.
That the vast majority of the US MSM is nothing but a lapdog and a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party...
As much as I dislike the revelations and concede that they are a threat to national security, the hypocrisy in NOT naming Greenwald et al would be glaring and obvious...
In other words, these revelations do NOT serve the public interests. In fact, they RISK the public's safety...
But to NOT name Greenwald et al is to wallow in hypocrisy....
Michale...
civsonic -
Welcome to the site. Your comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post comments and see them immediately. Just don't post more than one link per comment, as that automatically gets held for moderation (to cut down on comment spam).
It would be harder to police than Do Not Call, but not much. The data brokers themselves would have to be overseen, to insure that the people on the list weren't included in the data they sell. So, in terms of enforcement, the burden would shift to policing those making the profit off the data. But it wouldn't be that hard to run through their data and check it against the DNT list, really. Technologically, it could be done.
Michale [4] -
I pointed out the history so that people could see this shouldn't be any sort of partisan issue whatsoever. Of course, the GOP of today is not the GOP of 2003 or 2007, so who knows?
As for government, I concentrated on commercial uses in this column for a reason -- to head off the expected "let's just make the NSA a private company" proposals that I just know are coming in the next few weeks...
Government tracking is a separate subject, as far as I'm concerned. Watch that CBS 60 Minutes segment, that's what I'm talking about.
TheStig [6] -
You're right, it's not perfect, and scammers still exist (I get calls from them too, and I just laugh and hang up). But it is much improved from where things were before the DNC law took effect. It has driven telemarketing underground, at the very least.
[7] -
Well, there is that. But a guy can dream, right?
Heh.
Michale [8] -
Yeah, you're right. That one was in the red on the snark-o-meter. Well done, TheStig!
:-)
Michale [9] -
What? Pulitzers? I'll check it out. I assume my nomination got lost in the mail again...
Heh.
-CW
CW,
I pointed out the history so that people could see this shouldn't be any sort of partisan issue whatsoever. Of course, the GOP of today is not the GOP of 2003 or 2007, so who knows?
I am also constrained to point out that the DO NOT CALL legislation passed nearly unamiously...
So, apparently, the Democrat Party today is not the Democrat Party of 2003... :D
Michale
Of course, we were still close enough to 9/11 where every person felt that they were AMERICANS first and foremost..
How the times have changed... :^/
Michale
You're right, it's not perfect, and scammers still exist (I get calls from them too, and I just laugh and hang up). But it is much improved from where things were before the DNC law took effect. It has driven telemarketing underground, at the very least.
You should do what I do..
I have an answering machine message that starts with a PHONE DISCONNECT recording..
It gets rid of 80% of the robo-calls.. :D
Michale
As for government, I concentrated on commercial uses in this column for a reason -- to head off the expected "let's just make the NSA a private company" proposals that I just know are coming in the next few weeks...
I look at that as Obama's way of saving face. Like he did with his Syrian "red line"...
It doesn't do ANY good, it doesn't go anywhere NEAR to actually solving the problem, but it gives Obama a way to say, "Yea, I did something about it" without actually, ya know, LEADING on the given issue...
Michale
civsonic,
As I am wont to do...
"Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
As much as I'd like to be able to opt out of tracking, I think it would be difficult to implement (much less enforce) a central Do Not Track list. If I'm being called by telemarketers, I am aware of it, and can file a complaint against the callers if I have put my number on the Do Not Call list. How would I know if I was (or was not) being tracked by anyone, even if I did register myself on a Do Not Track list
That's a very good point...
Further, how much of their private information would someone be required to give to a DO NOT TRACK list??
Further, THAT information would have to be tracked so as to determine if there is any tracking going on...
"Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed"
-Austin Powers, THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME
A DO NOT CALL list is (barely) doable because only one component is involved. The explosion of smartphones made the DO NOT CALL list almost unwieldy...
Imagine a DO NOT XXX list with dozens, HUNDREDS of different components...
Then throw in Government Tracking vs Commercial Tracking and all of the sudden ending climate change is a cake walk in the park by comparison...
Michale
Michale [13] -
OK, I have to say, that's a pretty brilliant scheme to foil the robocalls!
:-)
-CW
OK, I have to say, that's a pretty brilliant scheme to foil the robocalls!
I have my moments. :D
http://sjfm.us/temp/disconnected.mp3
Use it in good health... :D
Right click on the above link and then select SAVE or SAVE AS or whatever...
Michale
Seems an appropriate place to note that FBI headquarters is falling apart and will most likely relocate to a new building someplace else. That's the quickest and cheapest option according to the GAO, although D.C. being D.C the costliest and slowest option, refurbishment, may ultimately get the nod.
Either way, it's a great opportunity to retire the J. Edgar Hoover nameplate and honor somebody else. Or nobody else.
Dump the old letters in a landfill, or donate them to a museum of cross dressing, if one exists.
Oops, this isn't the most appropriate place, another of my famous "wrong thread" mistakes.