18 ms·

FTC explores rules cracking down on commercial surveillance and lax security

JYellensFuckboy 4y ago
Official announcement on @FTC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FTC/status/1557733026947543042 https://twitter.com/FTC/status/1557733026947543042 FTC Chair Lina Khan [further breaks it down](https://twitter.com/linakhanFTC/status/1557738539202531334 https://twitter.com/linakhanFTC/status/1557738539202531334): >1. Firms track & collect data on Americans at a stunning scale—on our location, our health, what we read online, who we know, what we buy. >@FTC is seeking comment on whether to issue rules aimed at commercial surveillance & lax data security practices. Senator Markey (MA) has also [responded positively to it](https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/1557738870397353984 https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/1557738870397353984): >We have reached a crisis point for children and teens’ well-being online. I'm glad to see @linakhanFTC and @FTC working to give users the privacy protection they deserve. Congress must also pass my legislation to further protect young people online. We must act now.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nabakin 4y ago
  Sign up to comment during the public forum here: https://www.ftc.gov/form/anpr-registration https://www.ftc.gov/form/anpr-registration Event details here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2022/09/commercial-surveillance-data-security-anpr-public-forum https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2022/09/commercial-su... Sign up now because there is a limit to the amount of comments they'll allow and it's first come first served. At the bottom of the event page, they say a comment can be submitted at this link https://www.regulations.gov/ https://www.regulations.gov/ but I can't find the corresponding document for this topic. Am I missing something?
Xeoncross 4y ago
Wait, I think I've seen this before. It starts with a good idea, but watch as the outcome of all this is a new bill congress passes that requires everyone to walk on the left side of the street in states that start with a vowel and includes $90 billion in funding for desk manufacturers. Jokes aside, I'm really happy to see this. Privacy is really important and companies need to avoid collecting data they don't need as most of them end up 'hacked' at some point and every company shares their data with all the other SaaS they are built on. Also, I've needed a new desk for a while now.
winternett 4y ago
These problems should be addressed at the OS and device level first. Policing app makers is not enough, and there are far too many app makers involved in a revolving door of deniability at the individual application level. Device and OS makers should transparently and clearly define what features can be accessed by apps, and allow them to easily be administered and disabled easily by device users... Period. Then penalties for abuse and misuse can be addressed for app makers with severe fines. Any device a consumer buys should never be used to undermine them financially nor ever in terms of their personal privacy beyond basic analytics. That's a well known principle that should never be redefined. With all of the other advancements in technology to monitor and track individuals that are out there, we should not be personally paying for devices that monitor us and report on us to private companies or anyone else for that matter.
- saagarjha 4y ago
  What kinds of things do you expect to be gated behind permissions? How do you plan to educate users on how to grant these in an informed way?
  - jmole 4y ago
    It's not just about gating things behind permissions, it's also about exposing them in a reasonable way. Looking through the list of apps that want to "Control my computer using Accessibility Features", the attack surface is just too damn high: https://imgur.com/a/1CBpSWQ https://imgur.com/a/1CBpSWQ
  - winternett 4y ago
    Well now... That's a whole term paper that someone would normally be paid to write... Methods like encrypting files, creating proper storage segmentation/isolation for each individual app, ending the process of adding "bloatware" to devices, allowing for concrete disabling of cameras and microphone feature access to all apps (and also ensuring that app makers don't break app functionality when those features are disabled), eliminating in-app purchasing, ensuring that app stores clearly define app pricing and app maker credibility. Those things are just some of the first steps that need to be taken. Educating users is not involved in those steps. The way apps are installed and operated these days is far more confusing than making changes in order to protect their privacy as a default setting. TikTok and Facebook don't need access to cameras and phones when the apps aren't actively triggered by a user to record something... Somehow the apps require the permissions to be enabled entirely while the apps is being used. Every company should be required to comprehensively report on what data they track and be bound to responsibility to uphold that to a government watchdog with extreme punishment for mis-use. We also have to understand that when we speak about devices, we're not just talking about phones, we're increasingly talking about cars, thermostats, home security systems, TVs and many other consumer bought devices that give companies an infinite measure of methods on which they can wire tap consumers, and then sell that data, or even later use towards more harmful purposes like corporate espionage and extortion. Microphones and cameras were found recently to be hidden in Televisions when consumers had no idea they were, as an example of how far info overreach has gone. I'd recommend looking deeply into the integration and use of LIDAR on phones... Most people don't even know that/if it is a feature on their phone and on certain cars... It can be leveraged in many deeply invasive ways on individual device users if it is accessed by social media companies, or even worse if a data breach occurs. First, They (The FTC) should hire proper consultants to properly present the issues involved (Both cynics and optimists), and not just lean on basic understanding, there are a wide range of devices and features, combined with tons of different apps and use cases for them. Resolution is not a simple issue that can be summarized within a few posts online.
samename 4y ago
This must be too good to be true, right? What are the odds any meaningful action comes from this?
bagels 4y ago
I'm sure this is aimed at this data being used for marketing, but hopefully will address providing this surveillance data to government as well.
stalinford 4y ago
Surprised that HN keeps falling for this. Does no one remember the NSA?
- colechristensen 4y ago
  The NSA can get all the information it needs without all of this commercial surveillance. The NSA can also get all the information it wants from companies while they're still banned from selling it.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    But it can't when they're banned from collecting it.
WebbWeaver 4y ago
>The Commission voted 3-2 to publish the notice in the Federal Register. Chair Khan, Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya issued separate statements. Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson voted no and issued dissenting statements. That is a very interesting spread. Statements from each (notable excerpts) Chair Linda M Kahn. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Statement%20of%20Chair%20Lina%20M.%20Khan%20on%20Commercial%20Surveillance%20ANPR%2008112022.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Statement%20of%... >The data practices of today’s surveillance economy can create and exacerbate deep asymmetries of information—exacerbating, in turn, imbalances of power. And the expanding contexts in which users’ personal data is used—from health care and housing to employment and education—mean that what’s at stake with unlawful collection, use, retention, or disclosure is not just one’s subjective preference for privacy, but one’s access to opportunities in our economy and society, as well as core civil liberties and civil rights. The fact that current data practices can have such consequential effects heightens both the importance of wielding the full set of tools that Congress has given us, as well as the responsibility we have to do so. In particular, Section 18 of the FTC Act grants us clear authority to issue rules that identify specific business practices that are unlawful by virtue of being “unfair” or “deceptive.”10 Doing so could provide firms with greater clarity about the scope of their legal obligations. It could also strengthen our ability to deter lawbreaking, given that firsttime violators of duly promulgated trade regulation rules—unlike most first-time violators of the FTC Act11—are subject to civil penalties. This would also help dispense with competitive advantages enjoyed by firms that break the law: all companies would be on the hook for civil penalties for law violations, not just those that are repeat offenders. Today’s action marks the beginning of the rulemaking proceeding. In issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), the Commission is seeking comments from the public on the extent and effects of various commercial surveillance and data security practices, as well as on various approaches to crafting rules to govern these practices and the attendant tradeoffs. Our goal at this stage is to begin building a rich public record to inform whether rulemaking is worthwhile and the form that potential proposed rules should take. Robust public engagement will be critical—particularly for documenting specific harmful business practices and their prevalence, the magnitude and extent of the resulting consumer harm, the efficacy or shortcomings of rules pursued in other jurisdictions, and how to assess which areas are or are not fruitful for FTC rulemaking. ... At minimum, the record we will build through issuing this ANPR and seeking public comment can serve as a resource to policymakers across the board as legislative efforts continue. ... [categories include (Procedural protections, Administrability, Business models and incentives, Discrimination based on protected categories, Workplace surveillance)] Rebecca Kelly Slaughter https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/RKS%20ANPR%20Statement%2008112022.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/RKS%20ANPR%20St... >Conclusion The path the Commission is heading down by opening this rulemaking process is not an easy one. But it is a necessary one. The worst outcome, as I said three years ago, is not that we get started and then Congress passes a law; it is that we never get started and Congress never passes a law. People have made it clear that they find this status quo unacceptable.46 Consumers and businesses alike deserve to know, with real clarity, how our Section 5 authority applies in the data economy. Using the tools we have available benefits the whole of the Commission’s mission; well-supported rules could facilitate competition, improve respect for and compliance with the law, and relieve our enforcement burdens. I have an open mind about this process and no certainty about where our inquiry will lead or what rules the record will support, as I believe is my obligation. But I do know that it is past time for us to begin asking these questions and to follow the facts and evidence where they lead us. I expect that the Commission will take this opportunity to think deeply about people’s experiences in this market and about how to ensure that the benefits of progress are not built on an exploitative foundation. Clear rules have the potential for making the data economy more fair and more equitable for consumers, workers, businesses, and potential competitors alike. I am grateful to the Commission staff for their extensive work leading up to the issuance Alvaro Bedoya https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Bedoya%20ANPR%20Statement%2008112022.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Bedoya%20ANPR%2... >Our nation is the world’s unquestioned leader on technology. We are the world’s unquestioned leader in the data economy. And yet we are almost alone in our lack of meaningful protections for this infrastructure. We lack a modern data security law. We lack a baseline consumer privacy rule. We lack civil rights protections suitable for the digital age. This is a landscape ripe for abuse. Now it is time to act. Today, we are beginning the hard work of considering new rules to protect people from unfair or deceptive commercial surveillance and data security practices. My friend Commissioner Phillips argues that this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) “recast[s] the Commission as a legislature,” and “reaches outside the jurisdiction of the FTC.”1 I respectfully disagree. Today, we’re just asking questions, exactly as Congress has directed us to do.2 At this most preliminary step, breadth is a feature, not a bug. We need a diverse range of public comments to help us discern whether and how to proceed with Notices of Proposed Rulemaking. There is much more process to come. Noah Joshua Phillips. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Commissioner%20Phillips%20Dissent%20to%20Commercial%20Surveillance%20ANPR%2008112022.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Commissioner%20... >Legislating comprehensive national rules for consumer data privacy and security is a complicated undertaking. Any law our nation adopts will have vast economic significance. It will impact many thousands of companies, millions of citizens, and billions upon billions of dollars in commerce. It will involve real trade-offs between, for example, innovation, jobs, and economic growth on the one hand and protection from privacy harms on the other. (It will also require some level of social consensus about which harms the law can and should address.) Like most regulations, comprehensive rules for data privacy and security will likely displace some amount of competition. Reducing the ability of companies to use data about consumers, which today facilitates the provision of free services, may result in higher prices—an effect that policymakers would be remiss not to consider in our current inflationary environment.1 Christine S. Wilson https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Commissioner%20Wilson%20Dissent%20ANPRM%20FINAL%2008112022.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Commissioner%20... >Throughout my tenure as an FTC Commissioner, I have encouraged Congress to pass comprehensive privacy legislation.1 While I have great faith in markets to produce the best results for consumers, Econ 101 teaches that the prerequisites of healthy competition are sometimes absent. Markets do not operate efficiently, for example, when consumers do not have complete and accurate information about the characteristics of the products and services they are evaluating. 2 Neither do markets operate efficiently when the costs and benefits of a product are not fully borne by its producer and consumers – in other words, when a product creates what economists call externalities.3 Both of these shortcomings are on display in the areas of privacy and data security. In the language of economists, both information asymmetries and the presence of externalities lead to inefficient outcomes with respect to privacy and data security.
exabrial 4y ago
The other day, in our _private_ parking lot, a car drove through with license platter scanner attached. Up and down each row. It wasn't marked, and the scanners were bolted on. Civilian plate, early 20s driver. We called the police, but they wouldn't do anything as the car was gone, and we didn't get the exact plate number. Like _what in the actual @#$%? What jackass Silicon Valley startup is funding this operation? It's this kind of stuff, which is illegal, but because it's hard to enforce, people will get away with. These people have obviously trespassed hundreds of times.
- jcims 4y ago
  How do you know that's what it was? Why would anyone need anything more than a simple camera for that application? Is it possible it was using LIDAR or some other tech for another application?
  - thereddaikon 4y ago
    Why does it matter? Why is it ok to drive through a private property and just scan shit, regardless of the specific technology used?
    - jcims 4y ago
      There are a number of valid reasons. Immediately jumping to the most conspiratorial may not be the healthiest approach.
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        Okay — name a few specific reasons.
      - Guest42 4y ago
        I'd want to know what was done with the data after the scanning. Perhaps a specific car is being sought and the data is discarded afterwards, which would be more ethical than keeping the data and attempting to profit off of it, regardless of whether it's "legal" and there's some attempt at "disrupting an industry."
thereddaikon 4y ago
The FTC is going to be limited in what it can do unless Congress passes legislation specifically allowing it to regulate this. Due to a recent SCOTUS decision, federal regulators are allowed much less leeway in how they can interpret their powers as granted by congress. This is in principle a good thing, appointed bureaucrats shouldn't be allowed to create law by fiat. However it means Congress actually has to do their damn job and stop delegating their powers through lazy and broad legislation. Good luck with that.
- thfuran 4y ago
  I don't think it is a good thing in principle. Much of the point of creating agencies like the FTC is to prevent Congress from having to deal with the minutiae of every single thing that ought to be regulated.
  - thereddaikon 4y ago
    Of course its a good thing. We in theory have a balance of powers between the branches for well founded reasons. Give too much power to one branch and its easy for them to rule by themselves and create tyranny. Non elected officials shouldn't be able to create law. That power should remain exclusively with the legislature. Give it to people who are not accountable to the voters and they can and will start working against the will of the people. And it will happen quite easily.
djbusby 4y ago
Oh, maybe Chase will have to finally figure out why they send notifications about my account to an email that isn't anywhere I can edit, see or change. And why only intermittent notifications there, I actually get some.
throwaway4220 4y ago
I'm excited at the prospect of getting more control of my privacy. I get calls, texts, emails to my personal account about jobs. No clue how they know I'm a physician, and God knows what else they know about me. I'm forced to assume the state medical board sold my info to some third party recruiters. IDK, maybe the FTC should suggest that China may own some of these tracking companies/apps, that would get immediate bipartisan support.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  They do!, TikTok is just the beginning. Look at the games, etc.
kbos87 4y ago
I’ll throw out a practice that I’m really weary of - many bars, clubs, casinos, etc now scan your ID upon entry. If they have a problem with you (and they define what constitutes a “problem”) you can end up added to what is essentially a secretive blacklist that’s shared among businesses, and you have no visibility into or recourse against it. I understand that I’m entering private property and I have the right to not go there. I don’t think that’s a valid argument against this being a terrible idea.
- tantalor 4y ago
  Which is the terrible part? Scanning your ID, or the secretive blacklist?
  - kbos87 4y ago
    I mainly have a problem with the collection and storage of my personal information in a way that could impact me in the future and that I have no insight or control over. Scanning an ID to get back a confirmation of its validity and not retaining any data in the process isn’t something I have an issue with.
    - abnercoimbre 4y ago
      What are some potential solutions? Regulating and standardizing scanner apps?
      - kbos87 4y ago
        Since we’re talking about what the FTC could do here, prohibiting these businesses from retaining or at least sharing data on their patrons could be a start.
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    Whichever one you're more willing to argue for, they're both justifiable yet dystopian horseshit.

Official announcement on @FTC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FTC/status/1557733026947543042 https://twitter.com/FTC/status/1557733026947543042 FTC Chair Lina Khan [further breaks it down](https://twitter.com/linakhanFTC/status/1557738539202531334 https://twitter.com/linakhanFTC/status/1557738539202531334): >1. Firms track & collect data on Americans at a stunning scale—on our location, our health, what we read online, who we know, what we buy. >@FTC is seeking comment on whether to issue rules aimed at commercial surveillance & lax data security practices. Senator Markey (MA) has also [responded positively to it](https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/1557738870397353984 https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/1557738870397353984): >We have reached a crisis point for children and teens’ well-being online. I'm glad to see @linakhanFTC and @FTC working to give users the privacy protection they deserve. Congress must also pass my legislation to further protect young people online. We must act now.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nabakin 4y ago
Sign up to comment during the public forum here: https://www.ftc.gov/form/anpr-registration https://www.ftc.gov/form/anpr-registration Event details here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2022/09/commercial-surveillance-data-security-anpr-public-forum https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2022/09/commercial-su... Sign up now because there is a limit to the amount of comments they'll allow and it's first come first served. At the bottom of the event page, they say a comment can be submitted at this link https://www.regulations.gov/ https://www.regulations.gov/ but I can't find the corresponding document for this topic. Am I missing something?

Xeoncross 4y ago

Wait, I think I've seen this before. It starts with a good idea, but watch as the outcome of all this is a new bill congress passes that requires everyone to walk on the left side of the street in states that start with a vowel and includes $90 billion in funding for desk manufacturers. Jokes aside, I'm really happy to see this. Privacy is really important and companies need to avoid collecting data they don't need as most of them end up 'hacked' at some point and every company shares their data with all the other SaaS they are built on. Also, I've needed a new desk for a while now.

winternett 4y ago

These problems should be addressed at the OS and device level first. Policing app makers is not enough, and there are far too many app makers involved in a revolving door of deniability at the individual application level. Device and OS makers should transparently and clearly define what features can be accessed by apps, and allow them to easily be administered and disabled easily by device users... Period. Then penalties for abuse and misuse can be addressed for app makers with severe fines. Any device a consumer buys should never be used to undermine them financially nor ever in terms of their personal privacy beyond basic analytics. That's a well known principle that should never be redefined. With all of the other advancements in technology to monitor and track individuals that are out there, we should not be personally paying for devices that monitor us and report on us to private companies or anyone else for that matter.

saagarjha 4y ago
What kinds of things do you expect to be gated behind permissions? How do you plan to educate users on how to grant these in an informed way?
- jmole 4y ago
  It's not just about gating things behind permissions, it's also about exposing them in a reasonable way. Looking through the list of apps that want to "Control my computer using Accessibility Features", the attack surface is just too damn high: https://imgur.com/a/1CBpSWQ https://imgur.com/a/1CBpSWQ
- winternett 4y ago
  Well now... That's a whole term paper that someone would normally be paid to write... Methods like encrypting files, creating proper storage segmentation/isolation for each individual app, ending the process of adding "bloatware" to devices, allowing for concrete disabling of cameras and microphone feature access to all apps (and also ensuring that app makers don't break app functionality when those features are disabled), eliminating in-app purchasing, ensuring that app stores clearly define app pricing and app maker credibility. Those things are just some of the first steps that need to be taken. Educating users is not involved in those steps. The way apps are installed and operated these days is far more confusing than making changes in order to protect their privacy as a default setting. TikTok and Facebook don't need access to cameras and phones when the apps aren't actively triggered by a user to record something... Somehow the apps require the permissions to be enabled entirely while the apps is being used. Every company should be required to comprehensively report on what data they track and be bound to responsibility to uphold that to a government watchdog with extreme punishment for mis-use. We also have to understand that when we speak about devices, we're not just talking about phones, we're increasingly talking about cars, thermostats, home security systems, TVs and many other consumer bought devices that give companies an infinite measure of methods on which they can wire tap consumers, and then sell that data, or even later use towards more harmful purposes like corporate espionage and extortion. Microphones and cameras were found recently to be hidden in Televisions when consumers had no idea they were, as an example of how far info overreach has gone. I'd recommend looking deeply into the integration and use of LIDAR on phones... Most people don't even know that/if it is a feature on their phone and on certain cars... It can be leveraged in many deeply invasive ways on individual device users if it is accessed by social media companies, or even worse if a data breach occurs. First, They (The FTC) should hire proper consultants to properly present the issues involved (Both cynics and optimists), and not just lean on basic understanding, there are a wide range of devices and features, combined with tons of different apps and use cases for them. Resolution is not a simple issue that can be summarized within a few posts online.

samename 4y ago

This must be too good to be true, right? What are the odds any meaningful action comes from this?

bagels 4y ago

I'm sure this is aimed at this data being used for marketing, but hopefully will address providing this surveillance data to government as well.

stalinford 4y ago

Surprised that HN keeps falling for this. Does no one remember the NSA?

colechristensen 4y ago
The NSA can get all the information it needs without all of this commercial surveillance. The NSA can also get all the information it wants from companies while they're still banned from selling it.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  But it can't when they're banned from collecting it.

WebbWeaver 4y ago

>The Commission voted 3-2 to publish the notice in the Federal Register. Chair Khan, Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya issued separate statements. Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson voted no and issued dissenting statements. That is a very interesting spread. Statements from each (notable excerpts) Chair Linda M Kahn. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Statement%20of%20Chair%20Lina%20M.%20Khan%20on%20Commercial%20Surveillance%20ANPR%2008112022.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Statement%20of%... >The data practices of today’s surveillance economy can create and exacerbate deep asymmetries of information—exacerbating, in turn, imbalances of power. And the expanding contexts in which users’ personal data is used—from health care and housing to employment and education—mean that what’s at stake with unlawful collection, use, retention, or disclosure is not just one’s subjective preference for privacy, but one’s access to opportunities in our economy and society, as well as core civil liberties and civil rights. The fact that current data practices can have such consequential effects heightens both the importance of wielding the full set of tools that Congress has given us, as well as the responsibility we have to do so. In particular, Section 18 of the FTC Act grants us clear authority to issue rules that identify specific business practices that are unlawful by virtue of being “unfair” or “deceptive.”10 Doing so could provide firms with greater clarity about the scope of their legal obligations. It could also strengthen our ability to deter lawbreaking, given that firsttime violators of duly promulgated trade regulation rules—unlike most first-time violators of the FTC Act11—are subject to civil penalties. This would also help dispense with competitive advantages enjoyed by firms that break the law: all companies would be on the hook for civil penalties for law violations, not just those that are repeat offenders. Today’s action marks the beginning of the rulemaking proceeding. In issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), the Commission is seeking comments from the public on the extent and effects of various commercial surveillance and data security practices, as well as on various approaches to crafting rules to govern these practices and the attendant tradeoffs. Our goal at this stage is to begin building a rich public record to inform whether rulemaking is worthwhile and the form that potential proposed rules should take. Robust public engagement will be critical—particularly for documenting specific harmful business practices and their prevalence, the magnitude and extent of the resulting consumer harm, the efficacy or shortcomings of rules pursued in other jurisdictions, and how to assess which areas are or are not fruitful for FTC rulemaking. ... At minimum, the record we will build through issuing this ANPR and seeking public comment can serve as a resource to policymakers across the board as legislative efforts continue. ... [categories include (Procedural protections, Administrability, Business models and incentives, Discrimination based on protected categories, Workplace surveillance)] Rebecca Kelly Slaughter https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/RKS%20ANPR%20Statement%2008112022.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/RKS%20ANPR%20St... >Conclusion The path the Commission is heading down by opening this rulemaking process is not an easy one. But it is a necessary one. The worst outcome, as I said three years ago, is not that we get started and then Congress passes a law; it is that we never get started and Congress never passes a law. People have made it clear that they find this status quo unacceptable.46 Consumers and businesses alike deserve to know, with real clarity, how our Section 5 authority applies in the data economy. Using the tools we have available benefits the whole of the Commission’s mission; well-supported rules could facilitate competition, improve respect for and compliance with the law, and relieve our enforcement burdens. I have an open mind about this process and no certainty about where our inquiry will lead or what rules the record will support, as I believe is my obligation. But I do know that it is past time for us to begin asking these questions and to follow the facts and evidence where they lead us. I expect that the Commission will take this opportunity to think deeply about people’s experiences in this market and about how to ensure that the benefits of progress are not built on an exploitative foundation. Clear rules have the potential for making the data economy more fair and more equitable for consumers, workers, businesses, and potential competitors alike. I am grateful to the Commission staff for their extensive work leading up to the issuance Alvaro Bedoya https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Bedoya%20ANPR%20Statement%2008112022.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Bedoya%20ANPR%2... >Our nation is the world’s unquestioned leader on technology. We are the world’s unquestioned leader in the data economy. And yet we are almost alone in our lack of meaningful protections for this infrastructure. We lack a modern data security law. We lack a baseline consumer privacy rule. We lack civil rights protections suitable for the digital age. This is a landscape ripe for abuse. Now it is time to act. Today, we are beginning the hard work of considering new rules to protect people from unfair or deceptive commercial surveillance and data security practices. My friend Commissioner Phillips argues that this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) “recast[s] the Commission as a legislature,” and “reaches outside the jurisdiction of the FTC.”1 I respectfully disagree. Today, we’re just asking questions, exactly as Congress has directed us to do.2 At this most preliminary step, breadth is a feature, not a bug. We need a diverse range of public comments to help us discern whether and how to proceed with Notices of Proposed Rulemaking. There is much more process to come. Noah Joshua Phillips. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Commissioner%20Phillips%20Dissent%20to%20Commercial%20Surveillance%20ANPR%2008112022.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Commissioner%20... >Legislating comprehensive national rules for consumer data privacy and security is a complicated undertaking. Any law our nation adopts will have vast economic significance. It will impact many thousands of companies, millions of citizens, and billions upon billions of dollars in commerce. It will involve real trade-offs between, for example, innovation, jobs, and economic growth on the one hand and protection from privacy harms on the other. (It will also require some level of social consensus about which harms the law can and should address.) Like most regulations, comprehensive rules for data privacy and security will likely displace some amount of competition. Reducing the ability of companies to use data about consumers, which today facilitates the provision of free services, may result in higher prices—an effect that policymakers would be remiss not to consider in our current inflationary environment.1 Christine S. Wilson https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Commissioner%20Wilson%20Dissent%20ANPRM%20FINAL%2008112022.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Commissioner%20... >Throughout my tenure as an FTC Commissioner, I have encouraged Congress to pass comprehensive privacy legislation.1 While I have great faith in markets to produce the best results for consumers, Econ 101 teaches that the prerequisites of healthy competition are sometimes absent. Markets do not operate efficiently, for example, when consumers do not have complete and accurate information about the characteristics of the products and services they are evaluating. 2 Neither do markets operate efficiently when the costs and benefits of a product are not fully borne by its producer and consumers – in other words, when a product creates what economists call externalities.3 Both of these shortcomings are on display in the areas of privacy and data security. In the language of economists, both information asymmetries and the presence of externalities lead to inefficient outcomes with respect to privacy and data security.

exabrial 4y ago

The other day, in our _private_ parking lot, a car drove through with license platter scanner attached. Up and down each row. It wasn't marked, and the scanners were bolted on. Civilian plate, early 20s driver. We called the police, but they wouldn't do anything as the car was gone, and we didn't get the exact plate number. Like _what in the actual @#$%? What jackass Silicon Valley startup is funding this operation? It's this kind of stuff, which is illegal, but because it's hard to enforce, people will get away with. These people have obviously trespassed hundreds of times.

jcims 4y ago
How do you know that's what it was? Why would anyone need anything more than a simple camera for that application? Is it possible it was using LIDAR or some other tech for another application?
- thereddaikon 4y ago
  Why does it matter? Why is it ok to drive through a private property and just scan shit, regardless of the specific technology used?
  - jcims 4y ago
    There are a number of valid reasons. Immediately jumping to the most conspiratorial may not be the healthiest approach.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      Okay — name a few specific reasons.
    - Guest42 4y ago
      I'd want to know what was done with the data after the scanning. Perhaps a specific car is being sought and the data is discarded afterwards, which would be more ethical than keeping the data and attempting to profit off of it, regardless of whether it's "legal" and there's some attempt at "disrupting an industry."

thereddaikon 4y ago

The FTC is going to be limited in what it can do unless Congress passes legislation specifically allowing it to regulate this. Due to a recent SCOTUS decision, federal regulators are allowed much less leeway in how they can interpret their powers as granted by congress. This is in principle a good thing, appointed bureaucrats shouldn't be allowed to create law by fiat. However it means Congress actually has to do their damn job and stop delegating their powers through lazy and broad legislation. Good luck with that.

thfuran 4y ago
I don't think it is a good thing in principle. Much of the point of creating agencies like the FTC is to prevent Congress from having to deal with the minutiae of every single thing that ought to be regulated.
- thereddaikon 4y ago
  Of course its a good thing. We in theory have a balance of powers between the branches for well founded reasons. Give too much power to one branch and its easy for them to rule by themselves and create tyranny. Non elected officials shouldn't be able to create law. That power should remain exclusively with the legislature. Give it to people who are not accountable to the voters and they can and will start working against the will of the people. And it will happen quite easily.

djbusby 4y ago

Oh, maybe Chase will have to finally figure out why they send notifications about my account to an email that isn't anywhere I can edit, see or change. And why only intermittent notifications there, I actually get some.

throwaway4220 4y ago

I'm excited at the prospect of getting more control of my privacy. I get calls, texts, emails to my personal account about jobs. No clue how they know I'm a physician, and God knows what else they know about me. I'm forced to assume the state medical board sold my info to some third party recruiters. IDK, maybe the FTC should suggest that China may own some of these tracking companies/apps, that would get immediate bipartisan support.

aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
They do!, TikTok is just the beginning. Look at the games, etc.

kbos87 4y ago

I’ll throw out a practice that I’m really weary of - many bars, clubs, casinos, etc now scan your ID upon entry. If they have a problem with you (and they define what constitutes a “problem”) you can end up added to what is essentially a secretive blacklist that’s shared among businesses, and you have no visibility into or recourse against it. I understand that I’m entering private property and I have the right to not go there. I don’t think that’s a valid argument against this being a terrible idea.

tantalor 4y ago
Which is the terrible part? Scanning your ID, or the secretive blacklist?
- kbos87 4y ago
  I mainly have a problem with the collection and storage of my personal information in a way that could impact me in the future and that I have no insight or control over. Scanning an ID to get back a confirmation of its validity and not retaining any data in the process isn’t something I have an issue with.
  - abnercoimbre 4y ago
    What are some potential solutions? Regulating and standardizing scanner apps?
    - kbos87 4y ago
      Since we’re talking about what the FTC could do here, prohibiting these businesses from retaining or at least sharing data on their patrons could be a start.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  Whichever one you're more willing to argue for, they're both justifiable yet dystopian horseshit.