US President Obama has proposed a "bill of rights" for online privacy that could give the US government greater powers to wallop the likes of Google and Facebook for fumbling sensitive data. White House chiefs have told the Commerce Department to herd internet companies, privacy advocates and related bods into a room to develop …
Weren't they just complaining...
... that the same sort of thing proposed by the EU was surely the deathknell of interstate commerce, or something?
Re: Weren't they just complaining...
Yes, most "experts" on the radio over here are attributing it to the UK as to why they will follow these guidelines.
The thinking goes that by following this joke political standard, they will have some protections from the UK which were told is way more privacy savvy than the US.
But considering the President has no issues signing NDAA, its hard for any sane American to believe that the government gives a damn about your privacy.
BILL OF RIGHTS FOR WHO
it is a dangerous proposition, it gives people with something to hide something to hide behind.
Who benefits from this, especially where Governments and their leaders can hide behind walls they create for themselves.
Nothing much to see here
Just a reminder that this is an election year in the U. S., and anything a job seeker or office holder says must be evaluated in that context. H. L. Mencken, in the first half of the 20th century discussed this fully; only the implementation details have changed since.
no rule that says once they already have your data then you can't ask them to delete it.
Why bother, the man has been the most ineffectual President the US has seen in a while, probably on a par with Carter. Once you get past being the first black US President and getting Bin Laden (although he probably had little to do with that other than giving the go ahead) what have you left. Gitmo is still operational, the banks still got their money and no accountability for it, the Health Care bill was so watered down and concessioned to death that it's practically useless. Quite frankly his rally cry for his next campaign should be "No we didn't".
Sadly, the US is now likely to get some Republican lunatic (probably Mitt Romney) as the next President, although to be fair he seems to be a good bit less loony than Bush, Boener, Palin, McCain or indeed 75% of the other GOP representatives.
And whose fault is this?
"the man has been the most ineffectual President the US has seen in a while"
I'm more likely to blame a system that ensures politicians are in eternal re-election mode, coupled with a "me first" attitude that the populace presents, which of course differs wildly from region to region. There's no room for moderation, compromise, or pragmatism in that system with that populace.
The system would work if the populace were more pragmatic, or the populace could all agree to change the system. I don't see either of those happening in the next century or so.
Obama had more to do with getting bin laden then you think. 23 high level terrorist were killed under his watch . How many under bush's watch ?
Carter is a good analogy
When Obama looked to be headed for the presidency over McCain in 2008, I asked my father (who's seen a thing or two and who has a pretty sharp eye for people's character) which former president he (Obama) seemed most like. We both came up with Carter, and fairly quickly. Following on the heels of a once-popular -then-not Republican president who had us in a longterm war with an enemy fighting in a new way, and with a scandal-plagued VP, America was reaching for a relative unknown (with a pushy wife) who was just left of Trotsky and wanted to tax us and nationalize everything this side of sex while the economy was going south. Add in some class warfare and lefty media bias and Russia and China each throwing its weight around, bailing out finacial types and auto makers, ...
And I agree, the Republicans are being handed an opportunity on a platter, but the only two good cadidates (Barber, Daniels) didn't run.
Let me just end this by saying it's not always easy being a libertarian.
Re: And whose fault is this?
Gordon, I'd rather have politicians running for reelection than actually DOING something.
What about a 'bill of rights' against warrant less wiretapping?
Oh I forgot there is one - and you helped shat all over it.
Re: Hey Obama
"...and you helped shat all over it."
I believe the word is "shit". "Shat" is past tense I believe. :D
Sentiment is spot on though!
NSA and USA breaks the law with impunity, so what is the point of a new fake law?
LOL, what does such a law matter when Obama, the administration and the USA security state break it with impunity, and then retroactively grant the telecoms immunity for spying on Americans for them? This was all illegal before, when the NSA ease-dropped on pretty much all Americans post 911. This was all well exposed in the excellent expose by Jane Mayer of the New Yorker that won a Polk award this very week.
Obama and Bush have destroyed the rule of law in American and this purported effort at a law to protect privacy is smoke and mirrors and another circus act to distract idiots from Obama's war against privacy and the bill of rights. Insane dishonesty. And the fake paper progressives who will support Obama just because he is a democrat, not having any real principals, will eat this up.
This is being hailed as ...
... a victory for the Google/Facebook Axis of Evil in the US Press.
True, Obama is paying off his "old friends" for early support.
There are two problems:
1. The EU, world+dog
2. US State and Local Governments.
They all have the same problem. Not the Rule of Law, but rather the Rule of Mom. I don't know how to say "sit up straight, don't talk with your mouth full, no running with scissors, no jumping on the beds ... etc.." in Hungarian. Hungarian kids do, and probably hear it a lot, just like Chinese and American kids. Social Networks with a "man in the middle" short circuit the Rule of Mom. They go around Governments directly to the governed. This will not stand.