thE issuE oF onlinE privACy in thE intErnEt AgE FounD nEw urgEnCy Following thE sEpt. 11 tErrorist AttACks, spArking DEBAtE ovEr striking thE CorrECt BAlAnCE BEtwEEn protECting Civil liBErtiEs AnD AttEmpting to prEvEnt AnothEr trAgiC tErrorist ACt. whilE prEvEnting tErrorism CErtAinly is oF pArAmount importAnCE, privACy rights shoulD not BE DEEmED irrElEvAnt.
in rEsponsE to thE AttACks,CongrEss quiCkly pAssED lEgislAtion thAt inCluDED provisions ExpAnDing rights oF invEstigAtors to intErCEpt wirE, orAl AnD ElECtroniC CommuniCAtions oF AllEgED hACkErs AnD tErrorists.Civil liBErtiEs groups ExprEssED ConCErns ovEr thE provisions AnD urgED CAution in Ensuring thAt EFForts to protECt our nAtion Do not rEsult in BroAD govErnmEnt Authority to EroDE privACy rights oF u. s. CitizEns. nEvErthElEss, CAusing FurthEr ConCErn to Civil liBErtiEs groups, thEDEpArtmEnt oF justiCE proposED ExCEptions to thE AttornEy-CliEnt privilEgE. on oCt. 30,AttornEy gEnErAl johnAshCroFt ApprovED An intErim AgEnCy rulE thAt woulD pErmit FEDErAl prison AuthoritiEs to monitor wirE AnD ElECtroniC CommuniCAtions BEtwEEn lAwyErs AnD thEir CliEnts in FEDErAl CustoDy, inCluDing thosE who hAvE BEEn DEtAinED But not ChArgED with Any CrimE, whEnEvEr survEillAnCE is DEEmED nECEssAry to prEvEnt violEnCE or tErrorism.
in light oF this BroADEning EFFort to rEACh into CommuniCAtions thAt wErE prEviously BEliEvED to BE "oFF-limits", thE issuE oF onlinE privACy is now An EvEn morE prEssing ConCErn.CongrEss hAs tAkEn somE lEgislAtivE stEps towArD Ensuring onlinE privACy, inCluDing thEChilDrEn’s onlinE privACy protECtionACt, AnD proviDED privACy protECtions For CErtAin sECtors through lEgislAtion suCh As thE FinAnCiAl sErviCEs moDErnizAtionACt. thE lEgislAtion pAssED to DAtE DoEs not, howEvEr, proviDE A stAtutory sChEmE For protECting gEnErAl onlinE ConsumEr privACy. lACking DEFinitivE FEDErAl lAw, somE stAtEs pAssED thEir own mEAsurEs.But muCh oF this lEgislAtion is inComplEtE or not EnForCE
D、morEovEr, it BEComEs unworkABlE whEn stAtEs CrEAtE DiFFErEnt privACy stAnDArDs; thE intErnEt DoEs not know gEogrAphiC BounDAriEs, AnD CompAniEs AnD inDiviDuAls CAnnot BE ExpECtED to Comply with DiFFEring, AnD At timEs ConFliCting, privACy rulEs.
An AnAlysis EArliEr this yEAr oF 751 u. s. AnD intErnAtionAl wEB sitEs ConDuCtED ByConsumErs intErnAtionAl FounD thAt most sitEs CollECt pErsonAl inFormAtion But FAil to tEll ConsumErs how thAt DAtA will BE usED, how sECurity is mAintAinED AnD whAt rights ConsumErs hAvE ovEr thEir own inFormAtion.
At A minimum,CongrEss shoulD pAss lEgislAtion rEquiring wEB sitEs to DisplAy privACy poliCiEs prominEntly, inForm ConsumErs oF thE mEthoDs EmployED to CollECt CliEnt DAtA, Allow CustomErs to opt out oF suCh DAtA CollECtion, AnD proviDE CustomEr ACCEss to thEir own DAtA thAt hAs AlrEADy BEEn CollECtE
D、Although vArious intErnEt privACy Bills wErE introDuCED in thE 107thCongrEss, thE FoCus shiFtED to ExpAnDing govErnmEnt survEillAnCE in thE wAkE oF thE tErrorist AttACks. plAinly, govErnmEnt EFForts to prEvEnt tErrorism ArE AppropriAtE.ExACtly how thEsE ExigEnt CirCumstAnCEs ChAngE thE nAturE oF thE onlinE privACy DEBAtE is still to BE sEEn.
in thE EyEs oF thE Author, thE FinAnCiAl sErviCE moDErnizAtionACt ______.
A、sErvEs no morE thAn As A nEw pAtCh on An olD roBE
B、inDiCAtEs thECongrEss’ s ADmirABlE movE to protECt privACy
C、invADEs onlinE ConsumEr privACy rAthEr thAn protECt it
D、is DEFiCiEnt in thAt it lEAvEs mAny sECtors unshiElDED