Comments on: The anxious new dawn of cybersnooping

Privacy expert Nancy Libin says Congress can't afford to ignore a loophole in federal privacy law.

[casper2004]

Congress has been bushwhacked

Congress isn't going to do anything about it. They are afraid of not going in lockstep with President Bush.

[casper2004]

Congress has been bushwhacked

Congress isn't going to do anything about it. They are afraid of not going in lockstep with President Bush.

[ShawnHarmon]

Ghost Writer?

What is the "General Accountability Office"?

Did she really write this article herself?

It seems to me that the 'General Accounting Office' is a name most attornies and privacy 'experts' would know.

Did some other organization provide fodder for this article?

http://www.e-Merges.com

[charlie cooper]

General Accounting versus Gen. Accountability

Sorry but you're wrong. The name of the GAO was changed to the General Accountability Office. Here's a link: http://www.gao.gov/

[vigilantmind]

Check your facts

Interesting that this comment would have been left by someone apparently connected with a data broker-type site (see the URL at the bottom of the post).

[ShawnHarmon]

Ghost Writer?

What is the "General Accountability Office"?

Did she really write this article herself?

It seems to me that the 'General Accounting Office' is a name most attornies and privacy 'experts' would know.

Did some other organization provide fodder for this article?

http://www.e-Merges.com

[charlie cooper]

General Accounting versus Gen. Accountability

Sorry but you're wrong. The name of the GAO was changed to the General Accountability Office. Here's a link: http://www.gao.gov/

[vigilantmind]

Check your facts

Interesting that this comment would have been left by someone apparently connected with a data broker-type site (see the URL at the bottom of the post).

[gerhard_schroeder]

Message has been deleted.

[Susan E.]

Post by Schroeder

What an unbelievably sexist and ill-informed comment.

[Susan E.]

Post by Schroeder

What a sexist and ill-informed comment.

[casper2004]

Hearsay is better than nothing

Showing statistics on innocent telephone users to prove Bush did something, isn't necessary, because if this President don't pin something on you, a future one will.

ANY Unwarranted Snooping on Private Citizens is Wrong

Nancy Libin's article has so many excellent points that it is hard to keep my comment within reasonable length.

There is one point that I can address with some authority. Libin says, "Crafting a measure that protects privacy without causing undue disruption to the information economy won't be easy, but for every moment Congress doesn't act, our insufficient consumer privacy standards put more citizens at risk."

First, The United Kingdom's Data Protection Act passed in 1998 requires prior approval for the use of citizens' names and personal data, and it doesn't seem to have slowed their commerce.

Second, this U.S. Congress is not about to pass legislation that will shackle the business community, therefore, we can expect the same loopholes as experienced in the Privacy Act of 1974.

There is only one way to protect the use of consumers? names and private information. Pass federal legislation to give the individual control over their name and personal data, and, while we?re at it, pay them when it is sold. You can read about it in my blog, The Dunning Letter at: http://thedunningletter.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_thedunningletter_archive.html

Scroll down to second post.

Jack E. Dunning
Cave Creek, AZ

ANY Unwarranted Snooping on Private Citizens is Wrong

Nancy Libin's article has so many excellent points that it is hard to keep my comment within reasonable length.

There is one point that I can address with some authority. Libin says, "Crafting a measure that protects privacy without causing undue disruption to the information economy won't be easy, but for every moment Congress doesn't act, our insufficient consumer privacy standards put more citizens at risk."

First, The United Kingdom's Data Protection Act passed in 1998 requires prior approval for the use of citizens' names and personal data, and it doesn't seem to have slowed their commerce.

Second, this U.S. Congress is not about to pass legislation that will shackle the business community, therefore, we can expect the same loopholes as experienced in the Privacy Act of 1974.

There is only one way to protect the use of consumers? names and private information. Pass federal legislation to give the individual control over their name and personal data, and, while we?re at it, pay them when it is sold. You can read about it in my blog, The Dunning Letter at: http://thedunningletter.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_thedunningletter_archive.html

Scroll down to second post.

Jack E. Dunning
Cave Creek, AZ