consultants are sandburs

Saturday, February 28, 2015

What besides "window dressing" do you call a "Constitutional Amendment" that lacks teeth pecisely where abuse rules the day.

ABC Newspapers, this link, this telling quote:

The amendment would not prevent private companies from selling your personal information to third parties. People agree to this in the fine print of service agreements, Petersen said.

This constitutional amendment also would not prevent the FBI or Homeland Security from monitoring you since federal law trumps state law, although Petersen feels it would limit the amount of information the federal law enforcement receive [sic] from state and local agencies.

Those are the folks abusing your data, and they get a free pass? Get real.

Do you really authorize all that Google may do in profiling you, not knowing really what that may be, when you use their search engines? And hey, if you don't like Google profiling you and selling your profile to the world, you can use Microsoft's Bing search, and let Microsoft do it.

Consider Duck Duck Go. And hope they keep the promises they make.

Vote that way for privacy hopes from your desktop keyboard or while texting by phone (not while also driving, please). But remember the feds have power over your ISP, if not getting simple, direct, willing cooperation without having to use power.

As to that amendment stuff, it likely will be mainly harmless puffery, and the term "all sizzle, no steak" readily comes to mind.

While it is window dressing and it is something that can be regulated and more easily updated by legislation and amendment of statutes than by running some constitutional ballot issue to gin up the 2016 vote more for one party than the next, aside from that, it does little harm. Sponsorship names get published in the media, etc.

Attention diverted from possibly more meaningful legislative stuff to puffery probably resonates with the generic Tea Party less-is-more proselytized view of government. Word seems to trickle down to the Tea Party rank and file, and they dutifully follow the leader, grade school style. Attending regularly organized meetings about liberty and self actualization and such, by putting some chosen authority figure in the front of a gathering to lecture.

It is amusing. Somebody is hierarchically scripting a lot of stuff, working membership numbers and cells, with a passed down mood and Gestalt if not direct marching orders on who gets picked to stand in front of the more local microphones, but rank and file have little time to question that. They focus so much of their energies on questioning government. Complaining oh-so-vocally, by the numbers, about anger over being used.

That said, now back to privacy in data. Your medical records, if you do not want them shared you can opt out. So - Hie thee hither, to thine own ends. Why is it not set so you might avoid a default option were you to want to opt into data sharing in some vague way, (your medical records but shared, of curse, of course, in your interest), rather than you being given the option you can manually chose to opt out?

Do you suppose the Tea Party has that one figured, and by collective keening will fix it?

----------------------
So, that ballot vote on a constitutional amendment on data privacy - it can't hurt much that I can foresee, but what is it going to really help? Tell me, please. Beyond being somebody's GOTV device?

______________UPDATE______________
In fairness, the bill itself is online, so read it for yourself; and note that John Marty is a cosponsor which can easily and directly disarm suspicions from the left. I weigh that strongly, in cutting slack. Scott Dibble also cosponsors SF 32, this session.

Moreover, the Constitutional approach is not being solely advanced by Petersen with a blind eye to other ways and means. He is chief author (latest to earlier) of SF 1301, SF 1086, SF 985, SF 785, SF 784 (where some devils might be in details and I have NOT read the bill but in general it may be well aimed and tailored), SF 783 (which could prove quite interesting to read), SF 755, SF 600, SF 545, and other bills I might agree with less. Admittedly, only after reading each measure and mulling over possible bad consequences as well as good outcomes, can one have a total picture. But the above catalog suggests much correct thought, and with most bills in that list not being cosponsored, Petersen at least is filling a void even if some single-author proposals will die in committee. I continue to think Peter Perovich would have been as good and likely better in the job, but majority vote count wins, and Petersen has that virtue.

[NOTE: IF ANY BILL LINK ABOVE IS IN ERROR OR PROBLEMATIC, READERS CAN PLUG THE BILL NUMBER INTO THIS SEARCH PAGE, WHICH READERS ARE URGED TO BOOKMARK. SEARCH FOR INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS IS EFFECTIVE, THIS .../legdb PAGE.]

___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Besides Health Information Exchange (HIE), there apparently is a Health Insurance Exchange (HIX). With no research beyond a websearch and Wikpedia, starting links for anyone wishing to learn more are e.g. here, here and here. Privacy concerns do attach.

No comments: