FCC orders wireless carriers to protect customers' call info The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued new rules that clarify how wireless telecom providers should protect their customers' call records and other information. "This sensitive information can include phone numbers that a customer has called and received calls from, the durations of calls, and the phone's …
"The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued new rules that clarify how wireless telecom providers should protect their customers' call records and other information" ..."This sensitive information can include phone numbers that a customer has called and received calls from, the durations of calls, and the phone's location at the beginning and end of each call,"
And that would include protecting it from our very own Government or no?
No. Not any more so than British users' metadata is protected from disclosure to government access under warrants, or Chinese or Russian users's data is protected from their government's access (under pretty much any circumstances whatever.
It may be time to remember that NSA's actiities were authorized under democratically passed laws and subject to a variety of judicial and internal controls intended to limit their scope. One of the main questions is whether the democratic excesses of the period immediately after the Al Qaida attack on New York City and Washington exceeded the bounds set by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> It may be time to remember that NSA's actiities were authorized under democratically passed laws and subject to a variety of judicial and internal controls intended to limit their scope.
It may also be time to remember that their actions have always been ultra vires.
"One of the main questions is whether the democratic excesses of the period immediately after the Al Qaida attack on New York City and Washington exceeded the bounds set by the Constitution and Bill of Rights."
"democratic excesses"
That would be the Legislature passing THE PATRIOT Act without reading it first I take while shrub played the old "If you don't vote for this you're a terrorist" care?
"democratic excesses" I'll have to remember that one for the Book of Euphemisms.
I'd suggest the "excesses" were very far from being "democratic"
What the US (and all their authorities, agencies, politicians and big companies) say and do really couldn't be more disjointed. And they don't even seem to be embarrassed when telling others about freedom, abiding by international law and other bullshit. That the FCC wants better protection so that others don't get to see the data they see, does hardly come as a surprise.
"the USA has all but got cameras in every room of every house"
No. I live in the US, and we don't. No, really, we don't. Not to say the the NSA might be able to turn on cameras and mikes on some computers sometimes, but they won't be spying on all of the USA in the near future . You Brits on the other hand, have, for the past 30 years or so, walked (or been led - with little resistance ???) down the path to where you ARE the most highly monitored nation on the planet! "They" ARE looking at you almost everywhere you go in the UK with face matching software, and you sheep are letting them enact even more invasive policies. We'll sit here in the USA with our guns (you gave yours up after WWII cause you were TOLD to), and control of the internet, and see how it goes with you and yours...
Have a +1 for reminding the brits about the tragedy of cctv. However - it's a mistake to equate gun ownership with any sort of ability to prevent or influence US govt. control of your life. If they want you they will have you. No armed standoff in history has ever resulted in the govt. coming second. Not only do they have far more firepower, most Americans with guns have no idea how to use them under duress or stress.
What will protect our freedom is free and open communication and it is this that they are taking away. The people don't control the Internet, the govt does.
Not true. The United States were *founded* on a stand-off where the government came second - the government being the British Empire. There are a few events in the United States' own history where the government lost a gun battle with US citizens as well. The Battle of Athens is a good example.
World-wide I can think of quite a few more examples of armed stand-offs where the government was beaten or capitulated. A few of them ended with revolution.
Never say never. :)
That's an odd thing for someone from the first country to suffer such a loss to be saying to someone in the country which dealt it that loss. But perhaps like many other Europeans who pride themselves on having more history than we do on this side of the pond, you have failed to avail yourself of studying that history.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
