-
big brother
-
Big Brother and the Internet
23 Dec 2010 by Jessica Hughes / 1 Comment
The Technology Liberation Front website posted this great breakdown of why the coming FTC regulation of the internet will be lousy for you and great for Big Brother.
FTC Endorses “Do Not Track” Information Control Regime for the Internet
by Adam Thierer on December 1, 2010 · 2 Comments
This morning, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released its eagerly-awaited Preliminary FTC Staff Report on Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers. As expected, the agency has generally endorsed an expanded regulatory regime to govern online data collection and advertising efforts in the name of protecting consumer privacy. More specifically, the agency endorsed a so-called “Do Not Track” mechanism that would supposedly help consumers block unwanted data collection or advertising. Here’s how the agency describes it:
Such a universal mechanism could be accomplished by legislation or potentially through robust, enforceable self-regulation. The most practical method of providing uniform choice for online behavioral advertising would likely involve placing a setting similar to a persistent cookie on a consumer’s browser and conveying that setting to sites that the browser visits, to signal whether or not the consumer wants to be tracked or receive targeted advertisements. To be effective, there must be an enforceable requirement that sites honor those choices. (p. 66)
I’m sure we’ll have plenty more to say here about the issue in coming weeks and months (comments on the FTC report are due by Jan. 31), but we’ve already commented on this proposal here before. See 1, 2, 3. To briefly summarize a few of those concerns:
- Ironically, depending on how it’s implemented, a “Do Not Track” mechanism could potentially require individuals to surrender more personal information about themselves to companies or the government for purposes of authentication and enforcement of the rule.
- It would also require a re-architecting of the Internet and the potential regulation of every web browser to ensure compliance. This will give the FTC and other lawmakers far greater control over the Internet’s architecture.
- For that reason, one can easily imagine would-be Net censors using the “Do Not Track” mechanism being used as a blueprint to regulate other types of online speech.
- One also wonders if mandatory browser controls opens up a potential new back-door for government surveillance snoops to exploit.
- Most importantly, if “Do Not Track” really did work as billed, it could fundamentally upend the unwritten quid pro quo that governs online content and services: Consumers get lots of “free” sites, services, and content, but only if we generally agree to trade some data about ourselves and have ads served up. After all, as we’ve noted many times before here, there is no free lunch. The cornucopia of seemingly free services and content at our fingertips didn’t just fall to Earth like manna from heaven. Data collection and advertising made that all happen. If we undercut this goose that lays the Internet’s golden eggs, consumers could see charges on many services that they currently pay little to nothing for. Do you want to pay $20 a month for your favorite social networking site? A dime per search on your preferred search engine? Well, that’s the future that could await us if we continue down this regulatory road.
Again, more analysis to come.
-
Rejoice, Dear Citizens for You Are Saved!
27 Nov 2010 by Jessica Hughes / 3 Comments
Alright, I am ready to call shenanigans on this one. Here’s this disgruntled teen who was trying to get in touch with terrorists but he couldn’t. So the F.B.I. steps in undercover and for 18 months they have been aiding this loser in launching what he thinks will be a terrorist attack on an Oregon Christmas Tree Festival.
This kid is scum, no doubt. He was willing to see little kids blown up all over the town square. But doesn’t anyone think this is a bit weird? The video is below but let me highlight what I believe are some salient points.
First of all, he wasn’t actually able to get in contact with a terrorist to help him plot anything. By all available accounts this plan only went beyond fantasy because our own federal agents contacted him and provided the means for him to move forward. So of course there is the chance that there never would have been an actionable crime committed had agents not cleared the way. Granted it’s about impossible to feel bad that a guy who would blow up kids gets entrapped, but is this the function we want our government to fill? Cultivating crimes so that they can prosecute them?
Which secondly raises the question: If the threat of terrorism is so all-pervasive that it requires us to be molested at airports and pay for 200,000 employees of the Department of Homeland Security, then why do they have the time to put who-knows-how-many resources into this teenager who couldn’t even get his plan off the ground? I might see some rationale to an 18 month sting operation involving no less than five police agencies at the federal, state, and local levels if we were coming away with some actionable intelligence about other terrorist plots, but this? According to reports there is absolutely no extension to this case and the whole reason the F.B.I. got involved is because they saw an opportunity arise when this kid was unable to make the contacts required to carry out an attack.
Also, wouldn’t it have been cheaper for the F.B.I. to show up at his house in the first place and say, “Hey, Mahmud. You’re a moron. We know you’ve been trying to get an attack under way because here are copies of all your emails. We’ll be keeping an eye out so you might want to wise up.” A well-placed anonymous tip to a local newspaper and the private sector could have started digging, filing those FOIA requests, and producing an expose about Mahmud at very little cost to the taxpayer. His face would still have become famous and he would have thought twice about any more reaching out to Pakistani terrorists.
So in sum total we have an incalculable cost to the taxpayer in order to help a disgruntled but impotent wanna-be terrorist plot for 18 months to plant a fake bomb built by our own F.B.I. so they can arrest a lone crazy and the media is behaving as though Bin Laden had finally been produced. In the clip below they proclaim “Great, great police work!” Really? Is this honestly such a big bust, because if I were the Special Agent in Charge of performing this kabuki theatre I would be embarrassed. I’d be worried I was going to have my butt handed to me and my pay-grade reduced for expending so many man-hours to catch this lone loser doing exactly what I taught him how to do.
So what explains the inordinate fervor of celebration over this minor accomplishment? Either these guys never foil a plot of any real import, or the powers that be perceive a need right now to impress upon the unwashed masses that we live in a very, very dangerous world where only Big Brother and his extreme measures can keep us safe. Maybe both; maybe this was just the sexiest terror-related incident to be found on the heels of national uproar over the increasingly oppressive police state represented by TSA molestations, naked scanners, abolition of the right to grow our own food, and DHS seizures of websites. Just consider this quote from the Oregon U.S. Attorney, Dwight Holton:
This defendant’s chilling determination is a stark reminder that there are people — even here in Oregon — who are determined to kill Americans. The good work of law enforcement protected Oregonians in this case — and we have no reason to believe there is any continuing threat arising from this case.
I know one thing, while I am happy Mahmud failed to blow anyone up, Big Brother has also failed. He has failed to convince me that his progressively domineering ways keep me safer. How about you?
-
-
