Privacy law and policy 2 - LIS550

  • 225 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
225
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2011 – possible amendment to Kerry act belowPros:provisions would apply to mobile phone network operators as well as Websites and online advertising networksSupported by Consumers Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Consumer Action, the Center for Digital Democracy and the American Civil Liberties Unionwould force companies to respect a consumer’s decision to opt out of data collectionsupports a mandatory browser-based “Do Not Track” mechanism would allow the Federal Trade Commission to define the rules within a year of the bill being signed into law.Cons:Blanket opt-out is not ideal for advertising companies, who would prefer selective opt outProhibits gathering info from minors, but how is this to be accomplished?Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011Pros:would require companies to informusers up-front what data was being collected and to provide a clear way to opt out of the collection. Cons:does not explicitly address “do not track”

Transcript

  • 1. Privacy(Gov’t Surveillance & Online Advertising)Bryce Newell, J.D.Ph.D. student, UW iSchoolJan. 25, 2012
  • 2. Megaupload.com (privacy issues)• DOJ coordinated an investigation spanning eight countries• DOJ retrieved private emails: ▫ Gee, arent we pirating? Isnt this going well? And hey Im looking for a copy of a movie myself, does anyone know where it is?‘ – Jonathan Zittrain (see here) ▫ Check out: Megaupoload.com• Articles from Reuters and NPR• What about legitimate uses of these services?
  • 3. Fourth Amendment• The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  • 4. US v. Jones (Jan. 23, 2012)• Facts• Procedural background• 9-0 decision (5 majority, 4+1 concur)• Scalia‘s opinion: ▫ Physical v. non-physical intrusion ▫ Property (trespass) v. reasonable expectations  ―…Jones‘s Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation.‖
  • 5. US v. Jones (Jan. 23, 2012)• Alito‘s opinion: ▫ ―I agree—that ―we must ‗assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.‘ But it is almost impossible to think of late- 18th-century situations that are analogous to what took place in this case. (Is it possible to imagine a case in which a constable secreted himself somewhere in a coach and remained there for a period of time in order to monitor the movements of the coach‘s owner?)‖
  • 6. OBA & Online Data Privacy• Targeted Online Behavioral Advertising ▫ Discussion of Nehf article ▫ Facebook Apps ▫ FTC‘s approach to OBA ▫ Industry coalitions and Congressional reactions
  • 7. Nehf (2005)• FTC history – law/industry self-regulation• Market driven solutions led to widespread adoption of privacy policies• But policies don‘t protect information, only disclose how it is being sold, used, etc• ―encouraging posting of privacy policies without regulating their content‖ = less info privacy for consumers ―than an efficient market would produce‖
  • 8. Nehf (2005)• ―Until privacy becomes a salient attribute influencing consumer choice, Web site operators will continue to take and share more personal information than consumers would choose to provide in a more transparent exchange.‖
  • 9. Facebook
  • 10. Facebook (2)• ―Many of the most popular applications, or "apps," on the social-networking site Facebook Inc. have been transmitting identifying information—in effect, providing access to peoples names and, in some cases, their friends names—to dozens of advertising and Internet tracking companies…• ―The issue affects tens of millions of Facebook app users, including people who set their profiles to Facebooks strictest privacy settings. The practice breaks Facebooks rules, and renews questions about its ability to keep identifiable information about its users activities secure.‖ - Wall Street Journal, Oct 18, 2010
  • 11. Facebook (3)• Who can see what? ▫ Public ▫ Friends ▫ Apps• Facebook settles with the FTC: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/tech nology/facebook-agrees-to-ftc-settlement-on- privacy.html
  • 12. Online Behavioral Advertising• ABC News Story [link]• For discussion of some of the recently proposed "Do Not Track" legislation in Congress look here, here, and here.
  • 13. Problems• ―…there is no single definition of what it means to be tracked, so expressing a preference does not guarantee users that they will be able to block all web sites and content that they may view as being associated with tracking behavior.‖ - From Microsoft.com• Industry self-regulation does not provide for any enforcement mechanism beyond current FTC powers (e.g. to prosecute for engaging in deceptive practices)
  • 14. What Do “They” Know?• Google Dashboard• The Open Data Partnership allows a glimpse into what information is being collected and by whom. ▫ http://www.evidon.com/partners/open_data_par tnership - contains list of 1021 companies that engage in online behavioral advertising, many of which also have multiple advertising products.
  • 15. Who Knows? * Ghostery results from NAI‘s Opt-Out page.
  • 16. FTC Report• FTC report calls for ―browser based do-not-track mechanism‖ in December 2010• Industry self-regulation ▫ Browsers build in do not track options ▫ Industry groups set up opt-out mechanisms (DAA, NAI) ▫ BUT self-regulation has no teeth (enforcement mechanism) and may only mean you don‘t see targeted ads, not that you won‘t be tracked.• FTC sues Chitika, reaches settlement
  • 17. AdChoices Evolution
  • 18. LinkedIn Ads• Rolled out in June 2011, LinkedIn exposed the products and services of interest to members for use with advertising. Advertisers could then display which members ―endorsed‖ products and services from an advertiser. The lack of solicitation from an opt-in process led to a backlash from users and LinkedIn backing down to consumer pressure. ▫ Forbes.com
  • 19. Recent Legislation• Europe ▫ 2009 amendments to the EU ePrivacy Directive require member states to implement by May 25, 2011• United States ▫ S. 913: Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2011 ▫ S. 799: Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 ▫ H.R. 1528: Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2011 ▫ H.R. 654: Do Not Track Me Online Act ▫ H.R. 1895: Do Not Track Kids Act of 2011 ▫ California: S.B. 761
  • 20. Wikipedia Blackout• One page remained live: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_ initiative/Action
  • 21. 1 Last Note: London’s CCTV Cameras• On Londons Surveillance Cameras, Bruce Schneier• 1000 cameras solve one crime, BBC• England Riots Changed Public Attitudes Towards CCTV Survey Claims