Group items tagged

What constitutes unfair -- unethical -- aggregation? In the absence of a clear legal framework (the "fair use" doctrine in the U.S. is notoriously mushy), a lot of media people tend to use the "I know it when I see it" standard, echoing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's wry 1964 declaration about what constitutes hard-core porn.

A consumer reporting agency that failed to properly screen prospective customers and, as a result, sold at least 318 credit reports to identity thieves, has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law. Under the settlement, the company and its principal must ensure that they provide credit reports only to legitimate businesses for lawful purposes, use a comprehensive information security program, and obtain independent audits every other year for 20 years. The settlement also imposes a $500,000 penalty but suspends payment due to the defendants' inability to pay. According to the FTC, the defendants use sensitive financial data from other consumer reporting agencies to create reports that landlords use to assess potential renters. These reports contain consumers' names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, bank and credit card account numbers, credit histories, and other personal information. The Commission alleges that the company failed to properly screen new customers. The company allegedly requested only publicly-available information from applicants seeking credit reports, and it did not request supporting documentation to establish that an applicant was actually a landlord renting property. As a result, identity thieves posing as property owners were given an account with unlimited online access to credit reports, and the account was used to access at least 318 reports containing sensitive personal information. The FTC charged the defendants with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by furnishing credit reports to persons who did not have a permissible purpose to obtain them, and by failing to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent such impermissible disclosures and to verify their customers' identities and how they intended to use the information. The agency also charged them with violating the FTC Act by failing to employ reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect sensitive consumer inform

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has responded to the privacy concerns raised in this post by Consumerist. The post pointed out that a change Facebook made to its terms of service left the impression that the social network could keep and use copies of user content (e.g. photos, notes, and personal information) in perpetuity even if users removed the information and closed their accounts. "One of the questions about our new terms of use is whether Facebook can use this information forever," Zuckerberg wrote. But, oddly, he did not answer that question. Instead he opted for a rather roundabout explanation: if you send a friend a message via Facebook's e-mail system, Facebook must create mutliple copies of that message -- one for your "sent" message box and one for your friend's inbox. That way, if you leave Facebook, the copy your friend has would not be deleted. Fair enough. The implication is that, by extension, Facebook also keeps copies of all your other information, too. But the e-mail example has a major hole in it. Copying content makes sense for e-mails, where the medium itself depends on messages being copied. The thing is, Facebook users generally do not 'send' other types of content to one another, including photographs. Rather, they post them on their own profiles for others to stop by and see. There's no obvious reason that Facebook would need to perpetually store multiple copies of photographs -- because, as far as the user is concerned, they appear only in one place. Plus, Zuckerberg seems to underestimate his users' understanding of e-mail. My guess is most Facebook users don't think that if they close an e-mail account that all the e-mails they've ever sent will disappear. Frankly, it's not e-mails that are at issue here; it's this other, more personal category of content -- the stuff that people post within their own digital walls. Zuckerberg goes on to write that despite the presence of "overly formal and protective" language that Facebo

Privacy is a central element of the FTC's consumer protection mission. In recent years, advances in computer technology have made it possible for detailed information about people to be compiled and shared more easily and cheaply than ever. That has produced many benefits for society as a whole and individual consumers. For example, it is easier for law enforcement to track down criminals, for banks to prevent fraud, and for consumers to learn about new products and services, allowing them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. At the same time, as personal information becomes more accessible, each of us - companies, associations, government agencies, and consumers - must take precautions to protect against the misuse of our information. The Federal Trade Commission is educating consumers and businesses about the importance of personal information privacy, including the security of personal information. Under the FTC Act, the Commission guards against unfairness and deception by enforcing companies' privacy promises about how they collect, use and secure consumers' personal information. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Commission has implemented rules concerning financial privacy notices and the administrative, technical and physical safeguarding of personal information, and it aggressively enforces against pretexting. The Commission also protects consumer privacy under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

Broadband is cheaper in many other countries than in the United States. "You have a pretty uncompetitive market by European standards," said Tim Johnson, the chief analyst at Point-Topic, a London consulting firm. Other countries have lower costs for the same reasons their DSL service is faster. Dense urban areas reduce some of the cost of building networks. In addition, governments in some countries subsidized fiber networks. But the big difference between the United States and most other countries is competition. "Now hold on there," you might say to me. Since I wrote that many countries don't have cable systems and the bulk of broadband is run by way of DSL through existing phone wires, how can there be competition? Aren't those owned by monopoly phone companies? True enough. But most big countries have devised a system to create competition by forcing the phone companies to share their lines and facilities with rival Internet providers. Not surprisingly, the phone companies hate this idea, often called unbundling, and tend to drag their feet when it is introduced. So it requires rather diligent regulators to force the telcos to play fair. And the effect of this scheme depends a lot on details of what equipment is shared and at what prices. Britain has gone the furthest, forcing BT Group to split off a unit that operates the actual network and sells to various voice and Internet providers, including its own telephone service, on an equal basis. The United States was early with this sort of approach, requiring telephone companies to allow rival Internet service providers to sell DSL service using their networks. The way these rules were written, however, meant the wholesale cost was so high that providers like AOL and Earthlink couldn't offer a better deal than the telcos themselves. And the plan was largely abandoned in 2003 by the Federal Communications Commission on the theory that the country is better served by encouraging competition

It's become the familiar refrain this year. Each time we see a major data breach related to payment card data, the breached entity says 'Gee, well we were told we were PCI compliant - how could this happen?' The PCI marketing machinery then gets into motion, reminding us all that PCI compliance is but a snapshot in time - not a warrantee against future breaches. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of consumers have their personal information exposed to potential compromise. They probably don't know or care what PCI is. They just want to know 'Why wasn't I protected?' Fair question, and it deserves an answer.

Facebook's developer platform has been used for a zillion marketing campaigns so far, but this one is actually dead-on hilarious. Fast-food chain Burger King has created "Whopper Sacrifice," a Facebook app that will give you a coupon for a free hamburger if you delete 10 people from your friends list. Burger King has put out some interesting campaigns as of late ("Whopper Virgin," "Subservient Chicken"), but this one piques our interest because of how gleefully it pokes fun at our social-networking obsessions. "Now is the time to put your fair-weather Web friendships to the test," the Whopper Sacrifice site explains. "Install Whopper Sacrifice on your Facebook profile, and we'll reward you with a free flame-broiled Whopper when you sacrifice ten of your friends. The funniest part: The "sacrifices" show up in your activity feed. So it'll say, for example, "Caroline sacrificed Josh Lowensohn for a free Whopper." Unfortunately, you can't delete your whole friends list and eat free (however unhealthily) for a week. The promotion is limited to one coupon per Facebook account. My Facebook friends had better appreciate the fact that I made a New Year's resolution to cut out red meat. Hint, hint.