Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on March 06, 2012, 01:51:31 PM
-
White House follows EU’s lead with new Internet ‘rules of the road’
The Daily Caller ^ | 3/5/12 | Gene J. Koprowski
Posted on Tuesday, March 06, 2012 3:50:56 PM by ColdOne
This administration’s proposal asks Congress to codify the new rights, which include granting the federal government more police power. The Federal Trade Commission would be empowered with “direct enforcement authority” to ensure consumer data privacy, according to the strategy.
Overall, the Obama proposal includes seven principles to protect consumer privacy online, White House aides told reporters last week in a telephone briefing.
The proposed rules would also include an “enforceable code of conduct” that Internet companies would have to comply with, or face litigation or civil penalties, under the expanded FTC power. That agency’s power is currently more limited.
“A statute that allows the FTC to enforce the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights directly would provide flexibility and permit the FTC to address emerging privacy issues through specific enforcement actions governed by applicable procedural safeguards,” the White House said in its report.
The Obama administration proposal “mimics” policy ideas being put forth in Europe, Darren Hayes, a computer forensics and security expert at Pace University in New York, told TheDC.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
-
Any more exact details? looks like privacy protection, not censorship
-
Any more exact details? looks like privacy protection, not censorship
LOL - yeah - thats always the cover isint? i'm here from the govt and here to help!
-
White House follows EU’s lead with new Internet ‘rules of the road’
The Daily Caller ^ | 3/5/12 | Gene J. Koprowski
Posted on Tuesday, March 06, 2012 3:50:56 PM by ColdOne
This administration’s proposal asks Congress to codify the new rights, which include granting the federal government more police power. The Federal Trade Commission would be empowered with “direct enforcement authority” to ensure consumer data privacy, according to the strategy.
Overall, the Obama proposal includes seven principles to protect consumer privacy online, White House aides told reporters last week in a telephone briefing.
The proposed rules would also include an “enforceable code of conduct” that Internet companies would have to comply with, or face litigation or civil penalties, under the expanded FTC power. That agency’s power is currently more limited.
“A statute that allows the FTC to enforce the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights directly would provide flexibility and permit the FTC to address emerging privacy issues through specific enforcement actions governed by applicable procedural safeguards,” the White House said in its report.
The Obama administration proposal “mimics” policy ideas being put forth in Europe, Darren Hayes, a computer forensics and security expert at Pace University in New York, told TheDC.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Consumer data privacy? Sounds like fancy wording for "Anti-Piracy re-worded so people wont get so angry when we control the flow of information" to me.
Anytime something they want badly gets shot down,... something else that seems similar but with different wording comes out , and it usually winds up being the same thing. Only worded so our loss of rights seems more justifiable.
I dont see the government passing ANYTHING that gives people more internet privacy Ozmo, everything they do w/ regards to the net is trying to find ways to control info or content, or monitor our activity.
Be wary.
-
Yeah, nothing that grants the Federal Government more "police power" on the internet is going to bode well for citizens privacy.
Wouldnt suprise me to find out that this is Sopa re-worded and wrapped up in a "privacy protection" theme.
-
LOL - yeah - thats always the cover isint? i'm here from the govt and here to help!
true.
-
Consumer data privacy? Sounds like fancy wording for "Anti-Piracy re-worded so people wont get so angry when we control the flow of information" to me.
Anytime something they want badly gets shot down,... something else that seems similar but with different wording comes out , and it usually winds up being the same thing. Only worded so our loss of rights seems more justifiable.
I dont see the government passing ANYTHING that gives people more internet privacy Ozmo, everything they do w/ regards to the net is trying to find ways to control info or content, or monitor our activity.
Be wary.
Can you give some examples of what "internet rules of the road" entail in detail?
until then we are kind of debating in a vacuum dont ya think? I just want exacts, not spin one direction or another.
-
Can you give some examples of what "internet rules of the road" entail in detail?
until then we are kind of debating in a vacuum dont ya think? I just want exacts, not spin one direction or another.
DOES: "WE HAVE TO PASS THE BILL FIRST TO SEE WHATS IN IT" - mean anything to you?
-
Can you give some examples of what "internet rules of the road" entail in detail?
until then we are kind of debating in a vacuum dont ya think? I just want exacts, not spin one direction or another.
Only thing im going on is in the article where it states that it will give the Federal Gov more "police power" (<---- actual quote from the article) over the internet.
Police Power and Federal government never combine to equal privacy for citizens in my book.
But yes, until we can read the whole thing, were arguing without the facts. Although, that has ever stopped us before.
-
DOES: "WE HAVE TO PASS THE BILL FIRST TO SEE WHATS IN IT" - mean anything to you?
we do?
-
Only thing im going on is in the article where it states that it will give the Federal Gov more "police power" (<---- actual quote from the article) over the internet.
Police Power and Federal government never combine to equal privacy for citizens in my book.
But yes, until we can read the whole thing, were arguing without the facts. Although, that has ever stopped us before.
HAHAHAHAHHAAH
ok which side would you like me to take? ;D
(i just want to see exactly what, that's all)
PS: i realize what it states in the article, but that's a conclusion of the writer, i want to see exactly what they are doing to censor the internet.
-
we do?
That is the stance of pelosi and obama and reid - so i wont trust these thugs with anything they claim to be in my best interests.
99% obama has some corrupt donor lined up to make billions off of this all for a 38k donation.
Thugbama works cheap.
-
That is the stance of pelosi and obama and reid - so i wont trust these thugs with anything they claim to be in my best interests.
99% obama has some corrupt donor lined up to make billions off of this all for a 38k donation.
Thugbama works cheap.
so we do or we don't?
can you back the that up?
-
I think he's referencing some bill they were trying to pass, where one of them literally said that we would have to read the bill after we passed it. (not sure what the circumstances were)
-
The White House is following the lead of the European Union in advocating for new Internet privacy laws which put consumers’ interests ahead of those of cyber-businesses, policy analysts told The Daily Caller.
According to a report released last week by the Obama administration, Internet browser purveyors are using tracking technology to monitor consumers’ online behavior and lists of the websites they visit. That information is resold to marketers who send targeted, customized ads to the consumers’ computers or smartphones.
The new “Internet privacy principles” announced last week by the administration are intended to lead to new laws protecting the public from some privacy-averse policies of companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook.
This administration’s proposal asks Congress to codify the new rights, which include granting the federal government more police power. The Federal Trade Commission would be empowered with “direct enforcement authority” to ensure consumer data privacy, according to the strategy.
Overall, the Obama proposal includes seven principles to protect consumer privacy online, White House aides told reporters last week in a telephone briefing.
The proposed rules would also include an “enforceable code of conduct” that Internet companies would have to comply with, or face litigation or civil penalties, under the expanded FTC power. That agency’s power is currently more limited.
“A statute that allows the FTC to enforce the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights directly would provide flexibility and permit the FTC to address emerging privacy issues through specific enforcement actions governed by applicable procedural safeguards,” the White House said in its report.
The Obama administration proposal “mimics” policy ideas being put forth in Europe, Darren Hayes, a computer forensics and security expert at Pace University in New York, told TheDC.
The “online privacy and data protection” laws are aimed at providing a shield to consumers in Europe from unsavory marketing practices, Hayes said. Legal journals in the U.S. have advocated the European approach for years, he said, claiming its regulations were more sophisticated than the “wild west” mentality that has prevailed in U.S. Internet culture since the 1990s.
The administration and observers are referring to the proposal informally as the “Do Not Track” measure.
But “’do not track’ really means ‘do not target’ because advertisers and websites can still collect all of your data like they did before,” said Sarah Downey, a lawyer with Abine, an Internet privacy company. “The difference is they can’t use that information to target you with personalized ads.”
Other experts, however, believe the government should not be involved in this area of the economy at all, and that consumers should continue to protect themselves online without Washington’s help.
“Not to put too fine a point on it, but the solution and problem is not technology,” explained Dr. Jacob D. Furst, director of the information assurance center at DePaul University. “It’s behavior.”
“To protect themselves,” Furst told TheDC, “consumers need to be smart about their online behaviors.”
He noted that nearly every online merchant already posts a privacy policy on its website. Many political sites — former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign website, for instance — also have such privacy policies.
Consumers should read these policies, Furst said, and if they don’t like what the site proposes to do with the data coming from their visits, they can go elsewhere.
“We must all be guardians of our own privacy,” he said. “If we don’t care enough to protect it, no government-sponsored program will do it for us.”
Some business leaders fear unintended economic consequences from the Obama administration’s proposal, which might extend far enough to hamper e-commerce by driving up the cost of doing business online.
“This aggressive move by the president may largely affect the cost for targeted ads online,” said Kenneth Wisnefski, CEO of the online ad agency WebiMax.
“For example, the cost of bids on certain keywords for targeted advertisements will most likely increase as consumers block certain advertisements,” he told TheDC. “This may actually drive up the cost for targeted ads in the long run.”
Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others “may get hurt from this as advertisers cut back their campaigns,” he added, “if their average CPM [cost per thousand ad impressions] is dropping significantly.”
The White House, however, strongly disagrees, seeing the issue as one of fundamental fairness to consumers.
“The Internet Bill of Rights is so important,” Obama said. “American consumers can’t wait any longer for clear rules of the road that ensure their personal information is safe online.
Join the conversation on The Daily Caller
Read more stories from The Daily Caller
White House follows EU’s lead with new Internet 'rules of the road'
TheDC Exclusive: Documentary filmmakers try to get government funding for 'Museum of Government Waste'
Another Tombstone showdown: The town vs. the federal government
Breitbart legacy lives on in relaunched websites, final column
Before Obama AIPAC speech, Pro-Hamas graffiti suggests violence
-
-
I think he's referencing some bill they were trying to pass, where one of them literally said that we would have to read the bill after we passed it. (not sure what the circumstances were)
that's 1 bill or is that a matter of practice now with every bill?
-
that's 1 bill or is that a matter of practice now with every bill?
LMFAO!!!!
Are you fucking kidding?
Everything these assholes have passed has been the same way!
Dodd Frank anybody?
-
anything in the article that Blacken posted that can be construed as censorship?
-
LMFAO!!!!
Are you fucking kidding?
Everything these assholes have passed has been the same way!
Dodd Frank anybody?
so then its every bill?
if not how many?
what percentage?
where they defense oriented bills?
-
so then its every bill?
if not how many?
what percentage?
where they defense oriented bills?
FAIL!!!
Stim Bill - "Shovel Ready" - oh yeah - paying for solyndra, ball washing, pelosi's pet mouse, etc.
ObamaCare - "more access", "Lower premiuims", "wont add to the deficit" - REALLY?
Dodd Frank - "most stringent law since the depression" - enshrines TBTF - more costs for consumers, etc.
Only an abject fucking idiot, WHICH YOU ARE IF YOU BELIEVE OBAMA IN THIS, would believe that this will be in the publics' best interest.
-
After reading that... I dont really know what to think.
I hate the idea of companies being able to know everything about every piece of tech I own, track what sites I visit, etc... But I also dont like the idea of the government stepping in and determining whats ok and whats not.
I personally dont have a lot of these problems, I avoid as much as I can web wise, and am smart about what I visit, what I use, what I download, etc... HOWEVER, many companies can bundle software with their critical components that send info back to the companies about your habits (which I believe is wrong)...
I just dont know what to think on this subject. Government is the most inefficient way to deal with this. But something needs to be done to ensure that companies cant spy on your habits using the tech you purchase from them.
Maybe the thing to do, is to have an opt-out policy, where when you install the software, buy the phone, etc, youre required to be able to opt out of their info grabbing tactics.
-
BTW Ozmo, until we can read the whole bill, we dont know if there is censorship or not, because invariably these guys will use bills like this, bury something like SOPA deep inside a 1000 page bill no one will read, and we wont know about it until it passes or someone sits down and reads the whole thing.
Its happened far too many times for me to trust the government, they take well meaning bills and cram their shit that no one will pass otherwise into a corner no one will find, and BAM, they just got their way without anyone knowing.
-
BTW Ozmo, until we can read the whole bill, we dont know if theyre is censorship or not, because invariably these guys will use bills like this, bury something like SOPA deep inside a 1000 page bill no one will read, and we wont know about it until it passes or someone sits down and reads the whole thing.
Its happened far too many times for me to trust the government, they take well meaning bills and cram their shit that no one will pass otherwise into a corner no one will find, and BAM, they just got their way without anyone knowing.
Patriot Act, TSA, NDAA, etc - YEAH - LETS TRUST THE GOVT AGAIN ! ! ! !
-
FAIL!!!
Stim Bill - "Shovel Ready" - oh yeah - paying for solyndra, ball washing, pelosi's pet mouse, etc.
ObamaCare - "more access", "Lower premiuims", "wont add to the deficit" - REALLY?
Dodd Frank - "most stringent law since the depression" - enshrines TBTF - more costs for consumers, etc.
Only an abject fucking idiot, WHICH YOU ARE IF YOU BELIEVE OBAMA IN THIS, would believe that this will be in the publics' best interest.
so then its every bill? or no? what percentage?
Was the Obamacare read only after it passed?
How about stim bill? read only after it passed?
What percentage of bills are read only after?
-
Patriot Act, TSA, NDAA, etc - YEAH - LETS TRUST THE GOVT AGAIN ! ! ! !
You will is OB is out and some retread repub gets in.
-
BTW Ozmo, until we can read the whole bill, we dont know if there is censorship or not, because invariably these guys will use bills like this, bury something like SOPA deep inside a 1000 page bill no one will read, and we wont know about it until it passes or someone sits down and reads the whole thing.
Its happened far too many times for me to trust the government, they take well meaning bills and cram their shit that no one will pass otherwise into a corner no one will find, and BAM, they just got their way without anyone knowing.
you can bet there will be people looking deep into this thing. too much is riding on it. Call them our SOPA watch dogs.
But i will not fall in line over spin, which is what's happening here with you guys immediately claiming its censorship based on no facts.
-
You will is OB is out and some retread repub gets in.
There is no answer with the current crop of politicians, Im holding out hope that Ron Paul is going to ninja the fuck out of everyone and show up with a shit ton of delegates at the end.
Thats pretty much the only thing to hold on hope to.
If Romney gets in, with a repub controlled congress...., it may wind up Obama v2.0 with no checks or balances. Wouldnt that be horrible?
Oh wait, worse option - Santorum with a Repub controlled congress, could you imagine that wackjob with no checks?
Everywhere I look, nothing is going to get better, I feel like were on a downward slide and no one is willing to what it takes to fix things, and until we start actually looking at whats really happening to the country, no one will do that. Everyone is too interested in their own little stupid personal issues like Abortion and Gay marriage to look at the big picture - none of the other shit will matter if the economy collapses.
-
you can bet there will be people looking deep into this thing. too much is riding on it. Call them our SOPA watch dogs.
But i will not fall in line over spin, which is what's happening here with you guys immediately claiming its censorship based on no facts.
See - you still believe the govt. I dont. I start from the premise that these thugs and traitors are trying to screw us and are conflicted by political donations and cant be trusted to pass anything.
We need to repeal laws, not add new ones.
-
you can bet there will be people looking deep into this thing. too much is riding on it. Call them our SOPA watch dogs.
But i will not fall in line over spin, which is what's happening here with you guys immediately claiming its censorship based on no facts.
I wouldnt call being wary of government trends spin. Anytime the words "police powers" come up with a government bill, its time to be wary.
A citizens job is to be wary of the government. Were supposed to keep them in line. Its our job to constantly question them, force them to be transparent, force them to be honest, cause its clear they dont have our best interests at heart and if we didnt they wouldnt give a flying fuck if we were all locked up in cages.
Just my .02.
-
I wouldnt call being wary of government trends spin. Anytime the words "police powers" come up with a government bill, its time to be wary.
A citizens job is to be wary of the government. Were supposed to keep them in line. Its our job to constantly question them, force them to be transparent, force them to be honest, cause its clear they dont have our best interests at heart and if we didnt they wouldnt give a flying fuck if we were all locked up in cages.
Just my .02.
no, but calling it censorship when its clearly advertised as protecting privacy is "spinning it"
the government doesn't want us in cages. Hard to pay taxes from cages.
-
no, but calling it censorship when its clearly advertised as protecting privacy is "spinning it"
the government doesn't want us in cages. Hard to pay taxes from cages.
It wasnt meant literally. And I hardly call being wary of a bill giving the Federal government more direct Police Powers over the internet under the guise of privacy protection spinning it.
I wouldnt be like this if the government didnt do exactly that kind of shit all the time.
I will not take their word at face value on ANYTHING anymore.
Burn me one, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me.
-
It wasnt meant literally. And I hardly call being wary of a bill giving the Federal government more direct Police Powers over the internet under the guise of privacy protection spinning it.
I wouldnt be like this if the government didnt do exactly that kind of shit all the time.
I will not take their word at face value on ANYTHING anymore.
Burn me one, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me.
I hear ya, I was referring to the thread title.
-
I hear ya, I was referring to the thread title.
Ah.
333 tends to have good instincts on this kind of shit though, wouldnt surprise me if in a couple months he's vindicated, lol.
He seems pretty good at calling Gov BS.
-
Ah.
333 tends to have good instincts on this kind of shit though, wouldnt surprise me if in a couple months he's vindicated, lol.
He seems pretty good at calling Gov BS.
We will see. Lots of people watch for stuff regarding the internet. If they try and slip in some crap we will know about fast.
-
This regime's obsession with Europe, a dying continent, amazes me.
The EU is leading the way in police state tactics and the Usurper can't wait to get on board.
-
This regime's obsession with Europe, a dying continent, amazes me.
The EU is leading the way in police state tactics and the Usurper can't wait to get on board.
It's been going on for a long time. The UK has been at the front of police state BS for 30+ years and for some stupid reason we always seem compelled to adopt the big brother type of shit they get away with.
-
Ah.
333 tends to have good instincts on this kind of shit though, wouldnt surprise me if in a couple months he's vindicated, lol.
He seems pretty good at calling Gov BS.
I am from the Bronx and deal with bad, devious, dishonest, and dangerous people daily.
I can spot the terrible people immediately. Obama from the moment I first saw him set my radar off. I knew immediately as far back as 2004 when he first entered the scene he was a mortal danger to this nation.
sadly, the naive idiots in this country are too stupid and ignorant to the reality of what's out there to see it.
It sickens me how ignorant of evil most people in this country are and fall for charlatans and frauds like. Obama.