Officials Push For Action In 'Online Privacy War'

Top senators and members of the Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday criticized the current state of Internet privacy regulations and pushed for legislation that would give consumers more control over their personal information online.

"We can't let the status quo stand," said Commerce Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), who plans to introduce a privacy bill of his own.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, noted in a statement that self-regulation by the private sector has been a "failed experiment," allowing users to become increasingly exposed as new, more advanced tools collect ever-more-personal details over the web.

During a Senate hearing on online privacy, Rockefeller described consumers as being at "war" with companies over control of their information and stressed that Congress must intervene to protect their privacy.

"There is an online privacy war going on, and without help, consumers will lose," he said in a statement. "We must act to give Americans the basic online privacy protections they deserve."

The most concrete mechanism for improving privacy safeguards discussed during the hearing was a "do not track" system that would allow users to opt out of receiving targeted advertising based on their browsing history. The FTC previously endorsed such a plan in a privacy report issued in December of last year.

Though Rockefeller and other lawmakers have deemed self-regulation inadequate, FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz noted that companies such as Microsoft and Mozilla stepped up their efforts to introduce privacy tools following the committee's hearings last summer.

"We are encouraged by what we are seeing," said Leibowitz. "The pace of moving forward has become far more rapid ... It is promising."

Some are less optimistic. Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, outlined a privacy doomsday scenario that he warned could come to pass if existing online tracking practices are allowed to proceed without regulation.

"If this collection of data is allowed to continue unchecked, then capitalism will build what the government never could -- a complete surveillance state online," Calabrase said in a statement. "Without government intervention, we may soon find the Internet has been transformed from a library and playground to a fishbowl, and that we have unwittingly ceded core values of privacy and autonomy."

Kerry pressed Calabrase on his testimony and suggested that although current practices pose real risks to users' personal information, the outcome presented by Calabrese may overstate the potential danger of Internet tracking.

"That's a far reach," Kerry said. "That's a big statement obviously about potential downsides."

Leibowitz also highlighted that there can be benefits to targeted advertising that uses online tracking to present users with ads that are more relevant to their interests.

"We think most consumers won't mind getting tracked, we just think consumers should have the ability to opt out of that kind of tracking," he said.

Comments

[Genders]

05:57 PM on 03/17/2011

As usual, Sweden is way ahead of us. http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2035

[teksquisite]

03:50 PM on 03/17/2011

"If this collection of data is allowed to continue unchecked, then capitalism will build what the government never could -- a complete surveillance state online," –Calabrase

The “collection” has run “unchecked” for quite some time now. My concern with government involvement is that they will hold even tighter clutches over controlling the Internet and that disturbs me.

What about rogue adware (malvertising?) There is no opt-out for that! They often plan it for a weekend run at a high traffic, trusted website. The last malvertising run on the London Stock Exchange showed that only five anti-virus security suites detected it (Virus Total). These cybercrime toolkits allow the criminal to custom build variants that make detection extremely low. They purchase ad space from reputable ad networks and disguise malware variants with encryptors, obfuscators and packers. I predict that malvertising is going to become a huge Internet cesspool by the end of 2011.

I personally take responsibility for any information that I place on the Internet. It might not be there if I did not put it there in the first place. I’m not keen on having cookies placed on my hard drive either or risking a potential malvertising attack. When I want privacy online I use Firefox and the GetCocoon security plug-in, my browsing history and cookies stay in the cloud and I’m never tracked.

[Vious]

03:45 PM on 03/17/2011

Another chance for both parties to allow big ISP's to write the laws FOR THEM and thus have consumers end up paying for whatever the ISP's want

Awesome

[Th3-5p3ctr3]

01:45 PM on 03/17/2011

The only problem with legislation like this, (Besides the irony of who's proposing it, but that's another story) is that it does nothing to address the absolute ignorance and stupidly trusting nature of the average internet user.

In the day and age of Facebook, Myspace and Twitter, it's become the 'thing to do' to post your most personal moments, pictures and thoughts online for the world to see (and mock). Not only that, but it seems like almost any site or web-location that involves more than 3 different users is implementing some sort of Social Networking framework. It's only going to get worse as long as we don't teach people that the whole world doesn't need to know what you had for lunch.

That's the crux of it too. It all boils down to narcissism. These people actually think that their day is somehow important. That people need to know about their new pair of shoes or their favorite actor or who kissed who on the quad. Guess what folks? In the grand scheme of things...your daily inane babble is completely unimportant.

And then we have people like Mr Magruder down below, who seem to completely fail to comprehend the dangers of having that much information about someone floating around the internet. Ask Anonymous what it could do to someone with just a few quick glances at their Facebook profile. See, some people think it's all about advertising. It's not. There's far more they can do.

[Danek Greori]

03:13 PM on 03/17/2011

Well you're right about the irony, and the narcissism. What I think most people fail to see though is the correlation between what we've seen happen on the web with people notifying the world of their every movement, with what we've seen happen in American, and to a lesser extent Western culture over the last two decades.

Celebrity worship, "reality" television, and the web have all become a perfect storm that has convinced most people that if they keep letting everyone everywhere know their thoughts, opinions, and daily actions that eventually they'll achieve some kind of fame. It is part narcissism, but a lot of it, I think, is people's quest for fame.

[casssax]

11:27 AM on 03/17/2011

Your privacy was gone long before the modern internet.

I work in the direct marketing industry (junk mail) and I see lists that we get with information about every loan you've ever taken out. How much you bought your house for, how you financed it, how many cars you have, the make model year of each car, how you paid for your car, how many credit cards you have, how actively you use your credit cards. How many time you've been to the hospital, what procedures you had done in the hospital, what you or your insurance company(ies) payed out.

Don't forget that it is not just your internet use on your computer that allows them to track you. Every time you purchase something with a debit or credit card that information is sent over the internet to the banks that process them. Every check you cash or bill you pay, that information is usually being transmitted over the internet in some way (i.e. from a branch to corporate headquarters)

[Th3-5p3ctr3]

02:10 PM on 03/17/2011

Pics or it didn't happen.

Please don't make claims you cannot verify or substantiate, under the guise of "I work for so and so"...cuz most of us know you're just talking out of your arse.

[rjmiller]

11:24 AM on 03/17/2011

I love how the administration is coming out in favor of privacy from advertisers while at the same time advocating universal wiretapping in an effort to stop copyright infringement.

Which seems worse to you? The MPAA inspecting every packet you receive or a credit card company knowing you like the Beatles?

[teksquisite]

04:10 PM on 03/17/2011

RE: "Which seems worse to you? The MPAA inspecting every packet you receive or a credit card company knowing you like the Beatles?"

Privacy is a convenient bus for the Gov to jump on. After all is said and done, we will have the new 2011 "PATRIOD-C Act" (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Digital Communications.)

[tgiovanni]

10:36 AM on 03/17/2011

Privacy is important and each individual should have control over their own private information.

I think Chris Calabrase is right by saying that capitalism could build a surveillance state online, if it is left unchecked. While some users fail to see the danger in this, I would say that those users are simply unable to imagine the unlikely scenarios in which privacy would be very important.

Let's suppose that there is a country in which the concept of user privacy doesn't exist. The government and everyone else knows everything about everyone. What you eat, where you live, your religion, sexual inclination, political inclination, etc., is all public knowledge. And, let's suppose, that one day a dictator who hates all citizens that are not like him, comes to power and decides to exterminate "the enemy". Lucky for him, he already knows who his enemy is.

I know, this is stretching reality a lot, so, let's take a simpler imaginable scenario.

Let's suppose I am looking for a job, and my potential employer decides to check up on me. He sees my posts on HuffingtonPost, and decides that I don't have the "right material" he/she is seeking because of something I wrote in one of my posts.

The ability for individuals to protect their privacy is important. Otherwise, people would be afraid to discuss topics that would draw the vengeance of those in power. Can you imagine what the Inquisition could have done with the right tools?

[Th3-5p3ctr3]

02:14 PM on 03/17/2011

Both of your examples have actually happened and even been reported on by the MSM. So no, it's not stretching reality at all.

[ZeraLee]

02:50 PM on 03/18/2011

We are already well beyond that. Even the Sony rootkit debacle was years ago. Microsoft EULAs began claiming final authority over what runs on Windows computers long before that.

[firstrax]

10:21 AM on 03/17/2011

There is no such thing as privacy anymore.All e-mails and phone conversations are logged, stored, and available. Never say anything incrriminating.

[DovS]

10:12 AM on 03/17/2011

In principle, I agree. But isn't it a little too late? The data is already out there. You can't get it back now.

[casssax]

10:48 AM on 03/17/2011

No it's not too late for everyone. there are many young people who may be on social media sites, but they are generally too young to have any financial history or spending history (other than iTunes). Just because you can't 'get it back' doesn't mean you have to hand your children's privacy over to the cloud.

[tgiovanni]

10:09 AM on 03/17/2011

This proposed legislation is still wrong.

Users shouldn't have to "opt-out" of being tracked, and targeted. This implies that, by default, the users WANTS to be tracked and targeted.

The system should be an "opt-in" process, in which those who want targeted advertising can choose to do so.

"The most concrete mechanism for improving privacy safeguards discussed during the hearing was a "do not track" system that would allow users to opt out of receiving targeted advertising based on their browsing history"

The wording of this paragraph suggests that the proposed legislation is not even about privacy. It is about a user's ability to refuse target advertising. It doesn't mean that the user's privacy is respected.

They're not debating privacy rights, they're debating advertising rights.

[me again]

10:14 AM on 03/17/2011

Agreed, opt in is the way to go. The schemers like Facebook change their policies and don't necessarily tell you it's coming, then a few days after your information is public, they go, oh, by the way.....

[casssax]

10:48 AM on 03/17/2011

Yes opt in should be the default.

[Monopoblog]

10:36 AM on 03/17/2011

I agree with tgiovanni, Does an email provider, or a browser with fancy applications really need to know, your real name, phone # or address? Honestly the only entities online that have a valid reason or need for more in depth personal info are more or less limited to, retail / shipping and any legal documents, such as taxes, online wills etc. The use of "Capcia"(sp?) boxes has proven to be enough to insure the online services that those using their site are in fact actual people. The only other reason for requesting such information is purely a marketing tool. Things like identity theft would more than likely be reduced if we are not forced to supply our entire life history every time we want to take advantage of one free service or another. It use to be that companies would offer free services to attract visitors to their store and or website, in the hopes that once there the visitor may also find something they wish to purchase. These days they seem to be more fashioned as gimmicks to solicit information, that can then be sold to other companies, used to track internet users and or target them for spam and any number of similarly unwanted solicitations and invasions of privacy. If someone was monitoring my every move that closely, outside the web I could have them arrested for stalking. Something to think about!

[Timma]

08:51 AM on 03/17/2011

Sounds reasonable...

[go2goal]

08:38 AM on 03/17/2011

Try on these metaphors:

Nuclear power plants in the US have greater privacy than individuals.
US Senators and their campaign funding sources have more privacy than individuals.
The real US Military spending level each year has more privacy than individuals.

In the US, both the government and corporations have free will to spy, contain, exploit, and even incarcerate individuals in ways our founding fathers never imagined....and tried to protect us from.

In contrast, our founding fathers did not give all this power to our government and to our out of control corporations.

Sadly, when the Tea party says take back our country, they don't mean taking power back from Corporations....David Koch means quite the opposite...he wants the rich & corporations to control all of us.

[stillable2think]

08:55 AM on 03/17/2011

X2

[Steve Magruder]

08:28 AM on 03/17/2011

I don't see what's wrong with targeted advertising based on browser history. If this were stopped, it could actually kill off a lot of the web that depends on such advertising. A lot of your favorite websites may well disappear if this goes through.

I care about privacy, but do we really need to keep every last thing private? I honestly don't care if my browsing habits are used to cater ads to me. How does this hurt me? I don't see the problem.

[ChicagoBob]

05:36 AM on 03/17/2011

We could put Zuckerberg up against the wall as an example for the rest of 'em.

[PhilipTaylor]

05:32 AM on 03/17/2011

CENSOR SILENCE AND CONTROL!

[European1919]

09:31 AM on 03/17/2011

Once I'm done censoring both silence and control, what do I do then?

[casssax]

10:51 AM on 03/17/2011

No, no. First you have to censor the silence, then you have to control it. Shhhhhh......