Several groups have filed written comments in response to Rep. Rick Boucher’s (D-Va.) proposed privacy legislation, including a letter from the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) stating that the bill would “fundamentally change online information and online advertising practices to the detriment of consumers.”
Boucher released a draft of his privacy legislation last month, which included heightened disclosure requirements for privacy practices and new rules on targeted advertising. It also established a general rule of opt-out consent for companies that collect data about consumers, although opt-in consent would be required to collect “sensitive data,” such as geographic location information, medical records, or sexual orientation. (For more details on the legislation, click here)
Comments were due by June 4, and several trade groups and consumer organizations have weighed in.
The IAB, in a letter authored by vice president for public policy Mike Zaneis, objected to the legislation’s opt-in consent requirement for ad networks to track consumers. “Requiring consumers to opt-in to transfers to third parties would drastically reduce the free flow of information that is the heart and soul of today’s Internet offerings,” the IAB wrote. The group also advocated for continuation of the current self-regulatory system, stating, “We believe that self-regulation, which is inherently more flexible and better-suited to govern a dynamic environment than legislation, is the best approach to help ensure that consumers receive transparency and choice online.”
On the other end of the spectrum, the Center for Digital Democracy – joined by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the World Privacy Forum, and other groups – also objected to the proposed legislation, seeking to expand the definition of “sensitive information” and utilize strict opt-in procedures. The groups contend that the bill should ban companies from keeping consumer information for more than 24 hours without opt-in consent, arguing that the traditional notice-and-choice model doesn’t work online.
Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, criticized the bill for relying on the traditional system of notice and choice. It also objected to a provision in the legislation that would prohibit private suits against companies that violate the privacy standards. “The FTC does not have the resources to pursue all or even most privacy violations occurring on the Internet today,” according to Consumers Union. “Giving individuals a private right of action against companies who violate the law will have a greater deterrent effect and give individuals some control over the way their personal information is used.”
Voicing the concerns of the media, NetChoice, a coalition of media companies, including AOL, eBay, News Corp., and Yahoo!, suggested that the proposed legislation could interfere with the media’s ability to report the news. For example, if a reporter interviewed participants at a religious rally, he or she would be required to provide any interviewees with a written privacy notice to even ask for a person’s name, the group wrote, as “sensitive information” includes religious affiliation. A reporter “could not disclose anyone’s name in a published story without first obtaining their express affirmative consent,” the coalition wrote.
To read the draft of the proposed legislation, click here.
To read the CDT’s comments, click here.
To read the comments from the CDD, EFF and other groups, click here.
Why it matters: In addition to trade groups and consumer organizations, other lawmakers also weighed in on the draft legislation. Congressman Joe Barton (R-Tex.), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, recently said that the bill does not go far enough, offering his help to Rep. Boucher to make the legislation more stringent.