5 ms·

Advocate now. This is arguably the most important regulation review the USGOV will conduct in the next few years, here's why: - It is a national security issue

Advocate now. This is arguably the most important regulation review the USGOV will conduct in the next few years, here's why: - It is a national security issue. Foreign actors can exploit this data to perform highly targeted attacks on individuals at scale. - It will be an issue for you as a senior. We will all get old, and our ability to detect, ignore and counter misuses of this data declines with age. - Its an anti-monopoly issue. Much of this data is concentrated and sequestered in large companies. Small businesses, responsible for most employment in the US, cannot afford and is not aware of the availability of this data. - Privacy should be a human right. I know there is push-back to this argument, but seniors aside, many young adults (and some plain old adults) simply are not aware and not capable of understanding the data they are giving up, how it is (mis)used, and what that means for them. I hope all of us will engage with this form and provide comments.

phkahler 4y ago
>> Much of this data is concentrated and sequestered in large companies. Even the claimed use "advertising" does not require data collection. It probably does make advertising more efficient, but that isn't a reason to allow it. Once collected it does tend to get aggregated in a large player, so most playing the game do not win anyway. I'd prefer they ban this data collection (and certainly its transfer or sale) but I fear they just want to "regulate" it.
hertzrat 4y ago
I wish Canada would do a similar call for comments
- lettergram 4y ago
  To be fair, they typically ignore all the comments. Claim they are bots or that they lost them or what have you...
  - hedora 4y ago
    It depends on who appointed the people reading the comments. I suspect we have some Biden and Obama people in at the moment. Also, there are people in these organizations that have made a career of working at the FTC because they believe in its mission. They will also be involved in the process.
    - 908087 4y ago
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Won’t happen until the government controls the telecoms instead of the other way around.
mistrial9 4y ago
> a national security issue like for example, all of the applications for national security status managed by the State Department ? Why do citizens get tracked while buying bread, when actual National Security is exploited from afar? Where is the accountability for what has already transpired?
- howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
  Dude, what are you smoking? I'm talking DNA data collected by Ancestry. I'm thinking behavioral data ala Tik Tok. Not sure what the US Dept of State has to do with this, especially since 99% of their mission is overseas engagement as opposed to domestic. If you're referring to collection on foreign citizens, well no joy to be had with the FTC. Lobby your foreign government to engage with USGOV on treaty obligations that sync privacy... shouldn't take more than 30 years to get that done.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    * The FTC is the US Federal Agency here, edit, my armchair error * FTC rules review will discuss ... more reading on the agenda here * a post (above) claims that this is a "national security issue" as in, bad foreign agents might track citizens here * But wait, actual national security is held in trust with the Federal Government, and has provably failed to protect itself against serious compromise, as mentioned in my reply * But wait again, US citizens are getting no reprieve in being relentlessly tracked for "ads" while some claim there is a national security issue so it is important that we engage in this feedback * Where is the accountability in Federal Government for real, actual National Security? and why are citizens being tracked doing daily things, in the first place? no "dude"
    - hedora 4y ago
      FCC != FTC. Also, the government is not a monolith. In particular, note that they're targeting commercial surveillance, and the biggest surveillance companies on earth have ties to other parts of the executive branch.
hedora 4y ago
Be sure to write useful comments. Your opinion ("I think Bluetooth beacons are bullshit") is much less useful than specific, actionable information: I have noticed the widespread use of Bluetooth beacons and commercial license plate cameras in my area. In addition to causing me to worry that the local grocery store is price-discriminating against people that do not own cars, some such businesses are adjacent to health clinics, and certainly inadvertently harvest HIPAA protected information about the appointment schedules of those clinics. In addition to this, in-store beacons other technologies, such as shopping cart RFID tags, allow marketers that work with grocery stores to infer health information by tracking patients as they move about inside a store. This information could then be used by insurance companies to unfairly adjust premiums, or by pharmaceutical marketers to better-target ads for frequently-abused prescription drugs. Health care is only one of many industries likely to abuse the information provided by passive surveillance systems. It is technologically infeasible to ensure such systems are used responsibly and legally. The FTC regulates technologies such as stalkerware apps, and has implemented anti-bait-and-switch marketing rules in other industries. Similarly, it provides guidance for responsible use of IP cameras. For these reasons, I think it would be well within your authority to institute wholesale bans of Bluetooth beacons and regulation of commercial license plate cameras that feed into data aggregation infrastructure.
- jffry 4y ago
  I think you replied to the wrong comment when you wrote this, as the parent comment didn't mention bluetooth?
  - knappe 4y ago
    Bluetooth beacons are used to collect data. Hence the mention of them for commercial surveillance.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    They're recommending ways for everyone to make useful comments to the FTC (and talking personally about their problems with bluetooth), not telling the person they're replying to that their comment was not useful.
kodah 4y ago
I'm honestly pleasantly surprised that "commercial surveillance" is the term they're using. You're also absolutely right, the time to lay the case is now.
- ColinHayhurst 4y ago
  Also pleasantly surprised. Rebecca Slaughter used the term surveillance-economy previously when advocating for data minimization, saying that this "should mean that companies collect only the information necessary to provide consumers with the service or product they actually request and use the data they collect only to provide that service or product." It's a principle that we use in making our own design choices, but we are an outlier, for now. Anyway, interesting starter questions include: 1. Has X company gone beyond data minimisation? 2. If so, in what ways is this done? 3. To what extent does this amount to commercial surveillance? 4. What are the known and potential consumer harms of this commercial surveillance? 5. What problems can be solved, in society and the economy, with data minimisation as the default?

phkahler 4y ago

>> Much of this data is concentrated and sequestered in large companies. Even the claimed use "advertising" does not require data collection. It probably does make advertising more efficient, but that isn't a reason to allow it. Once collected it does tend to get aggregated in a large player, so most playing the game do not win anyway. I'd prefer they ban this data collection (and certainly its transfer or sale) but I fear they just want to "regulate" it.

hertzrat 4y ago

I wish Canada would do a similar call for comments

lettergram 4y ago
To be fair, they typically ignore all the comments. Claim they are bots or that they lost them or what have you...
- hedora 4y ago
  It depends on who appointed the people reading the comments. I suspect we have some Biden and Obama people in at the moment. Also, there are people in these organizations that have made a career of working at the FTC because they believe in its mission. They will also be involved in the process.
  - 908087 4y ago
Scoundreller 4y ago
Won’t happen until the government controls the telecoms instead of the other way around.

mistrial9 4y ago

> a national security issue like for example, all of the applications for national security status managed by the State Department ? Why do citizens get tracked while buying bread, when actual National Security is exploited from afar? Where is the accountability for what has already transpired?

howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
Dude, what are you smoking? I'm talking DNA data collected by Ancestry. I'm thinking behavioral data ala Tik Tok. Not sure what the US Dept of State has to do with this, especially since 99% of their mission is overseas engagement as opposed to domestic. If you're referring to collection on foreign citizens, well no joy to be had with the FTC. Lobby your foreign government to engage with USGOV on treaty obligations that sync privacy... shouldn't take more than 30 years to get that done.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  * The FTC is the US Federal Agency here, edit, my armchair error * FTC rules review will discuss ... more reading on the agenda here * a post (above) claims that this is a "national security issue" as in, bad foreign agents might track citizens here * But wait, actual national security is held in trust with the Federal Government, and has provably failed to protect itself against serious compromise, as mentioned in my reply * But wait again, US citizens are getting no reprieve in being relentlessly tracked for "ads" while some claim there is a national security issue so it is important that we engage in this feedback * Where is the accountability in Federal Government for real, actual National Security? and why are citizens being tracked doing daily things, in the first place? no "dude"
  - hedora 4y ago
    FCC != FTC. Also, the government is not a monolith. In particular, note that they're targeting commercial surveillance, and the biggest surveillance companies on earth have ties to other parts of the executive branch.

hedora 4y ago

Be sure to write useful comments. Your opinion ("I think Bluetooth beacons are bullshit") is much less useful than specific, actionable information: I have noticed the widespread use of Bluetooth beacons and commercial license plate cameras in my area. In addition to causing me to worry that the local grocery store is price-discriminating against people that do not own cars, some such businesses are adjacent to health clinics, and certainly inadvertently harvest HIPAA protected information about the appointment schedules of those clinics. In addition to this, in-store beacons other technologies, such as shopping cart RFID tags, allow marketers that work with grocery stores to infer health information by tracking patients as they move about inside a store. This information could then be used by insurance companies to unfairly adjust premiums, or by pharmaceutical marketers to better-target ads for frequently-abused prescription drugs. Health care is only one of many industries likely to abuse the information provided by passive surveillance systems. It is technologically infeasible to ensure such systems are used responsibly and legally. The FTC regulates technologies such as stalkerware apps, and has implemented anti-bait-and-switch marketing rules in other industries. Similarly, it provides guidance for responsible use of IP cameras. For these reasons, I think it would be well within your authority to institute wholesale bans of Bluetooth beacons and regulation of commercial license plate cameras that feed into data aggregation infrastructure.

jffry 4y ago
I think you replied to the wrong comment when you wrote this, as the parent comment didn't mention bluetooth?
- knappe 4y ago
  Bluetooth beacons are used to collect data. Hence the mention of them for commercial surveillance.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  They're recommending ways for everyone to make useful comments to the FTC (and talking personally about their problems with bluetooth), not telling the person they're replying to that their comment was not useful.

kodah 4y ago

I'm honestly pleasantly surprised that "commercial surveillance" is the term they're using. You're also absolutely right, the time to lay the case is now.

ColinHayhurst 4y ago
Also pleasantly surprised. Rebecca Slaughter used the term surveillance-economy previously when advocating for data minimization, saying that this "should mean that companies collect only the information necessary to provide consumers with the service or product they actually request and use the data they collect only to provide that service or product." It's a principle that we use in making our own design choices, but we are an outlier, for now. Anyway, interesting starter questions include: 1. Has X company gone beyond data minimisation? 2. If so, in what ways is this done? 3. To what extent does this amount to commercial surveillance? 4. What are the known and potential consumer harms of this commercial surveillance? 5. What problems can be solved, in society and the economy, with data minimisation as the default?