Data brokering is dangerous and uncontrolled

(Image used under: Creative Commons 3.0 [SRC][Mod])

You know all those times I've complained about data brokering and how companies are able to hit us where we are weakest because of all they learn and profile about us? I'm not just making this stuff up.

Mr. Guthrie, who lives in Iowa, had entered a few sweepstakes that caused his name to appear in a database advertised by infoUSA, one of the largest compilers of consumer information. InfoUSA sold his name, and data on scores of other elderly Americans, to known lawbreakers, regulators say. InfoUSA advertised lists of "Elderly Opportunity Seekers," 3.3 million older people "looking for ways to make money," and "Suffering Seniors," 4.7 million people with cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. "Oldies but Goodies" contained 500,000 gamblers over 55 years old, for 8.5 cents apiece. One list said: "These people are gullible. They want to believe that their luck can change."

Totally organic... sure

(Image used under: Creative Commons 3.0 [SRC])

What is the point of an agency that thinks it's ok to label non-organic foods as organic?

USDA's rule, in contrast, permitted products labeled "organic" to contain non-organic substances so long as producers obtained certification that organic versions of the relevant ingredients were not available. Why should it matter whether substances are on the list?

My thoughts exactly.

Federal Trade Commission - Forgot their job apparently

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

On May 10th, 2006, President Bush signed an executive order to create an Identity Theft Task force in order to identify concrete steps to reducing the identity theft problem.

On Dec 26th, 2006, the task force put out a public call for comments to "improve the effectiveness and efficiency of federal government efforts to reduce identity theft".

Of course, I submitted details about implementing Credit Freezes and halting data abuse

There were off to a good start when the interim results of the task force included language about Credit Freezes:

For residents of states in which state law authorizes a credit freeze, consider placing a credit freeze on their credit file. This option is most useful when the breach includes information that can be used to open a new account, such as SSNs. A credit freeze cuts off third party access to a consumer’s credit report, thereby effectively preventing the issuance of new credit in the consumer’s name.

But problems started when the press release mysteriously omitted the information. They'd already failed to include it in their consumer education initiative though they're happy to recommend Fraud alerts or Credit monitoring for FREE! Well, whee! That's just great. Thanks for paying for my worthless monitoring service which will tell me in horrific real time that I'm being ripped off rather than actually do anything to stop it.

Failing to include credit freeze information was nothing short of incompetence.

Sadly, on release of the final recommendations some time later, freezes were only barely mentioned and even then, discouraged. This is hardly the first time I've seen government incompetence up close, but considering the importance of the issue, it was still discouraging. Bottom line, the FTC and in particular Ms. Bourne Farrell and Alberto Gonzales failed the President and the citizens they are supposed to serve.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

The Register has been following the story of a massive archive of "dirty tricks" that Microsoft performed during a lawsuit. Recently, the archive disappeared from the Internet, but now it's back in the form of torrents.

Hijacking your Bluetooth headset to send ads is apparently ok in some countries with lax regulations

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

Slashdot points to an article about companies who have figured out a way to send commercials to nearby bluetooth devices. So now if you're walking near a fast food spot, you get a instant message on your phone offering a lunchtime special.

According to the article, the Netherlands (where the practice is widespread) has refused to classify it as Spam giving advertisers the legal green light to start jumping unsuspecting bluetooth phone users. Coming soon to America.

From the Ars Technica article:

Under the new law, anyone attempting to "knowingly and intentionally" acquire the phone records of a third party by making false representations to a phone company or selling such illegally obtained records will face up to ten years in prison and fines.

Is it just me or does this seem really wrong? Why did we have to make a law about this? Wasn't it obviously a bad thing already?

Sony literally hacked US citizens and got a slap on the wrist.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC][Mod][Comp])

Consumer Affairs reports a settlement with 39 states for Sony's use of a "rootkit" to try and prevent users from copying their music. This forced DRM was detected by computer experts and quickly raised a stir.

Most importantly,

Sony said it was "pleased" with the settlement and said it would stop using copy-protection software that cannot be easily removed from consumers' PCs