Rep. Speier of California starts the ‘Do Not Track’ ball rolling
On Friday, Feb 9, 2011 Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduced H.R.654, a bill designed to take the next step forward in protecting consumers’ privacy on the internet. Several items caught my attention.
The first thing to know is that this is not a bill that produces law. It is a bill that encourages the FTC to take action within 18 months. There are no clear definitions of how any of the Do Not Track processes would work, just that they should be there and they should be enforced and that the FTC has a year and a half to figure it out.
read moreThe ‘Do Not Track’ Minefield
The privacy landscape is bumpy and dangerous. It all started with the FTC’s report in early December. A distant cry was heard calling for a system like ‘Do Not Call’ that could apply to internet advertising and solve the woes of the consumer, protecting them from the evils of behavioral tracking. Shortly thereafter, we hear that Microsoft is planning a do not track option in the next version of Internet Explorer. Then this month Mozilla announced that it will provide a unique new type of header that when set, will tell websites not to track this particular user. And to cap it all off we have the DMA proposal of placing a little icon on every ad allowing the consumer to click on the icon, read privacy policies and then decide whether to allow that advertiser or not.
The Commerce Department Weighs In On Privacy
I guess it was inevitable. The FTC released their report a few weeks ago and this was the Commerce Departments opposing viewpoint. In summary, they noted that consumer were losing trust in online commerce providers and that their main objective was to address this issue while preserving innovation. This is always the excuse companies use when being threatened by ANY law or regulation. It goes as far back as the late 1950′s when car companies claimed that if they were forced to put seat belts in their cars, innovation in the automotive industry would stop.
The basic problem is that regulation causes increased costs. Costs to implement, costs to regulate and costs to litigate violations. And as consumers those costs get passed on to us so we don’t want them either. So what did the Commerce Department propose?
read more