It is appalling to me that in the United States of America, land of freedom and supposed world leader in the promotion of democracy, the concerns of the citizen are subordinated to the fleeting and socially irresponsible commercialism of American businesses. How ironic that the US, while professing to be the champion of civil rights, and with its supposed profound governmental accountability to its citizens, actually resists efforts to protect its citizens from the invasive and patently self-serving commercial abuse of private citizens' information. The US should be embracing the standard of individual right to privacy set by such countries as those of the EU and others.
Instead, you use your power to try to coerce them to back down. In fact,
I believe the DoC should be embarassed that it did not champion such privacy
standards in the first place. Instead, you resist this prudent, socially
responsible path and opt for the corrupt (yes, CORRUPT), favoritism of
american commercial interests at the expense of those you purport to serve.
HOW DARE YOU attempt to prevent me and my fellow citizens from legally
enforcing societal standards on corporations who obviously do not concern
themselves with private citizens' needs unless and until there is a buck
to be made in it, and in this case, the buck to be made is in violating
the rights of citizens, not protecting them. What happened to "government
of the
people, by the people, for the people"? Safe Harbor is not "for the
people". Rather, it is for corporate profits. MY government will not ignore
MY interests in favor of the commercial interests of certain large corporations
(regardless of the magnitude of the political financial contributions being
made by those corporations to the private political campaigns of incumbents).
If my government chooses to ignore my interests, I, as a responsible citizen,
am obligated to
organize with my fellow citizens to work within the system to replace
those individuals who are misusing their position. Safe Harbor is a misuse
of power and I will not tolerate it.
Safe Harbor is patently un-american, violates the civil liberties of Americans and serves to undermine our free market. The principle here is whether or not american business should have to accomodate consumer demands. The ability for demand-side pressures to influence a market place is central to maintaining a market that meets the needs of consumers. If you care at all about consumers (which I seriously question, at this point), you will dispense with the idea of Safe Harbor and not only allow but force the market to respond to consumers' expectations, whatever they may be.
Finally, Safe Harbor is very aptly named. It provides American business
with a "Safe Harbor" protected from any responsibility to consumers for
its actions relative to the exploitation of their personal information.
It violates the revered principles of a free market - a free market is
supposed to be free, people. Shielding companies from the demand-side pressures
of the market place is not only contrary to the concept of a free market,
it is bad for the long term health of our society and only serves the interests
of companies (which raises the question of "why is the Department of Commerce
so biased against consumers and for business?" I must question a government
administration that both takes large political donations from companies
then makes decisions that are so grievously biased in favor of those same
companies. The DOC seems to be ignoring legitimate consumer concerns and
their long-term implications to our economic and societal health in favor
of short term corporate profits. I am truly disgusted at this state of
affairs, and I do expect you to change it. I will be watching, and I have
little patience left.
To Whom It May Concern,
Please reject the Safe Habor proposal. I do not trust corporations to tell me the truth about the use of personal data they may collect from me in the course of a web transactions, just as I have never trusted corporations to act in my best interests when it comes to privacy. I would like to see a comprehensive privacy policy created that protects consumer privacy regardless of the method by which the data is collected.
Thank you,
Kelly Bond
The current "Safe Harbor" proposal is inadequate. It would give Europeans better protection han Americans. Since I believe this protection is needed and desirable, I would prefer that te United States simply adopt strong privacy protection, similar to what is in effect in Europe. Then the conflict would disappear, and, even better, the US would not look like a poor second to Europe as a place to live.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Bruner
I am writing to express my belief that the Safe Harbor proposal is going to hurt Americans by not adequately protecting their privacy. I urge you to devise an alternative proposal along the lines of the EU's directive.
The TACD has stated :
The Safe Harbor Proposal . . . fails to provide adequate privacy protection for consumers in the United States and Europe. It lacks effective means of enforcement and redress for privacy violations. It places unreasonable burdens on consumers and unfairly requires European citizens to sacrifice their legal rights to pursue privacy complaints through their national authorities. The proposal also fails to ensure that individual consumers will be able to access personal information obtained by business.
I agree with this assessment, and I urge you to reconsider Safe Harbor.
Wally Bubelis
I understand that the Department of Commerce is seeking comments on the "Safe Harbor" proposal, a procedure that will allow firms to self-certify privacy policies in lieu of the United States adopting stronger legal safeguards for Americans. You MUST be kidding!
I wish to state that I am strongly opposed to the policy that depends on industry self-regulation and that gives US consumers less protection than European consumers. If you really believe that industry will self-regulate adequately, I have a bridge to sell you. And if you continue to promote the Safe Harbor policy, I have to assume that my tax-payer dollars are going straight into the pockets of industry, to my detriment. And that your role of protecting consumers is being abdicated.
I support the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue recommendation for the development and adoption of International Convention on Privacy Protection that will help safeguard privacy interests of consumers and citizens in the twenty-first century. And I agree completely with the view that the United States foreign policy on privacy is exactly backward: instead of discouraging the adoption of strong privacy laws to protect consumers, we should be promoting them. And instead of promoting new surveillance techniques, such as key escrow encryption, we should be opposing them.
I hope you will shelve the Safe Harbor program and find a better way. I absolutely believe that every web site, and any other place that might collect my personal information, should offer up front the opportunity to ask that the info not be sold. Even better, it should not sell the info unless someone has specifically said "OK".
Cathleen Caffrey
Sir:
I consider the proposed SAFE HARBOR legislation to be a farce!
I urge you to follow the European plan and/ or the proposals put forward by the Trans Atlantic Consumers Dialogue. It is essential that privacy rights be given priority consideration and that everyone be prevented from gathering, using and/or diseminating personal information.
Thank you
Roz Grand & Saul Grand
This note is in reference to the "Safe Harbor" proposal on privacy protections. Unfortunately, I do not have time to elaborate on my general statement, so I will just present that.
I believe the Safe Harbor proposal fails to provide adequate privacy protection for citizens of both the United States and Europe. Instead of decreasing more stringent privacy controls in place in other countries, the United States should be strengthening its controls. Companies and organizations should not use personal information about consumers without prior, explicit permission.
Sincerely,
Chris Halaska
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing today to express my concerns about the Safe Harbor proposal.
I fear that Safe Harbor fails to provide adequate privacy protection
for American consumers. It lacks effective means of enforcement and redress
for privacy violations. It places unreasonable burdens on consumers and
unfairly requires European citizens to sacrifice their legal rights to
pursue privacy complaints through their national authorities. The proposal
also fails to ensure that individual consumers will be able to access personal
information obtained by business. My view of all of this is that the United
States foreign policy on privacy is exactly backward: instead of discouraging
the adoption of strong privacy laws to protect consumers, we should be
promoting them. And instead of promoting new surveillance techniques, such
as key escrow encryption, we should be opposing them.
I strongly urge the Commerce Department to abandon the Safe Harbor proposal as unworkable, ineffective, and unfair to Americans.
Thank you for your time.
Troy Hedgepeth
Remember, weak encryption is no encryption. Use PGP!
To Whom It May Concern:
I support stronger privacy laws in the U.S. as a whole. Privacy in our country is routinely and casually treated as a joke in this country - ironically, while everyone claims they love the country's values and principles of independence - few see how the American citizen is increasingly shackled by government and business demands for personal information.
Whether it is a fingerprint at the Department of Motor Vehicles, random calls or solicitations where the caller (a complete stranger) knows quite a bit about one's habits, or the fact that credit bureaus make loads of cash distributing information on U.S. consumers - privacy is in many cases a practical impossibility.
I support the European, and now, Canadian, position that protects individuals'
privacy on the Internet. While businesses may complain that they should
be allowed to regulate themselves - I say "hogwash!". Just consider a moment
how conscientiously businesses regulate themselves
when it comes to the almighty dollar - about as much as a hog regulates
its feeding at the feeding trough!
Intervention and controls are most appropriate at a time when new technology means new ways to make money on other people's information.
Sincerely,
Instead of promoting new surveillance techniques, such as key escrow encryption, the United States government should be opposing them and promoting legal protection of the privacy of consumers. The safe harbor proposal is the wrong way to address the issue.
James Lomako
There is a very simple solution to the problem. The U.S. should adopt the stronger privacy policy of Europe.
It seems our government wants less privacy for the individual in the U.S. and more intrusive measures. The U.S. government has become an invader in privacy matters therefore reeking havoc on the Bill of Rights.
Say yes to stronger privacy rights and no to government invasion!
The United States foreign policy on privacy is exactly backward: instead of discouraging the adoption of strong privacy laws to protect consumers, we should be promoting them. And instead of promoting new surveillance techniques, such as key escrow encryption, we should be opposing them.
R.C. North
I am absolutely AGAINST the current Safe Harbor Proposal. Industry
has shown, time and time again, they can not be trusted with individual
personal information.
The US needs to adopt the EU model which put the shifts the burden
for authorizing the use to the industry. In other words, they need my written,
affirmative decision BEFORE they collect or use any of my personal info!
Respectfully,
RC North
Stuart J.D. Schwartzstein
I have no real problem with the "Safe Harbor" principles -- they seem
sound enough, if vague in some areas. (But I should note that I have not
had time to study them closely and do side-by-side comparisons.)
But they are not an effective substitute for legislation and as voluntary
principles do not, I believe, constitute the kind of protection for citizens
afforded by the EU Directive.
I, therefore, believe that the Safe Harbor principles be rejected and
that the Administration work out more effective protection, not only for
EU nationals but for American citizens.
Please pass this paragraph to Ambassador Aaron:
Dear David,
Frankly, I'm disappointed in the Administration taking this sort of
approach, one that I don't see as so much in the interests of individuals
as in protecting some business interests.
With best regards,
Stuart
Stephen Streng
I urge you to reject the Safe Harbor proposal. Voluntary safeguards
are not nearly enough to protect Americans' privacy. Instead I urge you
to support legislation that at a minimum provides the same safeguards as
the European Union Data Directive.
Sincerely,
Stephen Streng
Dr. Christie D. Vernon
Gentlemen:
I write to tell you how strongly I agree with the EPIC, and other consumer
group, positions on the lack of meaningful privacy controls on personal
data. That personal information about me, gathered without my consent for
the most part, is used to exploit me and as a means of profit for faceless
commercial entitites is a source of outrage to me. In all reasonableness:
please make sure that the citizens of the United States are granted at
least as much privacy as Europeans, and that Europeans are not exploited
in this country. It is unconscionable.
Very truly yours,
Dr. Christie D. Vernon
Jason Vogel
I would to express my deep concern that the United States is failing
to protect the personal privacy of its citizens. There have been numerous
recent well-publicized breaches of consumer privacy, including the Pos
Magazine incident, the Pentium 3, states selling drivers license photos
to credit fraud protection companies (with the apparent complicity of the
Secret Service), Geocities' violation of its privacy policy, the Microsoft
Office document identifier numbers, the questionable connection between
TrustE and Microsoft, etc. The broad public outcry that has arisen in each
of these incidents indicates that US citizens want our government to follow
the lead of the European Union in enacting comprehensive privacy protection
legislation. The Safe Harbor Proposal is clearly an inadequate response
to this mandate.
Respectfully submitted,
Jason Vogel
E.Wise
I understand that under Safe Harbor there are no means of enforcement
or redress for privacy violations; that citizens will not be able to access
personal info obtained by any business; and European consumers have higher
levels of protection than Americans. No, I'm not for the Safe Harbor.
This may be a "Safe Harbor" for someone, but not for the American consumer.
Seems that our government is evolving into something very anti the average
American in this new world order.