Group items tagged

First quarter federal reports show Google lobbied on the electronic medical records provisions of the federal economic stimulus act, contradicting the Internet giant's earlier claims that Consumer Watchdog's report of its effort was "100 percent false." Google's report shows a total expenditure of $880,000 on lobbying during the period including on "online health-related initiatives; issues relating to online personal health records, including in connection with H.R. 1: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." Google also contracted with an outside firm, the Podesta Group, which independently reported lobbying for Google on "health information technology" and "online privacy." King and Spalding LLP also independently reported lobbying for Google on "online health-related initiatives, including health information technology provisions in H.R. 1, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." After the nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer Watchdog reported the "rumored" lobbying in January, Google contacted a charitable foundation about withdrawing Consumer Watchdog's funding. In a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt released today, Consumer Watchdog said the company owes the group an apology. Read Consumer Watchdog's letter here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/LtrSchmidt042209.pdf. "It is now clear from public records that Google was lobbying Congress relating to online personal health records in connection with the economic stimulus act... What else could Google have been seeking except to be excluded from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provisions on privacy and forbidding sale of records? Please tell us," wrote Jamie Court, Consumer Watchdog president and John M. Simpson, consumer advocate. "There is a simple way to resolve this," the letter said. "Publicly release all the substance of Google's lobbying efforts on H.R. 1. Google knows the drill: organize the information and make it universally accessible and useful."

The Senate and House appear headed for a clash over competing visions of how to protect the privacy of patients' electronic medical records, with the House favoring strict protections advocated by consumer groups while the Senate is poised to endorse more limited safeguards urged by business interests. President Obama has called creation of a nationwide system of electronic medical records fundamental to health-care reform, and both chambers of Congress have included about $20 billion to jump-start the initiative as part of their stimulus bills. But as with much in the stimulus package, it is not just the money but the accompanying provisions that groups are trying to influence. The effort to speed adoption of health information technology has become the focus of an intense lobbying battle fueled by health-care and drug-industry interests that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and tens of millions more on campaign contributions over the past two years, much of it shifting to the Democrats since they took control of Congress. At the heart of the debate is how to strike a balance between protecting patient privacy and expanding the health industry's access to vast and growing databases of information on the health status and medical care of every American. Insurers and providers say the House's proposed protections would hobble efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of health care, but privacy advocates fear that the industry would use the personal data to discriminate against patients in employment and health care as well as to market the information, often through third parties, to generate profits.

With so many workers being axed, the threat to sensitive customer, corporate, military information should be examined. Once workers leave with sensitive information, good luck controlling exposure. Cross International borders and the issue potentially expands into an national "incident" with dire consequences for corporate reputation. Protectionism vs Patriotism. Issues raised in the Great Depression revisited with more impact due to expansion of the economy to global status.

Microsoft Corp.'s plan to eliminate U.S. workers after lobbying for more foreigner visas is stirring resentment among lawmakers and employees. As many as 5,000 employees are being shown the door at Microsoft, which uses more H1-B guest-worker visas than any other U.S. company. Some employees and politicians say Microsoft should get rid of foreigners first. "If they lay people off, are they going to think of America first or are they going to think of the world first?" Chuck Grassley, a Republican Senator from Iowa, said in an interview. He sent a letter to Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer the day after Microsoft announced the job cuts last month, demanding Ballmer fire visa holders first. Across the technology industry, some of the biggest users of H1-B visas are cutting jobs, including Intel Corp., International Business Machines Corp. and Hewlett-Packard Co. The firings at Microsoft, the world's largest software maker, came less than a year after Chairman Bill Gates lobbied Congress for an expansion of the visa program. Even before Microsoft announced the cuts, its first-ever companywide layoffs, comments on a blog run by an anonymous Microsoft worker angrily debated getting rid of guest workers first. The author of the Mini-Microsoft blog eventually had to censor and then completely block all arguments about visas, after the conversation "got downright nasty."

It's often the security issue that dogs Google, Microsoft and other purveyors of personal health records (PHR): How will so much personal medical data be kept safe? A tangential question for Google, however -- one that has dogged the search giant since its Google Health offering was first made available in May 2008 -- is whether Google's search-based advertising platform creates a conflict with storing personal health data. Speaking at the Mastermind Session at Everything Channel's Healthcare Summit in San Diego in November,Google Vice President of Research and Special Initiatives Alfred Spector told health care CIOs, solution providers and other attendees that Google intended Google Health as an extension of the Google brand, and it was and would continue to be entirely separate from Google's main advertising platform. Watchdog organizations have taken Google to task over that claim, however, with one, Consumer Watchdog, even accusing Google of trying to lobby Congress to allow it to sell medical records by loosening regulatory language in the stimulus bill. "The medical technology portion of the economic stimulus bill does not sufficiently protect patient privacy, and recent amendments have made this situation worse," wrote Jerry Flanagan of Consumer Watchdog in a Jan. 27 open letter to Congress. "Medical privacy must be strengthened before the measure's final passage, rather than allowing corporate interests to take advantage of the larger bill's urgency." Flanagan in the letter states that, "Google is said to be lobbying hard ... to weaken the ban currently in the draft measure on the sale of our private medical records." While Consumer Watchdog did not cite specific evidence of Google pushing for softer restrictions, Google responded to the group's claims on its Public Policy Blog last week. "The claim -- based on no evidence whatsoever -- is 100 percent false and unfounded," wrote Pablo Chavez, Google's Senior Policy Counsel. "Google does not sell health

Some consumers say they like the way Internet retailers will suggest new purchases to them based on what they've bought previously. Others feel creeped out when a banner ad seems to know a bit too much about their Web surfing habits. It's called behavioral advertising, and it's central to the business success of all manner of Internet commerce, from bookstores to newspapers. The practice needs regulation, says Rep. Rick Boucher , the Virginia Democrat who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet. Boucher says legislation to protect consumer privacy online will spur people to surf more. But Internet advertising companies are not happy about regulation, especially because Boucher's plan would require, in some cases, that consumers agree in advance before their surfing habits could be tracked. Such an approach "would really be a sea change in the U.S. regulatory framework," says Mike Zaneis, vice president for public policy at the Interactive Advertising Bureau. Virtually all consumer protection laws, he says, permit people to opt out of solicitation, for instance, with a "do not call" registry. For the Internet, Congress has done almost nothing. "To suddenly move toward a draconian opt-in standard," he says, "would really be damaging not just to businesses but consumers." Zaneis, whose group includes such news heavyweights as the New York Times Co. and Conde Nast Publications, says now is not the time to upend Internet companies' business models, right when the economy is in the tank and print advertising is drying up. He argues further that new Web browsers make the issue moot by giving consumers the ability to easily block the electronic "cookies" that track their online movements. The issue promises to be a lobbying extravaganza. Last year, when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was developing self-regulatory guidelines for Web companies engaging in behavioral advertising, it

"If you live in Texas, your medical records are definitely up for sale by the state. If you live anywhere else in the United States, they probably are for sale there, too. Medical health records provide key information to researchers, who have lobbied hard to keep them accessible, despite government concerns about the privacy of patient data. The controversy dates back to 1996, when Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to protect patients. "Researchers have very broad access rights to health care records under HIPAA," says Pam Dixon, director of a non-profit called the World Privacy Forum "The rules are pretty loose, and there are a lot of ways to get around them." That's especially true since the act wasn't designed to cover common scenarios today: records stored online in a vast, hackable cloud. In the rush to digitize all electronic health records, Dixon says not everyone is taking the proper steps to de-personalize the data and protect patients."

We all like to think our privacy is absolute. But if your job involves working across borders, you'll want to talk about privacy as a matter of degree rather than as an uncompromising right. Why? Not only do you want to be seen as someone who can get things done globally, but you also may personally want to be part of advancing social objectives that are arguably as important as privacy. Have you ever had to re-architect your global rollout of PeopleSoft or Lawson because of European Union privacy concerns? Or adjust how your company offers technical support to medical products sold in Europe? Have you ever been part of acquiring a failing European company where the privacy of employee data was a final sticking point? If you've seen projects with obvious social benefit get held up by seemingly minor data-related questions, then you might have been running up against this notion of "nothing trumps privacy." It's a popular idea. The half-billion people of Europe do view privacy as a human right. And they're not the only ones. As one of the first acts of the UN, Eleanor Roosevelt and the U.S. delegation in 1948 lobbied for the global adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UNDHR), whose Article 12 states, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation." With Europe and the UN using absolute-sounding language to describe a right to privacy, it's no wonder we have all of these delayed and downsized corporate projects. People are legitimately concerned about our sometimes reckless march into the Information Age, and they want to put some brakes on it. But does privacy trump all foes? I can think of at least six other equally important social objectives that regularly put limits on privacy: 1. Personal health. We all want to stay healthy - even when we lose the ability to communicate and give consent. Emergency-room personnel need access t

Don't expect a letter from Monster or Heartland Payment Systems letting you know they've lost your data. The breaches at Monster.com and Heartland Payment Systems are raising questions about the efficacy of data-loss disclosure laws enacted in at least 45 states. Back in 2007 we wrote about how the financial services industry lobbied hard to block proposed federal rules requiring organizations to notify individuals whose data they lose, and to permit consumers to freeze their credit histories. States such as California and Massachusetts have passed laws giving consumers these rights. But the Monster and Heartland capers have brought weaknesses in the legislation to center stage. I asked Lisa Sotto, head of privacy and information management at law firm Hunton & Williams, about this: Q: Heartland and Monster told me they intend to comply with all state laws. That said, they have not announced plans to notify individual victims. Is that OK? A: In the state breach notification laws, it is permissible to delay notification if a law enforcement agency determines that notification would impede a criminal investigation. If such a delay is requested by law enforcement, notification must be made after the law enforcement agency determines that notice would not compromise the investigation. I do not know if these companies received a delay request from a law enforcement agency. Q: Monster says it chose not to email individual victims because the bad guys could then replicate that message and use it as a phishing template. That makes sense. But is that allowed by state consumer protection laws? A: There are now 45-plus state laws and they are not uniform. Typically, notice is provided via first class mail, but there are provisions in the state laws allowing for electronic notice as well. Q: The only official notices from Heartland and Monster so far has been one-page disclosures posted on a web site. Does that cover them? A: There are provisions in the state laws al

A consumer group accused Google of seeking provisions in the economic stimulus package that would allow it to sell patient medical data to Google Health advertisers. Perhaps patients' biggest worry about electronic medical records is that their private health data will get into the wrong hands. To get a feel for some folks' anxiety, just take a look at this from a group called Patient Privacy Rights: "CHILLING NEWS ABOUT HEALTH PRIVACY: You Have None." (Or look at one of our many posts about health data breaches.) So it's probably not a surprise that Google, which last year launched Google Health, a personal online repository, was quick to refute a charge by a different consumer group, called Consumer Watchdog, of "a rumored [Google] lobbying effort aimed at allowing the sale of electronic medical records." The group further claimed that Google is "reportedly" pushing for items in the economic stimulus bill that would allow the company to "sell patient medical information" to advertisers. Google shot back, posting an item in its public policy blog calling the claims "100 percent false and unfounded." The company added: Google does not sell health data. In fact, one of our most steadfast privacy principles is that we don't sell our users' personal data, whether it's stored in Google Health, Gmail, or in any of our products. And from a policy perspective, we oppose the sale of medical information in the health care industry. Google's ear is likely fine tuned to this issue, considering some folks in the medical community have already pointed out the company is not a type required to follow a federal patient-privacy law called HIPAA.

Naturally, privacy watchdogs answer the question in this post title with a resounding "Yes!" The answer is so emphatic, in fact, that the Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. Public Interest Research Group are filing a 52-page complaint with the FTC today alleging that mobile marketers collect so much "non personally identifiable information" that it infringes on users' privacy-and are "unfair and deceptive." Mobile devices, which know our location and other intimate details of our lives, are being turned into portable behavioral tracking and targeting tools that consumers unwittingly take with them wherever they go. (Shh! Don't tell them the FBI can remotely turn on the microphone of several cell phone brands and convert your phone into a roving bug, even when it's off!) But is the Internet private-and should it be? Is a profile that states that you are interested in outdoor rec and currently in the Santa Clara, CA, area an invasion of your privacy? And if so, should we ban all outdoor rec stores and centers in Santa Clara from collecting personally identifiable information like, say, a picture of you when you walk in their lobby? Should we prohibit all employees from asking your name and if you slip and mention it, make sure they never call you by it?

"As Congress makes headlines on healthcare and financial industry oversight reform, online data privacy watchdogs are hammering away behind the scenes on the Hill. A joint hearing on online and offline data collection scheduled for later this week, and a planned series of Federal Trade Commission data privacy events have advocacy groups from as far away as California visiting Washington to make sure their voices are heard. "What we're concerned about is the amount of surveillance and tracking going on without consumer consent," said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. Though often skeptical of government regulation, EFF recently joined lobbying groups including Center for Digital Democracy in recommending that Congress pass clear consumer privacy legislation. "