Group items tagged

"House lawmakers stepped up their questioning of companies that collect and store information about consumers both on the Internet and in real life. In a hearing today, lawmakers interested in drafting legislation that would place restrictions on how Internet and marketing firms collect consumer information, asked Wal-Mart, WPP and privacy advocates detailed questions about how personal information is gathered and used. Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) have been considering a bill, but a draft will most likely not be released until early next year. (See interview with Rush.) The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittees on Comerce, Trade, and Commerce Protection and Comunications, Technology, and the Internet held a joint hearing on the topic--although it was poorly attended by members. "We've moved from an era of privacy keepers to one of privacy peepers and data-mining weepers who want to turn our information into products," said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). "The product is our records, our privacy, our family's history. We wouldn't let the government do this, so we have to protect against companies that want to do this." "It is understandable that most Americans simply do not trust that their personal information is properly protected," said Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.). "

U.S. lawmakers plan to introduce privacy legislation that would limit how Internet service providers can track their users, despite reports that no U.S. ISPs are using such technologies except for legitimate security reasons. Representative Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat, and three privacy experts urged lawmakers Thursday at a hearing before the House Energy Commerce subcommittee to pass comprehensive online privacy legislation in the coming months. Advocates of new legislation focused mainly on so-called deep packet inspection (DPI), a form of filtering that network operators can use to examine the content of packets as they travel across the Internet. While DPI can be used to filter spam and identify criminals, the technology raises serious privacy concerns, Boucher said. "Its privacy-intrusion potential is nothing short of frightening," he added. "The thought that a network operator could track a user's every move on the Internet, record the details of every search and read every e-mail ... is alarming."

Lawmakers took aim at privacy practices of cable and Internet providers Thursday at a House subcommittee hearing, laying the groundwork for the introduction of legislation that could restrict companies' ability to target ads at consumers online. The focus of the hearing was on new efforts by Internet providers to collect and share data on consumers' behavior to target online advertising and by cable companies to target ads at subscribers via their set-top boxes. Lawmakers are concerned about consumer privacy as cable, phone and Internet companies experiment with Internet-based technologies that pinpoint advertising to consumers in new and more accurate ways. Legislation to impose tougher privacy rules could be coming later this summer.

Internet companies came under fire on Capitol Hill on Thursday, with lawmakers questioning how well the companies protect information that they collect online about consumers for advertising purposes. "I think it's a big deal if someone tracks where you go and what you look at without your personal approval. We wouldn't like that in the non-Internet world and I personally don't like it in the Internet world," said Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas). Lawmakers in the House are drafting Internet-privacy legislation designed to provide consumers more information about what is being collected online and to give them greater control about how that data can be used. It could also set rules for how consumers could prevent their personal data from being shared with advertisers. "Consumers are entitled to some baseline protections in the online space," said Rep. Rick Boucher (D., Va.) chairman of the House Internet subcommittee.

The new Obama Administration and a stronger Democratic party control of Congress set in the midst of a struggling economy and foreign policy issues, has created an interesting environment for legislation and regulations affecting customer interactions both federally and at state levels. While contact center-and-direct marketing-affecting issues such as offshoring, privacy, and telemarketing may haven been pushed offstage, they are not out of the hall. Ironically, economic pressures may shove them back into the spotlight as governments, especially states, seek ways to keep jobs and revenue sources, which contact centers provide. Federal Legislation Here is an examination of federal industry issues that lawmakers and regulators are and may be addressing in 2009: * Offshoring Federal lawmakers may reintroduce a bill similar to HR 1776, The Call Center Consumer's Right to Know Act, which would require contact center agents to disclose the physical location of such employee at the beginning of inbound and outbound calls. Firms would also have to annually certify to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC (News - Alert)) their compliance with such requirement. HR 1776 is an attempt to restrict offshoring by making customers aware that their calls may be going to or originating out of country. The bill's supporters hope customers and negative publicity would pressure firms to bring such jobs back to the U.S. The downsides are that such bills may significantly add to contact center costs in both onshoring and time spent location disclosing and in compliance, which would ultimately be paid for by consumers. In doing so bills like it that hike contact center expenses may also be self-defeating as they may result in fewer domestic jobs. "The particular type of disclosure contemplated by HR 1776 is a burdensome additional disclosure without clear benefit to the consumer," American Teleservices Association (ATA) CEO Tim Searcy told the House Energy and Commerce subcom

Behavioral targeting is not bad as a concept but advertisers would have the public opt-in by default without knowing what is being collected and what it is being used for. On the other hand not many in the public seem very concerned about this subject.

The Internet contributes about US$300 billion a year to the U.S. economy, and U.S. lawmakers should be careful about tinkering with the advertising-supported Internet content model in the name of privacy, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) said. An IAB-commissioned study by two Harvard University professors, released Wednesday, found that 1.2 million U.S. residents are directly employed in Internet-related jobs, and another 1.9 million U.S. jobs support those Internet workers. IAB released the study Wednesday, as 30 publishers of small Web sites converged on Washington, D.C., to urge U.S. lawmakers to avoid passing legislation that would harm their ad-supported business models. Chief among those publishers' concern was talk in the U.S. Congress about requiring Web sites to gain opt-in permission from users before tracking their Web habits as a way to deliver personalized advertising to them. Many users wouldn't give the permission, and without offering targeted advertising, many small Web sites could fold, some small publishers said. Small Web publishers and sellers "are the face of small business" in the U.S. in recent years, said Susan Martin, publisher of Ikeafans.com, a home improvement site.

"A federal law designed to prevent employers and health insurers from discriminating against an individual based on their genetic predisposition to disease took effect late last month, signaling a new era where intermingling genetic advances and privacy concerns create new challenges in health care. But left out of the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, commonly known as GINA, were privacy protections for individuals seeking long-term care, disability and life insurance coverage. Each of those areas was left up to the individual states. At least 10 states regulate the use of genetic information in long-term care insurance. But in California, privacy protections were left to expire by lawmakers in January 2008. Mark Billingsley, spokesman for state insurance commissioner Steve Poizner, said in an e-mail that there "appears to be a giant loophole" in California's insurance code regarding long-term care insurance and genetic privacy protections. He said he couldn't identify a single provision in the state code that would preclude a private insurer from requesting such a test for underwriting purposes. "

"Despite concerns from some privacy groups and U.S. lawmakers about behavioral advertising, most large advertising networks generally comply with a set of privacy and data-handling standards adopted by the Network Advertising Initiative a year ago, the NAI said in a report released Wednesday." ...NAI, whose members include Google, Yahoo and Advertising.com, should be praised for doing a compliance report after skipping it for several years, said Ari Schwartz, vice president and chief operating officer CDT. However, the group should consider using a third party to audit compliance of its privacy guidelines, instead of having NAI staff do the audits, he said. In addition, while NAI members appear to be following most of the guidelines, some of the privacy safeguards are "weak," including the data retention standard, he said. "There's no maximum for data retention -- they just have to state what their data retention policy is," Schwartz added. The NAI report doesn't lessen the need for new privacy laws, Schwartz said. Several online advertising networks are not members of NAI, and the recent public pressure has led to the NAI updating 8-year-old guidelines last year and issuing a compliance report for the first time in several years, although the group had promised regular reports, he said. "It seems that when there's regulatory pressure, they actually do comply with what they said they were going to do," he said. "We certainly wouldn't want to see any regulatory pressure lifted."

Worth a read. The story changes quite a bit from the top to bottom of the story.

A leading technology advisor to President Obama said in a research note for his investment firm today that privacy and net neutrality will be among the biggest telecommunications issues facing the Federal Communications Commission and the administration going forward. Analyst Blair Levin, who was the co-lead of Obama's technology and innovation team along with nominated FCC Chair Julius Genachowski, wrote in a Stifel Nicolaus research note that the economic crisis and change of administration will shift the focus of telecom policy away from traditional phone companies to "Internet/edge" players. Indeed, Google and other Web video and voice companies like Skype have been increasingly active in recent years at the FCC, pushing particularly for net neutrality rules that would prevent carriers from blocking or charging more for certain content that travels over the Web. Levin said in a note that net neutrality will emerge again as an issue in the new administration for wireless networks. On the other hand, there won't likely be a push for new net neutrality rules for cable, DSL, and fiber network carriers at the FCC. "(There is a) consensus emerging that disputes about whether a wireline network management tool is 'reasonable' (or is actually blocking or degrading traffic) to be resolved on a case-by-case basis," Levin wrote in the note with analysts Rebecca Arbogast and David Kaut. It would be a tough climb to impose rules that force wireless carriers to open their networks. Apple and AT&T successfully argued to lawmakers and regulators to keep their exclusive iPhone contract. Skype's petition to the FCC to force carriers to allow any handset or software to operate on any network was shot down by former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. He said the biggest "sleeper" issue will be privacy. With a major overhaul of healthcare records to the Web, the rise in behavioral advertising and cloud computing, where information is stored in computers strung across many geographies

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."

Big Brother may be at it again. Behavioral advertising - the tracking of consumer's Internet surfing activity to create tailored ads - has triggered an intense legal controversy that has law firms scrambling to stay on top of a burgeoning practice. Attorneys say that behavioral advertising is raising privacy, litigation and regulation fears among consumer advocates, the electronic commerce and advertising industries and legislators. Law firms are busy helping companies come up with a transparent way of letting consumers know that their online activities are being tracked and possibly shared. "Lawmakers and companies are having a tough time keeping up with this new frontier of Internet privacy issues, and there is growing consumer unrest about behavioral advertising, leading in some cases to consumer rebellion," said Lisa Sotto, a partner and head of the privacy and security data group in the New York office of Richmond, Va.-based Hunton & Williams. "Consumers find this type of tracking intrusive, and businesses are starting to take the consumer reaction seriously," she said. The buzz over behavioral advertising has been building since congressional hearings that were held last year, during which Congress called on Internet service providers (ISPs) to testify about a highly controversial advertising practice known as "deep-packet inspection." The practice gives companies the ability to track every Web site consumers visit and provides a detailed look at everything they're doing, such as where they're going on vacation, who is going, how much they spent on the trip and what credit card was used. But then came the first class action targeting behavioral advertising, filed against Foster City, Calif.-based NebuAd Inc., an online advertising company accused of spying on consumers from several states and allegedly violating their privacy and computer security rights. The lawsuit specifically alleges that NebuAd engaged in deep-packet inspection. Valentine v. Ne

U.S. lawmakers need to make sure privacy safeguards are in place before pushing electronic health records (EHR) on the public, senators and witnesses said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today. Health IT improvements are needed to improve the quality and efficiency of health care in the U.S., but patients might be wary of electronic health records without strong privacy safeguards built in, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said. "If you don't have adequate safeguards to protect privacy, many Americans aren't going to seek medical treatment," Leahy said. "Health care providers who think there's a privacy risk ... are going to see that as inconsistent with their professional obligations, and they won't want to participate."

Bring up the subject of digitizing medical records and you're likely to get a paradox of a discussion. Everyone thinks it will help save money and improve health care, and everyone has grave reservations. Get ready to hear more as a massive economic stimulus bill works its way through Congress, which includes IT health care spending measures. Although lawmakers are close to pulling the trigger. ensuring the privacy of patients' electronic health records (EHR) remains a top concern. "I very firmly believe that the Achilles heel of health IT is privacy," said Sen. Jim Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who chaired a hearing this morning examining the appropriate safeguards government should insist on before it doles out billions of dollars to help providers computerize patients' records. Champions of health IT argue that EHRs and interoperable systems to integrate data among providers would drive down healthcare costs while greatly reducing medical errors. Just 17 percent of physicians currently have even basic EHRs. The Center for Disease Control has estimated that as many as 98,000 preventable deaths occur in U.S. hospitals each year, many of which could presumably been avoided with more accessible patient data. "If 100,000 Americans were being killed by anything else, we'd be at war," Whitehouse said.

U.S. lawmakers need to make sure privacy safeguards are in place before pushing electronic health records (EHR) on the public, senators and witnesses said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today. Health IT improvements are needed to improve the quality and efficiency of health care in the U.S., but patients might be wary of electronic health records without strong privacy safeguards built in, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said. "If you don't have adequate safeguards to protect privacy, many Americans aren't going to seek medical treatment," Leahy said. "Health care providers who think there's a privacy risk ... are going to see that as inconsistent with their professional obligations, and they won't want to participate." An $825 billion economic stimulus package, called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, includes $20 billion targeted toward health IT efforts. The bill, which could come before the full House for a vote this week, establishes an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, which will be responsible for driving health IT standards.

It's unclear whether a report being prepared for President Barack Obama on federal information security preparedness will support recent calls for the creation of a new cybersecurity office within the White House, two lawmakers said last week. Instead, the report may recommend a more collaborative and cooperative strategy among federal agencies on the issue of cybersecurity without a single agency or department in charge, they said. Members of the U.S. House Cybersecurity Caucus met with Melissa Hathaway, acting senior director for cyberspace for the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council. Hathaway, who is conducting a 60-day review of federal cybersecurity preparedness on behalf of the president, Thursday presented a status report to members of the caucus. Speaking with reporters after the briefing, Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I.), co-chair of the caucus, and Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), chairwoman of a subcommittee within the Committee on Homeland Security, said it was unclear yet what Hathaway might recommend. Rather than "include another structure" within the White House, there may be a call for an increase in staffing within the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in a bid to improve its current role of overseeing government cyberaffairs, said Langevin. Chances are "there will not be one king," he said. Langevin co-chaired a commission at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan think tank, that has called for the creation of a centralized cybersecurity office in the White House to be named the National Office for Cyberspace. The new office could combine the National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) and the Joint Interagency Cyber Task Force, two existing agencies that are handing cybersecurity today. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also called for a new office dedicated to cybersecurity within the White House. Calls have been prompted by what is perceived as the inability of the U.S. De

Big Brother may be at it again. Behavioral advertising -- the tracking of consumer's Internet surfing activity to create tailored ads -- has triggered an intense legal controversy that has law firms scrambling to stay on top of a burgeoning practice. Attorneys say that behavioral advertising is raising privacy, litigation and regulation fears among consumer advocates, the electronic commerce and advertising industries and legislators. Law firms are busy helping companies come up with a transparent way of letting consumers know that their online activities are being tracked and possibly shared. "Lawmakers and companies are having a tough time keeping up with this new frontier of Internet privacy issues, and there is growing consumer unrest about behavioral advertising, leading in some cases to consumer rebellion," said Lisa Sotto, a partner and head of the privacy and security data group in the New York office of Richmond, Va.-based Hunton & Williams. "Consumers find this type of tracking intrusive, and businesses are starting to take the consumer reaction seriously," she said. The buzz over behavioral advertising has been building since congressional hearings that were held last year, during which Congress called on Internet service providers (ISPs) to testify about a highly controversial advertising practice known as "deep-packet inspection." The practice gives companies the ability to track every Web site consumers visit and provides a detailed look at everything they're doing, such as where they're going on vacation, who is going, how much they spent on the trip and what credit card was used. But then came the first class action targeting behavioral advertising, filed against Foster City, Calif.-based NebuAd Inc., an online advertising company accused of spying on consumers from several states and allegedly violating their privacy and computer security rights. The lawsuit specifically alleges that NebuAd engaged in deep-packet inspection. Valentine v. Ne

The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) is ineffective and major payment processing infrastructure improvements are needed to secure credit and debit card transactions, lawmakers said Tuesday. The House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science, and Technology, part of the House Committee on Homeland Security, held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday to examine the effectiveness of PCI DSS. "The bottom line is that if we care about keeping money out of the hands of terrorists and organized criminals, we have to do more, and we have to do it now," said U.S. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), who chairs the subcommittee. "The payment card industry and issuing banks need to commit to investing in infrastructure upgrades here in the United States." Clarke called on the industry to implement encryption on its credit and debit card processing networks and said the deployment of chip and PIN technology could significantly reduce the amount of stolen payment data. Chip and PIN technology is used in Asia and Europe. The technology replaces the magnetic strip on the back of a card and adds a four-digit personal identification number (PIN) to confirm a payment.

New Jersey lawmakers are considering new legislation that would require Facebook, MySpace and others to police social networking sites for offensive posts or else face potential consumer fraud lawsuits. But some lawyers say that even if the measure is enacted, it's not likely to have much impact on social networking sites because the federal Communications Decency Act immunizes such sites from lawsuits based on material posted by users. The bill is part of state Attorney General Anne Milgram's Internet safety initiative. "The social networking site safety act is intended to deter cyber-bullying and the misuse of social networking Web sites," the Office of Attorney General said in a statement about the measure. "The bill empowers users of social networking sites to take steps to stop harassment or exploitation." Last year, Milgram garnered headlines by launching a fraud investigation of gossip site JuicyCampus.com -- where users frequently posted insults about college students -- but no legal action resulted. (That site folded last month for financial reasons.) Attempts to rein in cyberbullying might be politically popular, but this type of state effort to regulate global Web sites is also likely to prove useless, say cyber lawyers. "We need to recognize that legislating on the Internet can't be done on a state-by-state basis," said Parry Aftab, an expert on Web safety and cyber-abuse. "We can't have a different law in each state."

Online targeted advertising and the collection of consumer data are the fuel of Internet commerce, not the major privacy problems described by some advocates and U.S. lawmakers, according to a new paper. "The use of such data permits firms to target their marketing messages to consumers' interests, pays for a wealth of content on the Internet, and helps protect consumers from a variety of online threats," said the paper, released Monday by the Technology Policy Institute (TPI), an antiregulation think tank. "It forms the basis for many of the business models that are fueling the growth of the Internet." Privacy groups want a "free lunch" online, with strong privacy controls that make it tougher for advertising to work online, the paper said. "Privacy advocates have provided little detail on the benefits of more privacy and have typically ignored the costs or trade-offs associated with increasing privacy," the paper said. Data collection delivers ads that people want and that advertising pays for a multitude of free services online, said the paper, co-authored by TPI President Thomas Lenard and Emory University law and economics professor Paul Rubin.

Defunct behavioral targeting company NebuAd did not just spur complaints by lawmakers and privacy advocates. This week, NebuAd's defense lawyers filed papers with the federal district court in San Francisco asking to withdraw as counsel in a privacy lawsuit. In a motion dated Monday, attorney Thomas Gilbertsen alleges that NebuAd is behind on its legal bills -- in some cases by more than 45 days. He also argues that because NebuAd is out of business, no officers or employees are available to help with the defense. "Because NebuAd has essentially ceased to exist, it can no longer participate in this case," states the motion. Gilbertsen also asked that the case be delayed pending NebuAd's liquidation and the resolution of creditors' claims. Gilbertsen also says in court papers that counsel and NebuAd have "irreconcilable differences." He did not elaborate in the motion or return messages seeking comment.