iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Why The FTC's Online Privacy Plan Won't Stop The Information Free-For-All

First Posted: 12/06/10 04:57 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:15 PM ET

Facebook

The Federal Trade Commission's new proposal to protect our privacy online should do little to assuage your fears of a know-it-all Web watching, tracking and responding to your activities on the Internet.

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission waded into the debate over online privacy, proposing a "do not track" system that would allow Internet users to keep online advertisers from monitoring their activities online.

Although it is still up for debate, this "do not track" mechanism might be built into browsers and used to alert sites whether a user had requested not to receive targeted advertisements, which can be based on previous searches, pages visited online and geography, among other information.

"Some in industry support what we're doing, but we know that others will claim we're going too far," FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz said in a statement about the agency's framework for protecting privacy in the digital age.

But there are those who admonish the FTC for not going far enough.

Even as the FTC's proposal signals an encouraging readiness to take a more active role in safeguarding our personal information online, some see its first step as a timid one that fails to account for a greater set of privacy incursions that are no longer hypothetical.

The limited scope of the agency's "do not track" proposal aside, it is heartening to see the government finally setting its sights on the personal information free-for-all online. Just this year, for example, consumers were spooked by a series of privacy debacles that included Google's admission that it "screwed up" in collecting individuals' emails via WiFi networks, and the revelation that a Google engineer was fired for snooping on underage teenagers' messages. In addition to the FTC's 79-page report on "Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change," the White House announced a new subcommittee focusing on privacy and Internet policy.

But the FTC's proposed course of action shines a harsh light on what the agency has so far chosen not to do: use its authority to crack down on offenders and develop a more holistic set of guidelines that spell out how our online data -- if it does indeed belong to us once we share it with the Web -- can and cannot be used.

"The FTC is focused on one important issue. There at least two dozen more it needs to consider," said Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, in an email.

While the "do not track" system would give consumers the option to keep some data from being collected, the FTC's proposal fails to explicitly spell out guidelines for how companies should handle the vast reserves of personal information we voluntarily hand over.

"What the government ought to be doing is talking about extremely strict rules that limit its own powers to access data and also companies' data retention policies," said Larry Magid, a technology journalist who is also the founder of Internet safety organizations ConnectSafely and SafeKids.

Data on the links we click, search terms we key in and browsers we use pales in relation to what we actively share with online companies on a daily basis.

From telling Foursquare where we ate dinner last night to sharing with Microsoft's HealthVault our prescription medication or test results, once it appears online our information is no longer only ours.

"We may retain certain information to prevent identity theft and other misconduct even if deletion has been requested," Facebook tells users in its privacy policy, which warns that even if you remove information or delete your account, previously-posted content may still be viewable elsewhere.

The FTC's "do not track" legislation also seeks to arbitrate only a singular end-use for our data: advertising.

It is undeniable creepy to see a search engine serve up ads based on sensitive queries regarding medical concerns. And when an email exchange with a significant other yields a startlingly on-topic Gmail ad for a vacation destination with "secluded beaches, sultry sunsets, special moments for you & your love," it's difficult to shake the sense that Big Brother is watching.

But the thorny issue that the "do not track" system does not address is what we can do to prevent companies from using our data in ways that we might not yet be able to anticipate.

Some of the greatest privacy controversies in recent memory have arisen from instances in which websites chose to employ our personal information to offer new, unprecedented services -- without asking us.

When Google Buzz launched, for example, many were horrified to find that the social service publicized their most frequent contacts (Google recently settled a class action lawsuit involving Buzz). Facebook's Open Graph worried numerous others -- and set off a Facebook boycott -- when users discovered the site would begin publishing their activities on third-party websites. These surprises are not likely to stop: Google CEO Eric Schmidt has asserted Google's policy is to "get right up to the creepy line and not cross it."

"The FTC needs to think much more holistically about privacy," said Rotenberg. "It focuses on one particular problem -- online advertising -- and proposes one particular solution. The threats to online privacy, as well as the possible solutions, occupy many dimensions."

New legislation aside, Rotenberg also admonishes the agency for not having done more to crack down on companies that even the FTC recognizes as having "[crossed] the line with consumer data and violat[ed] consumers' privacy".

"By far the biggest question the FTC should address is why it has not used its current enforcement authority to take action on such matters as Google Buzz, Cloud Computing, and the changes in Facebook's Privacy Settings," says Rotenberg. "These are huge issues that the FTC could have pursued and chose not to."

As its report attests, the FTC is aware of these broader privacy issues, though it has not yet outlined specific ways these issues might be addressed. The privacy process will take time, notes Christopher Wolf, founder and co-chair of the Future of Privacy Forum, and it will likely be several years, if not longer, before meaningful enforcement is enacted.

"Just as the FTC report asks more questions than it answers, and appropriately so, this will be a continuing discussion and there will not be a set time when we can say, 'We've solved all the privacy issues facing us today,'" notes Wolf.

The FTC will be accepting comments on the "do not track" proposal, as well as its privacy report, through January 21, 2011. Learn more about filing a comment here.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

The Federal Trade Commission's new proposal to protect our privacy online should do little to assuage your fears of a know-it-all Web watching, tracking and responding to your activities on the Intern...
The Federal Trade Commission's new proposal to protect our privacy online should do little to assuage your fears of a know-it-all Web watching, tracking and responding to your activities on the Intern...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 258
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
03:32 PM on 12/14/2010
Two of the sources quoted in this story are funded by the online data collection and marketing industry, which should have been disclosed. Mr. Magid is funded by Facebook, News Corp. Google, Yahoo, AT&T and more. So it's easy for him to say the problem is the gov't--not his funders: http://www.connectsafely.org/our_supporters

Chris Wolf's Future of Privacy Forum has Facebook and other online data collection companies as financial backers: http://www.futureofprivacy.org/about/supporters
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tomjones
12:40 AM on 12/08/2010
The FTC is going too far and the best approach is Microsoft browser technology for suppressing tracking. digitalundivide.com
08:34 PM on 12/07/2010
The "do not track" option must be built into the computers' software with "on" as its default and provide no ability to outsiders to turn it on.

To expect the pernicious sites that engage in this disgusting practice to police themselves and abide by "do not track" requests is unrealisti­c. These are your 21st Century stalkers.
11:39 PM on 12/07/2010
I police myself. I don't need anyone to do it for me. With the click of a button I can vanish without a trace, but I actually want some place like Amazon to suggest books to me based on my previous order, my wish list, the books I look at but don't buy and my Library Thing account, etc.

Do you not have the self control to block pop-up ads, turn off flash with an addon so it only shows when you click it, and control cookies? Why would your trust someone to do it for you?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
C Karen Stopford
12:12 PM on 12/07/2010
More smoke and mirrors. It's the government we have to worry about spying on our online behavior, not big business! Ooops - forgot that they are one and the same. My bad.
10:03 AM on 12/07/2010
Man o man, there are .some things I would like to say to some of the crew on this site but know that i can't do to the control that is put on us here. See ya later.
09:24 AM on 12/07/2010
HP is guilty of being big brother. If I now share one of their stories to facebook, the require access to all my postings on my wall. HP is just as bad!
09:37 AM on 12/07/2010
Exactly. Get a browser button like http://www.addthis.com/

I tired to sign-in with Facebook here yesterday instead on my HP account, and when I rejected the request to access my wall it wouldn't log me in. Then when I tried Google HP WANTED ACCESS TO MY CONTACTS! So I denied that also and just logged in with my HP account.
08:59 AM on 12/07/2010
Any competent user can prevent tracking on his own if he wants. The tools are already there. When I do on-line banking, for example, I run TOR (http://www.torproject.org/) from a flash drive. Why do people think the government is the answer for everything? Be responsible for yourself. It's not like you can't do it; you just haven't bothered to educate yourself and want someone to do it for you.
10:39 AM on 12/07/2010
Thank you for a helpful post, fanned.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
RattleCat
08:44 AM on 12/07/2010
Its a shame the FTP has to mandate this.  You'd think the browser industry, as competitive as it is, would have provided these tools a long time ago.  So much for the "free market".
09:44 AM on 12/07/2010
No. You are just ignorant of them. Here's an example https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/11073/

And this stuff is open source. Since the browser wars and the Microsoft case browsers are free. There is NO "industry." Most are open source. So free market economics don't really apply like with widgets.

Firefox is modified and improved daily by "volunteers" software coders who want something, have the freedom to modify the code, and then share it because someone else might like it to.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
RattleCat
10:25 AM on 12/07/2010
Of course there is an industry.  Now you are the one being ignorant.

Mozilla competes for grants just as much as Apple, Microsoft, and a dozen other players.  Mozilla competes for industry and government certification just as much as anyone else.  All companies stress their own development environments for website creators, knowing success in that arena will lead to hosting decisions, which in turn lead to hardware and software purchases.  To think that opensource means no maneuvering or industry investment is naive at best.

Oh, and BTW, the existence of extensions is not what this article is about.  Its about making those extensions well known and enabled by default.  Its about recognizing that the average user is NOT aware of such functions, and the computer manufacturers are not doing their share to make users aware.
11:04 AM on 12/07/2010
Hey, better than "free governmnet". Chuckle! Ain't no such thing as free.
08:42 AM on 12/07/2010
Step by step, is what it is all about. This is the first big step in regaining privacy for the individual and protecting their personal lives from the perusal, analysis and manipulation of psychopathic corporations.
08:42 AM on 12/07/2010
Huffpost tracks us and feeds our info to commercial interests.

I get ads here all the time from other web sites I've been to.

And if you set your privacy settings higher than usual Huffpost starts writing intrusive ads over the top of whatever article you're trying to read here.

Talk about a hypocritical lead story!
09:49 AM on 12/07/2010
Same here, the more it is being done the more I stay away from H.P. I just click out whenever it happens.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ColinStevens
08:25 AM on 12/07/2010
"Publication is a self-invasion of privacy."
- Victor Hugo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mary Beth Mouton Plotts
08:22 AM on 12/07/2010
this site here is the worlds worst montoring what you say before its posted..........
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WowJones
Non union slaves built the White House
08:28 AM on 12/07/2010
You can get your own blog and post what you want.
09:52 AM on 12/07/2010
That is really not the point.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:18 AM on 12/07/2010
The First Amendment would be a small price to pay if the Quitter on Twitter had to put a sock in it.
09:53 AM on 12/07/2010
Amazing statement
08:15 AM on 12/07/2010
'HOTWATCH' ------------------is the WORD FOR THE DAY

http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=461354#461354

the ways we are ALL being tracked monitored and profiled
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:13 AM on 12/07/2010
Does this mean Sarah won't be able to Tweet no more? It might be worth it.