Would Consumers Be Safer With a National Data Broker Registry? (nytimes.com) 27
"A comprehensive national privacy law cannot be developed overnight..." argues the chief "data ethics officer" for Acxiom, a database marketing company, in a New York Times op-ed:
Still, people deserve to know who is collecting data about them, why it's being collected and the types of companies with which the data is being shared. They should also have assurances that companies collecting data have adequate measures in place to ensure security and confidentiality. That's why, until we have a national privacy law, we should pursue a national data broker registry to help consumers discover this information -- and learn the difference between good data actors and bad ones.
People who today use Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple understand that these companies collect their data in an effort to improve their experience and to generate revenue by selling advertising. But there is less awareness of companies -- generally referred to as data brokers -- that collect, source and otherwise license information about consumers who are not their customers. The growing commercial use of data is outpacing the public's understanding....
Data-driven marketing helps businesses reduce wasteful ad spending and helps fund free or low-cost consumer products and services on the internet, including free search, email and social media platforms, as well as customized content. In many cases, it also funds the press and other channels of expression. Our business is underpinned by policies on comprehensive data governance, in an effort to ensure that data use is transparent, fair and just, that there are benefits for both businesses and consumers. We help marketers follow the golden rule of business -- "Know Your Customer" -- so that they can deliver a better experience. Unfortunately, the irresponsible actions of some individuals and organizations have cast a shadow over our industry. They violate consumers' privacy, profit from stolen data and commit fraud.
Increasing transparency -- initially through a data broker registry and ultimately through a robust and balanced national privacy law -- would help reduce the conflation of legitimate, regulated entities with unethical companies and criminals.
People who today use Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple understand that these companies collect their data in an effort to improve their experience and to generate revenue by selling advertising. But there is less awareness of companies -- generally referred to as data brokers -- that collect, source and otherwise license information about consumers who are not their customers. The growing commercial use of data is outpacing the public's understanding....
Data-driven marketing helps businesses reduce wasteful ad spending and helps fund free or low-cost consumer products and services on the internet, including free search, email and social media platforms, as well as customized content. In many cases, it also funds the press and other channels of expression. Our business is underpinned by policies on comprehensive data governance, in an effort to ensure that data use is transparent, fair and just, that there are benefits for both businesses and consumers. We help marketers follow the golden rule of business -- "Know Your Customer" -- so that they can deliver a better experience. Unfortunately, the irresponsible actions of some individuals and organizations have cast a shadow over our industry. They violate consumers' privacy, profit from stolen data and commit fraud.
Increasing transparency -- initially through a data broker registry and ultimately through a robust and balanced national privacy law -- would help reduce the conflation of legitimate, regulated entities with unethical companies and criminals.
HA HA HA, (Score:4, Insightful)
No
American consumers are dumb. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No
Yep. How about a law making it illegal to collect data? Period.
I bet a law like that could be drafted overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
And the way forward (Score:3)
is to change the ad model back to context/content based rather than tracking based. Ditch all tracking entirely. The ads should just be relevant to the web page subject matter.
Re:no one is asking for a database. (Score:4, Insightful)
I largely agree, but I don't think you go nearly far enough. I don't want to be able to opt out. I want data collectors to be held to informed opt-in, without having to wade through user agreements that almost nobody reads anyway.
The second best option, which is a major compromise, would be allowing a universal opt-out from all data collection. Having to opt out from every company that wants to track me is totally unreasonable, especially given that there are so many of them, including ones that even industry experts are unaware of... an average person can't be expected to keep track of an entire industry.
Re: no one is asking for a database. (Score:3)
Remember when Google had the micropayment option that blocked ads? There is no technical obstacle to a opt-in model.
News The Tricky Bit (Score:3)
What information can corporations keep and what should be deleted upon request by the individual in question, well, news investigations, the stories and archives present quite the thorn in that issue. So what is private information and what is public information and what is done with that information, so what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. What is the balance between public news and private invasion of privacy.
Now the even trickier bit, false data and true data and who is responsible for those consequences. False data used beyond it real legal worth, can lead to very bad consequences and yet the corporation that provided that false data walks off scot free.
Generally we need to make it much more expensive to invade the privacy of people, so expensive that it costs more than it is worth. Huge penalties for keeping a selling false data, being held legally bound for data collected illegally, custodial sentences bound. Public data audits and the requirements that corporations submit a copy of all data on individuals to those individuals for those individuals to legally challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
Add in that your rules aren’t enforceable outside of the country and at best you just drive the data collection companies overseas or create some middle men positions to make everything appear above board.
Unless there’s some way to make all of
Of all the things (Score:3)
that America could regulate at a national level to the benefit of consumers, this should be slotted in somewhere on the priority list between a national registry of bubblegum flavours, and a national registry of cat food packaging styles.
Fuck Off (Score:2)
No (Score:3)
The problem is not to know who trades which of your data. Anybody can simply assume that all data that they ever put out there is traded by somebody. Whether legally (as typically in the US) or illegally/grey-area (as these days in the EU). The problem is the data-trade in the first place and in second place the quality of the traded data. Personally, I think your personal data belongs to you and trading it without your explicit consent should be a criminal act. And by extension, if anybody trades inaccurate data about you or data that you did not consented to be traded, they should be liable for any all all damage caused, in addition to facing criminal charges.
I do understand that this is unlikely to happen. For example, the default-on data collection that Windows 10 does is very obvious illegal in the EU. But nobody seems to be willing to slap them down, even if the means to do so clearly exits. But limiting data-collection and trade is an essential component of individual freedoms. Without it, a Chinese-style "social score" becomes inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
All surveillance, social control, laws, etc. can (at least theoretically) be used for good. But history shows that abuse by those in power is certain to follow shortly after such a system is established. So what is wrong is that it gives to much power to those that control such a system and power corrupts.
paying for then-mandatory optout? (Score:2)
Here in Europe many ideas have been discussed... Recently I heard a proposal that would turn into law the possibility for me to demand my data being not redistributed nor kept when useless, and then in couterpart having to pay for this.
The result being ;-)
- only those like me that are sensitive are impacted, mainstream present customers aren't
- GAFA somehow must implement something, but they continue getting paid for my data (by me, instead of by ads)
- and, cherry on the cake, I get less ad
This is far from
Blame and Reality. (Score:2)
We watch consumers ignore the EULA, blindly click "I Agree" every fucking time, and happily trade their digital soul all for a FREE price tag, and we want to blame the system. Riiiiiight.
You will never get mega-corps to act ethically, so don't believe for a high-frequency traded millisecond that they're going to suddenly be honest with consumers regarding what they do with "your" data, or how safe it is secured no matter what legal mandate might come down. I can guarantee you whatever fine a mega-corp wo
Comment removed (Score:3)
Hell ya this would make us safer (Score:1, Funny)
You know what we should also do? Ban all foods that contribute to heart disease. Ban all fast food restaurants. Heart disease is the #1 killer, right? Then we should nationalize the food supply and force rations on all citizens to fight the obesity epidemic. Ban all cars too, those contribute to massive deaths. Alcohol/smoking, thats gotta go as well. Guns... seeya. While were at it, why not just ban the internet as well, wouldn't that make us safer?
Were safe yall!
Re: (Score:2)
Better solution: DON'T COLLECT DATA AT ALL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely a need for *something* (Score:2)
I have some vmware product. Because of this I have a vmware account.
A while back, I logged into it, and discovered that they had a phone number listed for me which was last a reasonable way to reach me in something like 1990.
I was unable to get them to respond at all to queries about how exactly this happened.
Yeah, I think we need some kind of tracking on this stuff.
In France we have the CNIL. (Score:1)
Violators will be shot (Score:1)
No private data collection allowed. Violators will be shot, their belongings confiscated to fund purchase of more bullets.
Problem solved.