5 ms·

Thanks cylo for the post. Sadly we can't seem to trust the credit agencies or Government agencies with data protection. We need a politician who will champion

by icu 13y ago

Thanks cylo for the post. Sadly we can't seem to trust the credit agencies or Government agencies with data protection. We need a politician who will champion some sort of legal offence (Federal?) for digital data protection breaches whatever the industry/company (above anything that already exists) that will scare companies enough that they start taking digital identity seriously. Maybe that's a pipe dream but I get the sense after reading this article that regulators just don't carry a big enough stick or have too light a touch when punishing serious infractions.

Zenst 13y ago
Agreed and I'm somewhat supprised (UK peep here) that no data protection act is in place. UK had first version of the act in 1984 (oh the ironic choice of dates, govermental humour maybe). With that I'm amazzed there is nothing in the USA, must be something beyond class action suits?
- ams6110 13y ago
  I think protecting data is a hopeless goal. The penalties need to be for fraud, and the responsibility for identity verification needs to be the creditors. Hospital admissions and discharges used to be published every day in the paper. People used to have their social security number printed on their checks. Someone's birthday was a day of celebration, not a personal secret. I want to get back to a place where routine facts about me do not need to be secret or something I worry about. The onus should be on anyone granting credit to verify that the person is who they claim to be, and it should take more than a few bits of public information to do that.
  - icu 13y ago
    ams6110, I wish for a world where your quote "I want to get back to a place where routine facts about me do not need to be secret or something I worry about" were true. However, pandora's box is open and we can never ever go back. When you say, "The onus should be on anyone granting credit to verify that the person is who they claim to be" I couldn't agree more. This goes to the heart of my argument, you cannot trust those granting the credit. The invisible hand isn't working here. The only other option is to use fear to keep them in line... fear of a regulator that has teeth.
- icu 13y ago
  Having lived in the USA and the UK I've experienced the political contrasts. My gut feel is that the American political engagement, the way the media reports politics, and how people think as a result are to blame here. So exactly what do I mean by that? Well for starters I believe that the American political structure doesn't lend itself easily to direct public scrutiny and transparency. I can't remember ever meeting an American politician except when it was in their best self interest... surprise, surprise right around election time. Barriers are set up making it difficult to get face-time with a Senator or a Governor. By comparison MPs (British Members of Parliament) are obliged to have open constituency meetings where a member of the public can arrange to speak to their MP face to face. British politicians just seem more willing to me to engage with 'Joe Public.' For example, it would be beyond belief to hear that the US Vice President or some Governor of some state has a weekly call in radio talk show slot, yet Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (kind of like the British Vice President) and Mayor of London Boris Johnson (who is more like a US Governor than a city Mayor) have regular weekly radio slot on LBC (a call in radio talk show) where they calls from ordinary citizens and sometimes take some intense heat. Also understanding American politics outside of the likes of Fox and others (or what I would say is the "TV political bubble") is difficult. Sure there are some amazing publications one can read. The likes of the The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Time, The Economist, and Foreign Policy all spring to mind. However these publications are not for everyone and definitely not read by the masses. In comparison, the Sun and other tabloids, manage to break politics down into bite-sized blurbs that focus on the important parts for the everyman. I believe that this allows Brit Joe Public to be regularly informed on politics and therefore more engaged. So well much could be said about how bad tabloids are, I think they provide a valuable public service keeping people informed and from time to time crucifying the odd politician or goading them to action. If there was maybe more public political engagement, more willingness for politicians to be accountable and less special interests on capital hill maybe the average citizen would understand why data protection is important and feel they have the leverage on politicians to enact it.

by icu 13y ago

Zenst 13y ago

Agreed and I'm somewhat supprised (UK peep here) that no data protection act is in place. UK had first version of the act in 1984 (oh the ironic choice of dates, govermental humour maybe). With that I'm amazzed there is nothing in the USA, must be something beyond class action suits?

ams6110 13y ago
I think protecting data is a hopeless goal. The penalties need to be for fraud, and the responsibility for identity verification needs to be the creditors. Hospital admissions and discharges used to be published every day in the paper. People used to have their social security number printed on their checks. Someone's birthday was a day of celebration, not a personal secret. I want to get back to a place where routine facts about me do not need to be secret or something I worry about. The onus should be on anyone granting credit to verify that the person is who they claim to be, and it should take more than a few bits of public information to do that.
- icu 13y ago
  ams6110, I wish for a world where your quote "I want to get back to a place where routine facts about me do not need to be secret or something I worry about" were true. However, pandora's box is open and we can never ever go back. When you say, "The onus should be on anyone granting credit to verify that the person is who they claim to be" I couldn't agree more. This goes to the heart of my argument, you cannot trust those granting the credit. The invisible hand isn't working here. The only other option is to use fear to keep them in line... fear of a regulator that has teeth.
icu 13y ago
Having lived in the USA and the UK I've experienced the political contrasts. My gut feel is that the American political engagement, the way the media reports politics, and how people think as a result are to blame here. So exactly what do I mean by that? Well for starters I believe that the American political structure doesn't lend itself easily to direct public scrutiny and transparency. I can't remember ever meeting an American politician except when it was in their best self interest... surprise, surprise right around election time. Barriers are set up making it difficult to get face-time with a Senator or a Governor. By comparison MPs (British Members of Parliament) are obliged to have open constituency meetings where a member of the public can arrange to speak to their MP face to face. British politicians just seem more willing to me to engage with 'Joe Public.' For example, it would be beyond belief to hear that the US Vice President or some Governor of some state has a weekly call in radio talk show slot, yet Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (kind of like the British Vice President) and Mayor of London Boris Johnson (who is more like a US Governor than a city Mayor) have regular weekly radio slot on LBC (a call in radio talk show) where they calls from ordinary citizens and sometimes take some intense heat. Also understanding American politics outside of the likes of Fox and others (or what I would say is the "TV political bubble") is difficult. Sure there are some amazing publications one can read. The likes of the The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Time, The Economist, and Foreign Policy all spring to mind. However these publications are not for everyone and definitely not read by the masses. In comparison, the Sun and other tabloids, manage to break politics down into bite-sized blurbs that focus on the important parts for the everyman. I believe that this allows Brit Joe Public to be regularly informed on politics and therefore more engaged. So well much could be said about how bad tabloids are, I think they provide a valuable public service keeping people informed and from time to time crucifying the odd politician or goading them to action. If there was maybe more public political engagement, more willingness for politicians to be accountable and less special interests on capital hill maybe the average citizen would understand why data protection is important and feel they have the leverage on politicians to enact it.