Today, Monday April 17 2017 at 3pm EDT (19:00 UTC) theOpen Technology Institute and Public Knowledge will host The Future of Broadband Privacy and the Open Internet—Who Will Protect Consumers?, which will discuss the recent Congressional repeal of the FCC’s ISP privacy rules. Speakers: Terrell McSweeny, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission- @TMcSweenyFTC; Laura Moy, Deputy Director, Georgetown Center for Privacy and Technology – @lauramoy; Tom Struble, Policy Counsel, Tech Freedom – @tstruble. Moderator: Sarah Morris, Director of Open Internet Policy, Open Technology Institute – @sarmorris. The event will be webcast live on the New America YouTube Channel.
Today Tuesday September 27 2016CALinnovates presents Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Privacy Online Privacy and the Price of Innovation which will discuss the FCC’s proposed rule to restrict ISP’s ability to datamine their customers’ online activity. Keynote speaker is former FTC Chair Jon Leibowitz. He will be followed by a panel comprising Richard Bennett, Founder/Publisher, High Tech Forum; Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge, & Tim Sparapani, Senior Policy Counsel, CALinnovates. Moderator is Fawn Johnson, Chief Policy Editor, Morning Consult. The event will be streamed live on the Internet Society Livestream Channel.
What: The New Final Rule on COPPA: Needed Protections or Impending Doom for Kids’ Content? When: February 14 2013 12.30pm EST | 1730 UTC Where: 306 Sherrerd Hall, Princeton University Webcast: https://www.youtube.com/user/citpprinceton Description: The FTC’s new Rule under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) becomes effective on July 1, 2013. The new Rule marks a major expansion of the long-arm reach of the FTC, both in terms of the entities subject to COPPA’s requirements as well as what data meets the definition of “Personal Information.” “Personal Information,” under the new Rule, now includes purely technical identifiers that currently enjoy near ubiquitous use in the kid-directed online and mobile space but which, in most cases, will now require parental consent come July 1, 2013. Many of these technical identifiers (e.g., UDID, MAC address, IFA) are currently collected by 3rd parties. As reflected in Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen’s dissenting Statement, the FTC may not even have the requisite statutory authority to reach this 3rd party conduct. This presentation will examine the practical scope of the new Rule, the potential for unintended economic consequences, and the possibility of administrative law litigation to have the new Rule declared ultra vires.
The Federal Trade Commission is considering a “Do Not Track” approach in a proposed framework for consumer privacy.
The preliminary staff report notes that current ‘opt-out’ mechanisms are piecemeal and ineffective, and concludes:
Given these limitations, Commission staff supports a more uniform and comprehensive consumer choice mechanism for online behavioral advertising, sometimes referred to as “Do Not Track.”
Such a universal mechanism could be accomplished by legislation or potentially through robust, enforceable self-regulation. The most practical method of providing uniform choice for online behavioral advertising would likely involve placing a setting similar to a persistent cookie on a consumer’s browser and conveying that setting to sites that the browser visits, to signal whether or not the consumer wants to be tracked or receive targeted advertisements. To be effective, there must be an enforceable requirement that sites honor those choices.
The staff proposes further discussion on several issues:
1) that such a “universal choice mechanism” should not “undermine the benefits that online behavioral advertising has to offer”
2) that the mechanism should preferably be a “browser-based mechanism through which consumers could make persistent choices” – i.e. a browser “Do Not Track” button.
3) that provision may have to be made for selective opt-in within the opt-out mechanism.
4) that the mechanism be simple
5) that the mechanism be comprehensive, i.e include mobile
6) that it be mandatory
In a response in the report’s appendix, Commissioner William E. Kovacic has qualms. He raises some interesting questions about the economic effects of such a mechanism on advertising supported free web content:
It is possible that if online content providers can deny free access to those who opt out of tracking, they can prevent free riding. Setting prices is costly; if willingness to pay to avoid tracking varies substantially, the informational requirements to set access prices will be large. For a number of content providers, a price-for-content model is likely to provide less revenue than monetization via advertising; that most websites choose an ad-driven model rather than a direct fee model suggests that the former is a more efficient means than the latter to monetize content in most circumstances. At the margin – which may be large – forcing firms away from their revealed-preferred method of monetization may reduce revenue and hence degrade quality. In discussing whether website content might be degraded by consumers choosing not to be tracked, how, if at all, should such risks impact the Commission’s analysis?
I think people will be willing to give up some privacy for good content. The alternate, getting content without targeted ads but with 3 times more random advertising, may be one way content providers can incentivize viewers to opt-in.
Should companies SELLING stuff that you are merely BROWSING (that is, NOT offering pure content) are the ones I am more worried about tracking people without their consent. If NYTimes, Newsday, CNN want to track what stories I like, and offer me more relevant content, with relevant advertising (but not selling my data to others) I do not see the problem with that.
If I want the content free, they need to make money somehow to afford giving it to me free.
This issue was discussed in some depth at the NY Tech Council panel earlier this evening – I will be posting video shortly. The feeling within the business is that targeted advertising benefits both customers (less & more appropriate advertising) and advertisers (less wastage – higher rates of return) to such an extent that wholesale inhibition not only makes no sense but is against the civic interest. Where vigilance and perhaps regulation is needed in restricting further uses of that data to build and market personal profiles of users against their wishes. What the FTC proposal does, in keeping with the Internet Society’s own emphasis on Usercentricity, is put the options firmly in the hands of the individual, and is to be applauded for that. But the devil is in the details. One panelist pointed out to me one incongruity after the event that if ‘Do Not Track’ (DNT?) visitors to an otherwise free site have to pay – the very payments will mean that they are more thoroughly documented than casual tracked visitors. On the other hand that could be a business opportunity for some entrepreneur to create some form of anonymous cash like micropayment system for just such purposes…
Thanks, Joly. I see the video clip above. Thanks for posting.
That speaker made a very valid observation. The law of unintended consequences. At the same time, part of the problem is that no good deed goes unpunished. The very “security” and “anonymity” that the freedom of the Internet provides is used as a weapon by the very people who would destroy us, our freedoms and our ways of lives.
On October 8, 2010, the FTC announced the completion of the Net Cetera Community Outreach Toolkit which is designed to help parents ensure that their children stay safe online. The Toolkit provides helpful information as to how parents can monitor their children’s actions online, including best practices for social networks, online communications, and mobile phones. The FTC continues to consider new rules and regulations to limit the data collected from children online.
Today, Monday April 17 2017 at 3pm EDT (19:00 UTC) the Open Technology Institute and Public Knowledge will host The Future of Broadband Privacy and the Open Internet—Who Will Protect Consumers?, which will discuss the recent Congressional repeal of the FCC’s ISP privacy rules. Speakers: Terrell McSweeny, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission- @TMcSweenyFTC; Laura Moy, Deputy Director, Georgetown Center for Privacy and Technology – @lauramoy; Tom Struble, Policy Counsel, Tech Freedom – @tstruble. Moderator: Sarah Morris, Director of Open Internet Policy, Open Technology Institute – @sarmorris. The event will be webcast live on the New America YouTube Channel.
Reply