There are well-known instances when an individual’s privacy is legislatively compromised in order to promote commerce in the United States. Perhaps the most well known example is the legislation which protects financial institutions and other creditors when they share details of your personal financial transaction with the credit repositories such as Experian, TransUnion and Equifax. Or insurance companies when they share insurance/medical information with the Medical Insurance Board.

Hobson’s choice : take it or leave it …

Unfortunately, waiving your privacy rights is often a requirement of the transaction. You want that loan, then you give the lender the right to examine your credit report, upload data to the credit reporting agencies and, in the case of mortgage loans, ask the IRS for a summary of your tax returns using form 4506.

Similarly, you want that free software and access to search engines, you agree to have your viewing habits tracked.

This is only a portion of the 1497 events that happens when you click on DrudgeReport.com …

The latest kerfuffle …

While legislators all claim they are for consumer rights, the sad fact is that they pander to the special interests in return for campaign funds and voter support. The individual consumer is an afterthought with many legislators believing that a concentrated advertising campaign in the last few months of the their campaigns can make them forget all of the mistreatment that consumers may have received at the hands of the legislator. Something that only the opponent’s negative advertising is likely to point out – but not if they, also supported the same special interests.

How do we keep consumers safe and happy while keeping the special interests well-supplied with essential data?

The New York Times is reporting … 

“Legislators Support Internet Privacy, but Question How to Achieve It”

“Lawmakers examining the Federal Trade Commission’s recommendation for a ‘do not track’ mechanism to restrict the monitoring of Internet users said that they supported stricter safeguards for consumer privacy, but raised questions on how the system would work.”

“Many also expressed concern that it would undermine one of the main pillars of the Internet’s growth — the development of free, advertising-supported content.”

I am sure they are looking at the billionaires who control Google, Microsoft, Face Book and others whose business model is funded mainly by advertising on their search engines.

“Some Democrats in the House and the Senate, however, have already embraced the idea of a do-not-track mechanism. On Thursday, Representative Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he would introduce a bill that would put in place such a system to prevent the tracking of children using the Internet.”

Truth-be-told, it’s almost never about the children, it’s about the adults and money. Children are often a convenient ploy to avoid the blowback that comes with more government intrusion into the affairs of free citizens.

In my opinion, this is the government’s second attempt to force government oversight and regulation on the Internet. The first being the attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to convince consumers that regulation of the Internet is necessary to insure an orderly marketplace where people are treated fairly and competition flourishes. Right – just like the telephone industry with its ever-changing deal of the day and extortionate charges.

“At a House subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Republicans generally expressed caution with varying degrees of support for stricter privacy measures. ‘We need to be mindful not to enact legislation that would hurt a recovering economy,’said Representative Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, the leading Republican on the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.”

Whitfield is the type of “stupid” you normally see in elected officials. Who believes that offshore entities will adhere to any of the rules or not change their tracking methods to include they type of tracking that will be surely allowed by lobbyist-driven loopholes in the legislation. Of course, in exchange for a chunk of campaign change.

“’While I agree it is important to have consumers understand what information is being collected and how it is used,’ Mr. Whitfield said, ‘we need to seriously discuss the do-not-track model and evaluate whether it accomplishes the appropriate objectives.’”

One might question just what the “appropriate objectives” might be. Few people know about CALEA, the Communications Assistance for Law  Enforcement Act, which provides that all telecommunications carriers should make it easy for law enforcement to intercept private communications – provided, of course, that a legal warrant has been issued. Something the government has repeatedly violated without significant consequence to the law enforcement representatives who lied to a judge to seek the warrant or to the companies which, acting in apparent good faith, failed to notify a suspect of their right to challenge the subpoena.  Thus we are talking about commercial tracking, not government tracking.

This is a privacy issue and a technological problem, not a legislative one …

It is a simple matter for browser vendors to allow the users to avoid storing “tracking cookies” on user machines. A feature which  should be turned on by default.

Unfortunately, clear-pixel web beacons and picture calls can hardly be eliminated – all of which can be used to track activitiy and individual machines.

“Officials from the trade commission and the Commerce Department, which is preparing its own report about online privacy for release before the end of the year, said that they had not yet seen examples of enhanced privacy measures affecting advertising revenues.”

Bottom line …

Is it really a question of privacy and protecting consumers or a convenient ruse to permit the camel to stick his nose under the tent – a matter of further government intrusion into regulating the Internet?

And I believe that certain telecommunications vendors; along with software companies, content creators and distributors are likely to promote the government’s position to help rescue their failing business models.

I also believe the Obama Administration is desperately seeking a means to control the Internet for the purposes of promoting government propaganda and stifling public comment and dissent; much in the same way they are seeking regulatory controls over broadcasters with their “locality” policies.

A free America demands a free media – and a free Internet. Especially when the media seems to have abandoned its ethics and has unfairly promoted one side of the political debate.

Truth-be-told, the only two-way dialogue on such subjects as freedom, global warming, government spending and legislative malfeasance often does not occur within the mainstream media, but on talk radio, cable television and the Internet. 

Hands off the Internet. If software vendors such as Microsoft want to build-in anti-tracking features into their browsers, they can do it without government intervention, money or approval. Are they likely to do it if it means a significant and severe reduction in their advertising revenue is another question. But it any event, it should be a decision left up to the consumer and their vendors, not the federal government.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Legislators Ponder How to Make ‘Do-Not-Track’ Work - NYTimes.com