backtop


Print 128 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 24 at 6:29 AM


  (Source: Puppet Government)
Government could reap a wealth of information from its citizens

Every day millions across the country navigate to government webpages, to read pertinent information. Since 2000 that access has been safeguarded, thanks to a prohibition on government websites using cookies or other tracking technology to track users.  Agency exceptions could only be granted under cases of "compelling need".

Now the Obama administration is looking to overturn that prohibition and potentially begin harvesting a wealth of data on its citizen's activities.  Under the plan, the prohibition would be replaced with a set of privacy provisions.  Aides say that it would increase government transparency and "increase public involvement".

The measure, though, has many opponents.  The American Civil Liberties Union spokesman Michael Macleod-Ball commented that the measure would "allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website."

Other opponents dislike that the government may be looking to revoke the protections at the request of search-engine giant Google and other parties.  The Electronic Privacy Information Center and Electronic Frontier Foundation, both of which oppose the measure, pointed to a February 19 contract with Google and an unnamed federal agency over an exemption to use the YouTube player.

EPIC retrieved the proposed changes, negotiated by the General Services Administration, through a Freedom of Information Act request and says they "expressly waive those rules or guidelines as they may apply to Google."  States EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg, "Our primary concern is that the GSA has failed to protect the privacy rights of U.S. citizens.  The expectation is they should be complying with the government regulations, not that the government should change its regulations to accommodate these companies."

Currently, government content is banned from having tracking cookies, but third-party content, such as YouTube videos on federal websites may have tracking cookies.  Google spokeswoman Christine Chen declined to discuss the new rules, but thanked the government for its use of YouTube, stating, "[The use of YouTube] is just one example of how government and citizens communicate more effectively online, and we are proud of having worked closely with the White House to provide privacy protections for users."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: ZOMG
By SiliconDoc on 8/13/2009 10:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
Wait a minute everybody. Our government is supposed to be a LIMITED government that merely protects each individual's inherent rights.
Instead our government has been and is morphing into a DO IT ALL absolute controller, administrator, and provider of " every right " anyone ever claimed to possess.
There is a big difference between a government that STOPS! OTHER PRIVATE CITIZENS or ENTITIES from taking away individuals rights, to a government that PROVIDES THOSE INDIVIDUAL "RIGHTS" EN MASSE BY TAXATION AND FORCED PARTICIPATION in their administration by the government itself !
----
Our government was designed not as a social cure that provides all services ("rights") - but as a mere guardian to STOP those private entities (domestic or foreign) which would take away inherent rights from it's citizens.
----
Nowadays people see the government as THE PROVIDER of their rights. therefore the government must tax the citizens and use the money to create, maintain, and distributre those services which cover "the inherent rights" of the people.
---
Not so long ago, the idea was the people were actually human beings that for centuries and eons had built in genetic predisposition to do such things naturally for themselves and those around them. The government was to step in only when an actor got out of control.
---
Ahh, but now of course, people see the government as duty bound not to just protect their rights, but to PROVIDE THEM - such as "health care".
People argue "they have an absolute right to it" - hence the government must not just allow them to seek it ( as in the Founding Fathers idea of limited government), but ACTUALLY PRODUCE THE HEALTH CARE, AND SETUP UP SHOP TO GIVE IT TO THEM.
---
It is quite a gigantic difference. One is freedom to make choices and determine one's own fate.
The latter is tyranny of the government monopoly "for the good of all" of course, "extracted and delivered by threat and force of law " - no matter what that reality of it's implementation does or doesn't bring.
--
In the former you have a choice, you have freedom, you have a say for yourself, you make your choice, in the latter "the collective" backed by the awesome and likely unbeatable power of the government makes those choices for you, and everyone else.
---
As the famous Borg collective line goes, " It is futile to resist. "


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki