wirehedd

May 17, 2011 at 11:11am

When comparing the value of keeping your information, or that of children, private for the purposes of safety and to prevent unauthorized use of a person's information without their explicit consent who gives a fat hairy rat's ass about Facebook's business? They and the corporate entities looking to scam and ram their garbage into every face they can find whether they want it or not can all go piss up a rope as far as I'm concerned. If they want my info or that of my kids they can damn well either ask for permission, pay out the ass for it (to ME not some data mining scumbags) or they can do without altogether.

These companies do NOT have a RIGHT to anybody's information and they need to shut the hell up and get over that fact. Otherwise let them go somewhere where people actually DO have privacy rights and try their shit elsewhere.

Point of note, I hate advertising companies who try to force their products into your face when you didn't ask about it and spammers. They're all the same in my book. Douchenozzles and scum.

bling581

May 17, 2011 at 11:09am

"The bill would also require social networking sites to set users' default settings to private, as well as give parents of children under the age of 18 the ability to remove their child's personally identifiable information."

Isn't this a good thing?

someuid

May 17, 2011 at 10:18am

"The bill would also require social networking sites to set users' default settings to private"

I can't count the number of times Facebook has redone their privacy choices, layout, or added new options.  With each change, I find more and more stuff set to full on open-to-the-world.  It frustrates me to no end and has resulted in me using Facebook less and less and less.  I think I'm down to about 2-3 posts a month.

Hence, I would support this law.

However, knowing legislatures, they usually leave holes so big in the laws it seems pointless.  It seems that if there are two issues a law could address, but only addresses one, it gives everyone involved the green light to exploit the unaddressed issue as much as they want.  There is some sort of subconcious event going on that says "This law was passed to clamp down on us, but they didn't mention anything about this particular practice we do, so it must be ok to do and we can exploit it as much as possible now."

Take, for instance, the recent financial reform bill that has been taking effect lately.  There wasn't a word about it regarding ATM fees, and now all of a sudden ATM fees are going up and up and up.  Granted, I don't pay for them (my bank covers them since they don't have their own ATMs), but it still seems that the companies decided ATM fees were not addressed in the Financial Services Smackdown Bill, so ATM fees are fair game and can be raised to their heart's content.

Ghostryderflyby

May 17, 2011 at 10:12am

I'd like to see the states become involved in the trade of personal information business model period. Sites like Spokeo, giving away not only all of your personal information, but even pictures of your house along with your address, are a stalkers and criminals dream come true. If the government really wants to get concerned about privacy, that's where I'd like to see them start.

I'm not thrilled about Facebook giving my email address to some spamming online college (I know it was you Facebook because you are the only ones that display my name that way), but I'm a lot less thrilled about personal information sites giving anyone who asks a WHOLE lot more than just my email address!! Those businesses are reckless and irresponsible with people's personal information, and it's going to get someone killed if it hasn't already!