'Right to be forgotten' may not be enforceable - Vaizey Ed Vaizey said that introducing a "right to be forgotten" into a revised EU Data Protection Directive might give "false expectations" to people who would seek to have their personal data deleted under the new regime. "We support the idea that consumers should have more control over the processing of their data. And of course …
This post has been deleted by its author
Vaizey: "We should question the logic of trying to make firms outside of the EU subject to EU law"
Since citizens outside of the US are already subject to US law (Julian Assflange (tm), Gary McKinnon etc.), I reckon it's perfectly fine for us to claim corporate entities outside of the EU subject to EU law, if they use some internets to break EU legislation on computing devices located in the EU (regardless of their physical location). We've already got an extradition process in place with a load of countries, after all, and getting them to bundle the CEO of AdClick onto a plane to answer for crimes in the UK sounds perfectly reasonable to me :)
This post has been deleted by its author
... about how "consumers" shouldn't expect to get what they want and how corporations shouldn't be impeded in their drive to "innovate" the crap out of your personal data...
he doesn't seem hell-bent on protecting citizens' rights. Which stands to reason given that he's talking to assorted marketeering organisations.
The basic problem with privacy remains that it has no more teeth than nicely asking corporations not to abuse people's private info that they nonetheless collect, with some light wrist-slapping threatened for eggregious negligence, loss, and the like. Given that model you indeed end up "balancing" with results nobody likes.
I don't we need to look to Ed Vaizey to come up with or promote new inventions or innovations in this field. His core business is votes, not long-term interests of keeping a tenable society.
"Users should [...] be able to exert a level of control over the extent to which ads are tailored to their preferences."
I half agree, so do tell me how can I get to see no ads at all?
Half agree because:
(1) "their preferences" are not in practice the user's preferences, but the creepy stalker ad-network's preferences.
(2) I kind of don't mind some ads: static image that are small enough not to kill my bandwith, and which are appropriate to the PAGE they appear on (not some dodgy guess about so-called preferences)
"The Government is working with browser manufacturers to come up with a way to gather consent via browser settings."
Yes, because there is currently no settings or extensions that exist in modern browsers to dictate how you want to treat cookies, that pops up by default when you install a new browser.
I can't wait for the government to tackle the option of being able to log into encrypted webpages via some sort of secure method to prevent 3rd parties viewing. At the moment I just don't see that option anywhere when I visit my email or my banks website.
Delete your cookies and guess what... you've opted in to surveillance again!
In effect; you have no choice but to continuously beg the IAB members not to track you. And hope that they might agree.
And look which bunch of spyware merchants isn't included on the YourPrivacyChoices list... Phorm. Though they are supposedly an IAB member.
I've got nothing but contempt for Ed Vaizey, the IAB, and Phorm.
http://www.youronlinechoices.com/uk/your-ad-choices
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
