• Home
  • News
  • Online Fine Print Doesn’t Satisfy the FTC’s New Consumer Chief

Internet Law

Online Fine Print Doesn’t Satisfy the FTC’s New Consumer Chief

Posted Aug 5, 2009 6:27 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The new head of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission wants to protect online consumers’ dignity as well as their pocketbooks.

Consumer protection chief David Vladeck told the New York Times that some websites’ tracking of consumer data is “Orwellian.” He wants to change that with a broad mission to redefine how the FTC looks at online privacy.

Vladeck spent 26 years with the Public Citizen Litigation Group and seven years as a Georgetown law professor. Now in his new consumer protection role he wants the FTC to consider not only whether companies tracking online data are causing monetary harm to consumers, but also whether they are violating consumers’ dignity, the Times says.

A June FTC settlement with Sears illustrates Vladeck’s new approach, according to the story. Although Vladeck was not officially at the commission yet, he was consulting for it when the settlement was announced.

Sears offered to pay consumers $10 to download software that would track their browsing habits. The user agreement disclosed the full extent of the tracking, which included online secure sessions showing such things as online bank statements, drug prescription records and video rental records, according to an FTC press release. The FTC complaint alleges the disclosure was not adequate. Under the settlement, Sears will stop collecting data and will destroy information already collected.

“Under the harm framework, we couldn’t have brought that case,” Vladeck told the Times. “There’s a huge dignity interest wrapped up in having somebody looking at your financial records when they have no business doing that.”

Vladeck also told the Times that Sears didn't satisfy the FTC by providing information in its user license agreement. “I don’t believe that most consumers either read them, or if they read them, really understand it,” he said.

Comments

1.

Saqib Ali
Aug 10, 2009 11:50 AM CST

Last year, Dr. Helen Nissenbaum of NYU, proposed a new approach to privacy which assumes that privacy is a human/moral right.

Dr. Nissenbaum’s proposed approach: Contextual Integrity. Based on privacy as a human/moral right.

Contextual Integrity is a measure of how closely the flow of personal information conforms to context relative information norms. Contextual integrity is breached when these norms are violated and is respected when these norms are enforced.

Context relative information flow norms: In a context the flow of information (particular attribute) about a subject from a sender to a recipient is governed by a particular transmission principle. Context (circumstance), attributes (information about the subject), actors (subject (information owner), sender and receiver) and transmission principles are the key parameters. All these parameters must be taken into account when performing a analysis of the information flow. Google street map argument fails because it only takes one principle i.e. attributes (streets are public) into account and ignores the other key principle i.e. the context (distributing it over the web and making it widely available).

Fiduciary transmission principle: You trust someone with private information about yourself under the assumption that your private information will be used to benefit you and not harm you.

Privacy is not secrecy but rather appropriate flow of information.

The talk which she gave at UC Berkeley is available at:
http://groups.sims.berkeley.edu/podcast/audio/Helen_Nissenbaum_UCiSchool_02Apr2008.mp3

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.