The details of the contract for federal transparency Web site Recovery.gov are not available to the public.
Cato at Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Email Signup
Sign up to have blog posts delivered straight to your inbox!
Topics
Technology and Privacy
It’s Not So They Can Buy You Gender-Appropriate Birthday Gifts
Starting Saturday, U.S. airlines are going to start asking you for your birth date and gender when you go to buy tickets. They will hand this information over to the Department of Homeland Security for use in running your name (with these other identifiers) against their watch lists. This is the “Secure Flight” program moving forward.
I copied an image file from the Transportation Security Administration Web site that illustrates the problem TSA is trying to solve. Many different people have the same name. The government wants to do a better job of vetting you against their watch lists.
TSA has done a lot to keep Secure Flight going. It’s been a rolling failure for many years, and at least one serious problem remains: It doesn’t secure air travel. Watch lists don’t include unknown wrongdoers, and eluding identity checks will always be trivially easy (barring a bulletproof, national, cradle-to-grave biometric tracking system).
The privacy problem is simple: Giving better identifying information to the government reduces your privacy by an equivalent amount. Today, that’s not too concerning, and the TSA’s privacy impact analysis for Secure Flight promises they will keep data on most people’s travels for “a short period of time.” But promises can be broken—either in secret, or with the stroke of a pen. And you’ll have no effective recourse when that happens.
According to a Washington Post report, people will not be denied travel if they decline to provide this information. They will just be directed to secondary search. This points to a strategy that a small number of people—people like yourself—can use to have a large influence on this program.
If enough travelers decline to provide information—and threaten not to travel by air—the airlines will be forced into a privacy advocacy role. To defend their bottom lines, they will lobby against making this data collection mandatory.
As always, protection of your privacy is up to you. Go ahead and indulge your prickly, obstinate side on this one.
Related Tags
File Under “Handy Things to Put on Whitehouse.gov”
Related Tags
WashingtonWatch.com Earmarks Project Drives Obama Administration Reform
I was very pleased to read in Federal Computer Week this morning that the Office of Management and Budget will begin tracking earmark requests next year for the fiscal 2011 budget cycle.
OMB makes available some years’ approved earmarks, but not the earmark requests put forward by members of Congress. Tracking and publishing requests will shed light on the whole ecosystem of congressional earmarks—the favor factory, if you will.
OMB’s move follows a project WashingtonWatch.com has conducted this summer: asking the public to plug earmark disclosures into a database. The site now maps over 20,000 earmarks. (Well, technically, that much data breaks the mapping tool, but you can see state-by-state earmark maps.)
Earlier this year, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees required their members to disclose earmark requests. These disclosures—published as Web pages and PDF documents—were not useful, but public interest in this area is strong, and the public made them useful by entering them into WashingtonWatch.com’s database.
The project isn’t over, by the way, and the current focus is collecting earmarks requested by Appropriations Committee members.
It’s great news that next year the Obama Administration will track and disclose earmarks, from request all the way through to enactment. Given his struggle in the area lately, this is a chance to score some transparency points. President Obama campaigned against earmarks, promising reform, and this is an important step toward delivering on that promise.
Related Tags
Change We Can’t Believe In?
In her Washington Post column today, Ruth Marcus doesn’t mention President Obama’s 1‑for-46 record on posting bills online for five days before signing them. But she does single out a similar promise: “When the details of health reform were being hammered out, he vowed, ‘We’ll have the negotiations televised on C‑SPAN so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.’ ”
According to Marcus, dealmaking with the drug industry “underscores the dangerously wide gap between Obama’s idealistic campaign-trail promises and the gritty realities of governing. ”
Observers will continue to note peeling paint and growing rust spots on the “Change” icon that swept President Obama into office. He set high standards by which his lawmaking practices will be judged, and he’s not meeting them.
That’s not a personal knock on the president. He would if he could. But even a president can’t single-handedly undo the power dynamics that have accrued in and around Washington, D.C. for most of the last century — especially not one who believes that exercising government power is good.
Related Tags
All Hail the Demise of a Bad Policy!
Well, not actually. Instead, the Washington Post’s headline says “U.S. Web-Tracking Plan Stirs Privacy Fears.” The story is about the reversal of an ill-conceived policy adopted nine years ago to limit the use of cookies on federal Web sites.
A cookie is a short string of text that a server sends a browser when the browser accesses a Web page. Cookies allow servers to recognize returning users so they can serve up customized, relevant content, including tailored ads. Think of a cookie as an eyeball — who do you want to be able to see that you visited a Web site?
Your browser lets you control what happens with the cookies offered by the sites you visit. You can issue a blanket refusal of all cookies, you can accept all cookies, and you can decide which cookies to accept based on who is offering them. Here’s how:
- Internet Explorer: Tools > Internet Options > “Privacy” tab > “Advanced” button: Select “Override automatic cookie handling” and choose among the options, then hit “OK,” and next “Apply.”
I recommend accepting first-party cookies — offered by the sites you visit — and blocking third-party cookies — offered by the content embedded in those sites, like ad networks. Or ask to be prompted about third-party cookies just to see how many there are on the sites you visit. If you want to block or allow specific sites, select the “Sites” button to do so. If you selected “Prompt” in cookie handling, your choices will populate the “Sites” list.
- Firefox: Tools > Options > “Privacy” tab: In the “cookies” box, choose among the options, then hit “OK.”
I recommend checking “Accept cookies from sites” and leaving unchecked “Accept third party cookies.” Click the “Exceptions” button to give site-by-site instructions.
Because you can control cookies, a government regulation restricting cookies is needless nannying. It may marginally protect you from government tracking — they have plenty of other methods, both legitimate and illegitimate — but it won’t protect you from tracking by others, including entities who may share data with the government.
The answer to the cookie problem is personal responsibility. Did you skip over the instructions above? The nation’s cookie problem is your fault.
If society lacks awareness of cookies, Microsoft (Internet Explorer), the Mozilla Foundation (Firefox), and producers of other browsers (Apple/Safari, Google/Chrome) might consider building cookie education into new browser downloads and updates. Perhaps they should set privacy-protective defaults. That’s all up to the community of Internet users, publishers, and programmers to decide, using their influence in the marketplace.
Artificially restricting cookies on federal Web sites needlessly hamstrings federal Web sites. When the policy was instituted it threatened to set a precedent for broader regulation of cookie use on the Web. Hopefully, the debate about whether to regulate cookies is over, but further ‘Net nannying is a constant offering of the federal government (and other elitists).
By moving away from the stultifying limitation on federal cookies, the federal government acknowledges that American grown-ups can and should look out for their own privacy.
Related Tags
A Transparency Reality Check
David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Obama, emailed me yesterday (along with perhaps several million others) to tell me about a new effort on Whitehouse.gov to dispel “rumors and scare tactics” from people opposing even more government regulation of the health sector. I think the opponents of expanded regulation have the better arguments on the merits.
I was struck, though, by the effort that has gone into creating an entirely new section of Whitehouse.gov for a “Health Insurance Reform Reality Check,” complete with fancy graphics and videos. (I have modified one of those graphics to illustrate this post. Fun!) Meanwhile, the White House still hasn’t brought itself to do something that President Obama promised on the campaign trail: post bills online for five days before signing them.
Since I last updated the chart, President Obama has signed seven more bills. None of them were posted online for five days, though two were held at the White House for that long before they got the president’s signature.
It’s the president’s prerogative to use Whitehouse.gov for PR, of course. The site and the PR on it would have more legitimacy, though, if it were also a basic resource for information about the legislative business the president conducts — as he promised.
Because the White House has established no uniform location for posting bills, there’s always a chance that I missed postings. I welcome corrections.
In my search for posted bills I did find this blog post, which says “The President believes that a piece of legislation as important as the Recovery Act must be implemented with an unprecedented degree of transparency.” But as you can see below, he denied the public a chance to review the Recovery Act as he promised, making it Public Law 111–5 within a day of its presentment.