Right to Know Act of 2013
To be clear, this does not let those who are navigating online to stop the sharing of information, but rather the knowledge of what is happening to this information and who is using it. Often on social media, in the terms of agreement, the user will agree to the sharing of this information with a third party. This data disclosure and personalized advertisements is not stopped by the act.
Electronic Frontier Foundation's Rainey Reitman sums up the changes well, "So while current law provides information about data exchanged for direct marketing, the Right to Know Act would update existing transparency law to ensure that users could track the flow of their data from online interactions. It also updates the definitions in the law in important ways, including adding location data—a sensitive data set not adequately protected by current law."
Anne Saite suggests in her Threat Post article "California considers Pushing Data Disclosure Envelope Again" that these companies that collect the data will skirt around the amendment by, "anonymize more data so it isn't linked to a specific consumer or only retain necessary information for transactions," or, "companies may also elect to disclose how submitted information is treated prior to the transaction."
Transparency is a necessary part of any relationship, especially one between a persona and a place where they have shared so much with, often unknowingly. I would agree that this is a good step for the legal system for catching up with the digital age. I don't think it's enough. It's like if someone steels your wallet and they are legally bound to open up the wallet, tell you what they're going to spend your cash on, how they'll use your i.d. card, what they'll charge on your credit card- but nothing actually stops them from walking away with it. Even if they give back your i.d., they still have your money, your cards. These companies supposedly attain private information legally, they are not breaking the law by using your information, so long as there is a clause in terms and agreement somewhere. I, however, have no problem calling it steeling because allowing any and all third parties access with one permission is absurd. Do I like that this bill is in place? Yes, but at the same time I believe this may be a false victory in the battle to protect and control your own private data.
An entire chapter is dedicated to privacy in Richard A. Spinello's book Case Studies in Information Technology Ethics. One case study he sites "The FBI's Carnivore Technology" which is the use of an Internet "tapping" program that allows the FBI to track the header information in e-mails. The case states that the FBI would normally have to pursue justification and procedural permission, like warrants, subpoenas, etc. My question for privacy sharing to third parties on the internet is- why does the government need these preliminary justifications, but our capitalism and consumerism system is enough justification to sell/give third parties private information, stored or not. The case study uses the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches ad seizures, shall not be violated..." Is it a violation if it's stated in terms and agreements? I still believe so. I don't believe a service has any right to request my agreement for any other purpose than to use the services advertised. Back to the wallet mugging. I lose my money all the time to overpriced hot chocolate, new books, things I don't need, etc. But when I get mugged, it's not me spending my money it's someone else spending what is still my money. So, yes, I know my information is going to be used just like I know my money will be spent when I'm mugged. Having a social media account or carrying a wallet should not make me obligated to having things taken from me.
kianamaiart
tangentwithtanner
andulkaphoto
izzy806
dailybridgerton
