COMPUTERGRAM INTERNATIONAL: JULY 14 1999

+ Over Privacy Advocates' Objections, FTC Says No New Laws

By Rachel Chalmers 

The Federal Trade Commission has told the US Congress that it 
sees no need for legislation to prevent companies from abusing 
individuals' private information. "We continue to believe that 
effective self-regulation is the best way to protect consumer 
privacy on the internet," said FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky, 
"and I am pleased that there has been real progress on the part 
of the online industry. Because of that progress, I do not 
believe legislation is necessary at this time." 

Not everyone agreed. The Commission was split 3-1 over whether 
to authorize the release of the report, with Commissioner 
Sheila F Anthony concurring in part and dissenting in part. "I 
believe the time may be right for federal legislation to 
establish at least minimum baseline standards," said Anthony in 
her statement. "I note that bipartisan bills are pending in 
both the House and the Senate and could provide a good starting 
point for crafting balanced protective legislation. I am 
concerned that the absence of effective privacy protections 
will undermine consumer confidence and hinder the advancement 
of electronic commerce and trade." 

Pitofsky did, however, acknowledge that as a way of protecting 
privacy, industry self-regulation is not without its problems. 
"This is not the occasion to declare victory," he admitted. He 
recognized that a lot of what the industry would like to 
advertise as progress towards privacy protection is purely 
cosmetic: "There is more to protecting consumer privacy than 
simply publishing notices on web sites," he said. "We intend to 
monitor what we hope and expect will be continuing progress in 
development of privacy protection programs, as well as efforts 
to develop effective enforcement mechanisms." 

Those reservations aside, the report found that self-regulation 
is "the least intrusive and most efficient means to ensure fair 
information handling". The FTC based its findings upon two 
studies conducted by Georgetown University professor Mary 
Culnan. It should be noted that both studies were funded by 
business interests and proponents of self-regulation, including 
the Online Privacy Alliance, TrustE and BBBOnline. 

Culnan's studies did demonstrate that most sites are 
implementing the basic Notice principle of fair information 
handling. At the same time, the studies revealed that only a 
small percentage of the most frequently visited sites address 
the other three principles: Choice, Access and Security. Little 
wonder that privacy advocates have urged Congress to disregard 
the FTC report and to pursue a legislated solution. "All 
objective evidence has shown self-regulation to be an utter 
failure," said Evan Hendricks, editor of Privacy Times. 

The wild card in the game is the European Union, which has far 
more stringent legal standards for information handling than 
the United States does, and which is threatening to suspend 
cross- border information exchange until the US cleans up its 
act. The US Department of Commerce has been negotiating with 
the EU, trying to persuade it to compromise. "For years 
European countries have guaranteed their citizens access to the 
information companies have about them," explained Privacy 
International deputy director David Banisar. "The Clinton 
administration has been trying to lower this standard to only 
the information provided directly by the consumer, or even just 
a summary of the kind of information generally kept." 

As Pitofsky himself admitted, enforcement is the key. The 
privacy advocates call for a private right of action that would 
allow anyone whose privacy has been violated to sue the 
offending organization for statutory damages. Leaving 
enforcement to the FTC alone means only a tiny percentage of 
infractions are ever investigated. Until violations are against 
the law, companies will have little or no incentive to take 
their customers' privacy seriously. Jason Catlett, president of 
Junkbusters Corp, explained: "Consumers must be given the power 
to enforce their privacy rights against those who would violate 
them."

Reply via email to