April 4, 2012
By William Jackson
A White House official says that the administration will call on Congress to pass legislation to put the force of law behind a proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. The administration unveiled the principles in February.
Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)
In the long run, will changing expectations of privacy in an electronic world begun to undermine the constitutional protections granted to all Americans in the Bill of Rights?
The test of commitment is to translate high-minded principles like the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights into real legislative language.” The White House issued its privacy proposal, Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World.
“Some have argued that we’ll need something new—that the existing Bill of Rights doesn’t protect mental privacy adequately enough in the face of these emerging technologies.”
Business 2 Community
It did get a bit of spotlight, but when President Obama recently proposed a “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights”, as not just Americans, but consumers and consistent users of technology, we definitely should’ve taken greater notice.
Well, he’s certainly quoted the Bill of Rights accurately, as we should expect. But sometimes I think things can be oversimplified. This is a complex question, but I think Joyner’s argument may come up short both on the particulars of the Florence case.
Also last week, the Federal Trade Commission issued its final report for how companies should handle consumer privacy, which includes the aforementioned Do Not Track feature. This had previously been mentioned in the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.
Caribbean Media Vision
This call for legislation comes a month after the Obama administration outlined their “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” a document that details a high expectation of transparency on the part of corporations and their data mining efforts.
World Socialist Web Site
… by the so-called “swing” member of the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by the four-member right-wing bloc, is the latest in a series of reactionary rulings broadening the police powers of the state and trampling on the Bill of Rights.
Tagged: Atlanta Journal Constitution, Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, Do not track header, Federal Trade Commission, Internet privacy, Privacy, Sacramento Bee, White House
March 27, 2012
- Calls for voluntary online Do Not Track system
- Calls on Congress to pass general privacy legislation
- White House has called for privacy bill of rights
In 2011, the Federal Trade Commission slapped Google and Facebook for violating their own privacy policies, forcing both to submit to years of privacy audits. In February, 2012 , the Obama administration issued a blueprint for a “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.” The FTC, the main government agency responsible for protecting privacy, called Monday for legislation that would give consumers access to information collected about them by data brokers similar to the rights they now have to review information amassed by credit reporting agencies.
The FTC’s report comes a little over a month after the White House released its privacy bill of rights that called on companies to be more transparent about privacy and grant consumers greater access to their data but that stopped short of backing an explicit “do not track” rule. The Federal Trade Commission’s 57-page privacy report consisted of a set of “best practices” that the Internet industry is expected to follow — or face sanctions. The report mirrors many of the provisions of the “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” released by the White House and represents the first serious efforts at striking a balance in online consumer privacy protection related to web usage.
Critics contend the framework is not as extensive as the White House Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights announced back in February. That already made provision for “Do Not Track” technology, with Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and AOL – together responsible for almost 90-percent of behavioral advertising – already opting in. Privacy advocates have slammed the new” guidelines, arguing that the proposed system for ensuring online data security fails to take advantage of existing authority and relies too much on self-regulation of the online industry. The new framework “mistakenly endorses self-regulation and ‘notice and choice,’” the Electronic Privacy Information Center claims, ”and fails to explain why it has not used its current Section 5 authority to better safeguard the interests of consumers.”
Tagged: AOL, Do not track header, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Facebook, Federal Trade Commission, Google+, Privacy, White House