Quote:
Originally Posted by icsys
Soon all newborn will be given chip implants at birth. And your every move throughout the world will be monitored.
It would seem that in the US, they are now actively discussing the legality of web monitoring for ads.
NebuAd refused to disclose what advertising networks--such as DoubleClick or Microsoft's Aquantive--it uses, or what broadband providers it counts as customers. So did Phorm and Front Porch (which said it could not arrange an interview). |
it possible these
US laws will go by unnoticed unless highlighted so
"...
Three federal laws, three legal hurdles
At least three wiretapping-related federal laws restrict what broadband providers can do:
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA);
the Communications Act of 1934; and the
Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984.
The cable privacy law is the most restrictive and applies only to cable broadband providers--meaning, thanks to a law written when the Apple Macintosh was new, they're at a competitive disadvantage to AT&T and Verizon.
The
cable privacy law is unusually onerous because it requires the "prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber" before any personally identifiable information can be collected.
What that means is sending a postcard or e-mail telling customers that they can opt-out (which is what cable providers are doing so far) may not be good enough.
...
"
also, i found this part interesting, it seems that their entire basis for consent is flawed in that to "
convincingly show" that consent, nothing beats a confirmation email or better, a signed letter in law.
"...
The 2003
In Re Pharmatrak decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit offers a glimpse of how judges view consent.
The court ruled in a case involving Web tracking "that it makes more sense to place the burden of showing consent on the party seeking the benefit of the exception."
The judges approvingly cited a second case, which said
"consent can only be implied when the surrounding circumstances convincingly show that the party knew about and consented to the interception."
Yet another legal obstacle for Web monitoring is the
Communications Act, which says companies engaged in "transmitting" communications shall not "divulge" those contents.
"The question is whether or not a third party like this can track usage for things other than for routine maintenance of a network--
they are entitled to do that," said
Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program. "But where you're actually tracking the content of what users do, there are serious questions there about the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the cable laws." ...
"
US law:
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA);
http://www.usiia.org/legis/ecpa.html
the Communications Act of 1934
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984
much the same as the UK/EU DPA type act but with more bite
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47...1----000-.html