|
|

|

| |
|
 |
| |

|
| |
Privacy & Data-Mining On The Internet
By John C. Yates, Esquire
Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP
jcy@mmmlaw.com
404.504.5444
I. Introduction
A. Overview
Internet data collection and data-mining present exciting business
opportunities. However, potentially large changes in European privacy
laws, as well as contemplated changes in American laws, suggest that
lawyers approach these issues with both careful planning and caution.
This article will review --
- The Current State of United States Data Privacy Law
- The European Union Personal Data Directive
- Recent United States Legislative Proposals
- Clinton Administration Approaches to Data Privacy
- Practical Considerations Given the Potential Legal Changes in Data
Privacy Laws
B. Recent Privacy Concerns
American Express: American Express recently announced a collaboration
with Knowledge Base Marketing, Inc. Knowledge Base possesses records
of 175 million Americans, which it will combine with records of consumer
purchases from American Express. This compilation will then be used
to help companies conduct targeted marketing campaigns. American Express
is not planning to specifically notify its cardholders about this operation.
P-TRAK: In 1996, concern was expressed about a vendor making social
security numbers and other personal information available to its customers
through its database. The vendor ultimately ceased making social security
numbers availability.
Cookies: Cookies are small data files sent by Web sites to the hard
drives of computers which are used to visit the Web site. These data
files are individually distinct and allow the Web site to track each
particular visitor to a Web site. Cookies raise privacy concerns because
they allow Web site operators to keep records of what a Web site visitor
does at the site, who the visitors are and where they can be reached
by the Web site operator.
II. The Current State of United States
Data Privacy Law
There is no overall privacy statute that generally governs the use of commercial
database information in the United States. Several other laws are potentially
relevant to this issue, however.
A. Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18
U.S.C. § 2701-2704, 2707)
Places limitations on monitoring information flowing through the Internet
and online systems.
Protects email from disclosure or use of the message contents by anyone
except the intended recipient.
B. Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
§ 41)
§5(a) of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)) makes it unlawful for one
to engage in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting
commerce."
On December 11, 1997, an FTC official stated that companies which falsely
claim to be adhering to privacy policies may be in violation of the
FTC Act. Those companies may be sued by the FTC as a result.
C. Privacy Torts
In the United States, it is conceivable that an individual could rely
on a common law state privacy tort to enforce a claim of a privacy violation.
1.
Intrusion Upon Seclusion: This tort requires the following elements
to be demonstrated:
- Intention or knowledge
- Reasonable expectation of privacy
The principal issue is whether there is a reasonable expectation
of privacy on the Internet. Although there is no authority on this
issue to date, numerous polls have been taken which reflect that
people fear they have no privacy on the Internet.
2.
Public Disclosure of Private Facts: This tort requires the following
elements to be demonstrated:
- Publicity of the information to the "public at large"
- The defendant must have caused the disclosure
- The facts must have initially been private
- The disclosure must be "highly offensive to a reasonable person."
3.
Misappropriation
This tort involves using another persons name for an advantage,
without that persons consent. Many states have adopted statutes
which govern misappropriation, with the intent to protect the use
of celebrity names. However, the language in these statutes may
be sufficiently broad to support a claim based on the commercial
use of ordinary personal information.
4.
Stern v. Delphi Internet Services Corp.
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995): Howard Stern, the radio celebrity, sued Delphi,
an ISP, over the use of his picture on one of their electronic bulletin
boards. Stern sued under a New York privacy statute. The court held
that Delphi was not liable because its use was an incidental use,
an exception to the statute. The court observed that Delphis
use was similar to that of a news vendor and protected its use accordingly.
D.
Self-Regulation
Many trade associations have privacy principles and guidelines which
govern how their members do business. Here are two examples:
1.
The Direct Marketing Association (http://www.the-dma.org) (See
Attachment 1)
The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) has more than 3,600 members
in 50 countries. It has promulgated general guidelines for protecting
personal data, as well as specific principles for electronic commerce.
DMA has recently decided to require that all its members abide by
these ethical guidelines or they will be expelled from DMA. This
requirement will begin in July 1999.
- Guidelines for Personal Information Protection
- (1) Personal data should be collected by fair and lawful
means for a direct marketing purpose.
-
- (2) Direct marketers should limit the collection of data
to only that deemed necessary for direct marketing.
- (3) The data should be accurate and complete and should
be kept no longer than necessary.
- (4) Individuals can request personal data about themselves,
as well as challenge the accuracy of the personal data.
- (5) Consumers who provide data that may be rented or sold
should be told of that potential and given an opportunity
to delete their data.
- (6) The collection, rental, sale and use of consumer data
should be constrained to direct marketing purposes.
- (7) Each direct marketer is responsible for the security
of their data.
- (8) Visitors to personal data processing and storage sites
should only be allowed to visit if they have the express
permission of the direct marketer and are accompanied by
an employee at all times.
- (9) When transferring data between direct marketers, the
receiver is responsible for the security of the data during
the transfer.<,/li>
- (10) An ethics committee of the DMA has jurisdiction to
review individual complaints in violation of these Guidelines.
- DMAs Marketing Online Privacy Principles and
Guidance
- (1) Online Notice: Direct marketers should prominently
display a notice that indicates who they are, what information
they are collecting, the purposes of collecting the information,
the types of people who will receive the information and
the method by which one can limit the disclosure of information.
- (2) Opting Out: Marketers should inform customers of their
opt-out choices and act upon the wishes of the consumers.
- (3) Unsolicited Email: These messages should be clearly
marked as solicitations and identify the marketer. Marketers
should also provide recipients with a method of preventing
future messages from being sent to those recipients.
- (4) Online Data Collection Involving Children: Marketers
should take into account their audience when deciding whether
to collect data. Marketers should encourage parents to monitor
their children while their children are online. Use of collected
data should be limited to marketing purposes.
2.
TRUSTe (http://www.truste.org)
- TRUSTe is an initiative that seeks for Web sites to utilize
the "trustmark," a symbol that indicates the Web site
complies with TRUSTe privacy disclosure requirements.
- Trustmark recipients must have a privacy statement which
discloses at a minimum:
- What type of data is gathered
- How the data will be used
- Who will receive the data.
Recipients must display the trustmark and adhere to its privacy
statement.
- TRUSTe will periodically audit its licensee sites to ensure
they conform with TRUSTe standards. Conformance reviews will
also occur by Coopers & Lybrand and KPMG Peat Marwick.
- TRUSTe is supported by various companies, including AT&T,
Excite, IBM, Lands End, Netcom, Netscape and Oracle.
3. Privacy Policies
(See Attachment 2)
III.
The European Union Personal Data Directive (1995 O.J. (L. 281) 31)
(See Attachment 3)
Full Title: Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
The Directive must be adopted by each of the 15 members of the European
Union by October 24, 1998. (Article 32)
A.
Key Provisions of the Directive for European Actors
1.
Scope
(Articles 2, 3)
Personal data is broadly defined to include any information relating
to an identified or identifiable natural person.
Processing of personal data is also broadly defined. It means any
operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal
data, whether or not by automatic means.
The Directive applies to the processing of personal data which
occurs at least partly by automatic means or to processing which
either forms part of a filing system or is intended to form part
of a filing system.
Exception The Directive does not apply to the processing of personal
data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household
activity.
2.
Data Quality
(Article 6) Personal data collected must be --
- Processed fairly and lawfully
- Collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes without
further processing incompatible with those purposes
- Adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes
of collection or processing
- Accurate and kept up to date where necessary
- Kept no longer than necessary in a form which identifies the data
subjects.
3.
Legitimacy of Data Processing
(Article 7) Personal information may only be processed if --
- The data subject unambiguously provides consent or
- Processing is necessary for a contract of which the data subject
is a party or
- Processing is necessary to comply with a legal obligation of the
data subject or the data controller or
- Processing is necessary for a task carried out in the public interest.
4.
Special Categories of Data
(Article 8) The Directive has special treatment for personal information
which reveals racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious
or philosophical beliefs, union membership and data involving health
or sex life.
5.
Data Controller Identification
(Articles 10, 11) The data subject must be provided with the identity
of the data controller, the purposes of the data processing and
any other information that is necessary to ensure that personal
information is processed in a fair and lawful manner.
6.
Access Rights
(Article 12) Every data subject shall have the right to obtain
the following information from the controller:
- Confirmation as to whether the data relating to the subject is
being processed
- The purpose of the processing
- The categories of data being processed
- The recipients or categories of recipients who will receive the
data.
Additionally, the data subject has, where appropriate, the right
against the data controller to rectify, erase or block data processing
which does not comply with the Directive, if the data is incomplete
or inaccurate.
7.
Objection Rights
(Article 14) A data subject has the right to object to personal
information processing for direct marketing or other purposes.
8.
Automated Processing Opt-out Provision
(Article 15) A data subject has the right not to be subject to
a decision based solely on automated data processing, which is intended
to evaluate personal aspects of the data subject, such as creditworthiness,
and will have legal or otherwise significant effects on the subject.
This right is subject to contracts the subject may have entered
into as well as satisfaction by the Member State that suitable safeguards
protect the subjects interests.
9.
Remedies
(Articles 22, 23, 24) Individuals may seek recourse under their
respective national laws. Data subjects are entitled to receive
compensation for damages from the appropriate data controller, if
the controller was responsible for the damages.
B.
Implications for Non-European Actors
1. European Member States may only allow for the transfer of personal
data to other countries if that other country ensures an "adequate
level of protection." (Article 25)
2. Article 25 notes further that an adequate level of protection
is to be assessed in light of all the circumstances surrounding
a data transfer operation, particularly focusing on:
- The nature of the data
- The purpose and duration of the proposed processing operation
- The country of origin
- The country of final destination
- The rules of law in the other country
- The professional rules and security in the other country.
3. The Member States are to inform each other of countries that
do not provide an adequate level of protection. They are also to
take appropriate measures to prevent the transfer of data to those
countries which do not meet their requirements.
4. To aid in defining "adequate protection," the European
Commissions Working Party on the Protection of Individuals
with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data released a paper,
entitled First Orientations on Transfers of Personal Data to Third
Countries -- Possible Ways Forward in Assessing Adequacy.
- This Paper contemplates the creation of White Lists of nations
which possess adequate data protection.
- For those nations not on the White Lists, the Paper sets
forth a category of transfers that would be particularly sensitive
and more likely to be carefully examined:
- Transfers of sensitive information described in Article 8 of
the Directive
- Transfers which carry the risk of financial loss (such as credit
card payments over the Internet)
- Transfers carrying a risk to personal safety
- Transfers made for the purpose of making a decision which significantly
affects an individual (such as whether to grant credit)
- Repetitive transfers involving massive volumes of data
- Transfers involving the collection of data in a covert or clandestine
manner (such as Internet cookies).
- In defining "adequate protection," the Working
Party noted the two key elements are the content of the equivalent
rules and the means by which those rules are enforced. The Working
Party provided a list of 6 principles which should be reflected
in the content of the other countrys rules, at a minimum:
- (1) Purpose Limitation. Data should only be processed for
a specific purpose.
- (2) Data Quality and Proportionality. Data should be accurate
and not excessive in relation to the purpose of its acquisition.
- (3) Transparency. Subjects should be informed of the identity
of the data controller and the purpose of the processing.
- (4) Security. The data controller should take appropriate
technical and organizational security measures.
- (5) Rights of Access, Rectification and Opposition. The data
subject should have the right to obtain the data obtained
by the controller, the right to clarify inaccuracies and the
right to oppose certain uses of the data.
- (6) Restrictions on onward transfers to other countries.
Further transfers should only be allowed if the next country
also has an adequate level of protection.
In addition, the following 3 principles were offered for their
use when they apply:
- (1) Sensitive Data. Additional safeguards should protect
sensitive data of the kind listed in Article 8.
- (2) Direct Marketing. Data subjects should be able to opt-out
of the use of their data for direct marketing purposes.
- (3) Automated Individual Decisions. Data subjects should
have safeguards when the data is to be used in automated individual
decisions.
- Aside from the issue of the content of the rules, the Working
Party observed that to effectively enforce the rules, a system
must (1) ensure a good level of compliance, (2) support and
help individual data subjects to enforce their rights and (3)
provide appropriate redress when the rules are violated.
5. Potential Safe Harbors
(Article 26) The Directive allows for data transfers to occur involving
other countries without an adequate level of protection under the
following circumstances, including:
- Where the data subject has given his unambiguous consent to the
proposed transfer
- Where the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract
between the data subject and the data controller
- Where the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract
which benefits the interests of the data subject, but is between
the data controller and a third party.
6. A Less Reliable Safe Harbor
The Working Party paper cautions against reliance upon another
safe harbor, in Article 26(2). This provision allows for a transfer
where the other country does not provide an adequate level of protection,
if the data controller finds adequate safeguards in the appropriate
contractual clauses.
The reasons for their cautions are these:
- Article 26(2) still requires adequate safeguards, even in
the contractual provisions.
- Article 26(2) is further modified by Article 26(3). Article
26(3) places the burden on a Member State to inform the rest
of the European Union about any authorizations granted under
26(2). This is a reversal of the Directives other provisions,
which only require an equivalent disclosure when adequate protection
has not been granted by a Member State, under Article 25.
IV.
Recent United States Legislative Proposals
A.
Data Privacy
1.
Government Data
- Federal Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997 (H.R. 1367)
Summary: Prohibits Federal agencies from making available through the Internet
certain confidential records with respect to individuals and to provide for
remedies in cases in which such records are made available through the Internet.
Status: Referred to the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, April
17, 1997.
Sponsor: Rep. Mark Barrett (D-WI)
- Social Security Information Safeguards Act of 1997 (H.R. 1331)
Summary: Requires the Commissioner of Social Security to assemble a Social
Security Information Safeguards Panel to assist the Commissioner in developing
appropriate mechanisms and safeguards to ensure the confidentiality and integrity
of personal Social Security records made accessible to the public.
Status: Referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, April 15, 1997.
Sponsor: Rep. Barbara Kennelly (D-CT)
2.
Commercial Data
- Childrens Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act of 1997
(H.R. 1972)
Summary:
(1) Any seller of data who is found to knowingly purchase or sell data containing
the personal information (such as name, telephone number, social security
number or email address) of a child who is under 16 years of age may be fined
or imprisoned unless that seller receives the written consent of the childs
parent. The data vendor must also comply with requests from parents about
(1) the source of the personal information, (2) the contents of the information
about the parents child and (3) the identity of the purchasing parties.
(2) Anyone who uses any personal information about a child of under 16 years
of age to contact that child in order to sell goods or services to the child
or a parent may be fined up to $5,000 if that person fails to comply with
requests from parents about (1) the source of the personal information, (2)
the contents of the information about the parents child, (3) the identity
of the purchasing parties and (4) discontinues providing that personal information
about the parents child to third parties.
(3) Anyone who uses prison labor to process data or distributes or solicits
personal information about a children of less than 16 years of age with the
intent to abuse, cause physical harm or sexually exploit the child, shall
be fined or imprisoned.
Status: Referred to House Subcommittee on Crime (via Committee on the Judiciary),
June 25, 1997. Subcommittee hearings held, April 30, 1998.
Sponsor: Bob Franks (R-NJ)
- Communications Privacy and Consumer Empowerment Act (H.R. 1964)
Summary:
(1) Empowers the Federal Trade Commission to commence a proceeding six months
after the Bill has been enacted to investigate whether consumers can determine
(1) whether information is being collected about them, (2) whether that information
is being used for purposes unrelated to the original collection and (3) the
exercise of control over the collection of personal information. The FTC will
propose changes in FTC regulations consistent with those three objectives
and complete those changes within one year of the Bills enactment.
(2) Empowers the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the impact
of interconnected communications networks, such as telephone, cable, and satellite,
on those three objectives. The FCC is to propose changes in their regulations
consistent with the three objectives and complete those changes within one
year of the Bills enactment.
(3) Amends the Communications Decency Act to add a provision which requires
Internet Service Providers to provide screening software which limits Internet
access to material that is inappropriate for children.
Status: Referred to the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and
Consumer Protection (via the House Commerce Committee), June 26, 1997.
- Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997 (H.R. 98)
(See Attachment 4)
Summary: Unlike current privacy protections, which allow individuals to opt-out,
this Bill only allows information to be used by Internet Service Providers
if individuals opt-in to the database.
Interactive computer services, which are defined as those services that provide
multiple users with computer access to Internet, cannot disclose any "personally
identifiable information" without the consent of the individual service
subscriber.
The Bill also requires interactive computer services to reveal the identity
of third party recipients of personally identifiable information to the relevant
service subscriber.
The Federal Trade Commission is empowered by the Bill to enforce its provisions.
Status: Referred to the House Commerce Committee, January 7, 1997
Sponsor: Rep. Vento (D-MN)
- Data Privacy Act of 1997 (H.R. 2368)
See Attachment 5)
Summary
(1) Establishes a computer interactive services industry working group to
establish voluntary guidelines:
(1) limiting the collection of personal information for commercial purposes
obtained through any interactive computer service; (2) relating to the distribution
of unsolicited commercial email messages; (3) and to provide incentives to
follow the guidelines, including icons which indicate guideline adherence.
(2) The Bill also prohibits the use of personal information for commercial
marketing purposes, the use of personal health or medical information for
medical purposes, or the display of another persons social security
number through an interactive computer service, unless that person had a prior
business relationship or valid contract with the information provider.
Status: Referred to the House Commerce Committee, July 31, 1997
Sponsor: Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA)
- Social Security On-Line Privacy Protection Act of 1996 [sic] (H.R. 1287)
Summary: Prohibits interactive computer services from disclosing an individuals
social security numbers or related personal information without his or her
prior, informed, written consent. Individuals are allowed to revoke their
consent at any time, upon which the interactive computer service will cease
disclosing the private information.
Status: Referred to the House Commerce Committee, April 10, 1997
Sponsor: Rep. Robert Franks (R-NJ)
B.
Unsolicited Email / "Spam" Regulation
1.
Electronic Mailbox Protection Act of 1997 (S. 875)
Summary: A person is subject to a penalty of up to $5,000 if they
do one of the following:
- (1) Sends unsolicited email from an unregistered or fictitious
address to prevent responses to the message.
- (2) Disguises the source of the unsolicited email message to prevent
recipients from using a mail filter.
- (3) After sending an unsolicited email message, fails to comply
with a request to terminate sending further messages.
- (4) Distributes a collection of email addresses while knowing
that some of the recipients do not want to receive unsolicited
email.
- (5) Initiates an unsolicited email message despite prior notice
that the recipient does not want to receive an unsolicited message.
- (6) Registers or creates an Internet domain name for the principal
purpose of initiating the transmission of unsolicited email.
- (7) Sends an unsolicited email message through an interactive
computer service knowing that sending that message violates the
rules of the interactive computer service.
- (8) Despite the contrary rules of an interactive computer service,
accesses that services server to collect email addresses.
- (9) Initiates the transmission of bulk unsolicited email messages
but then splits up the messages to circumvent this Bill.
Status: Referred to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee, June 11, 1997.
Sponsor: Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)
2.
Netizens Protection Act of 1997 (H.R. 1748)
Summary: Amends the 1934 Communications Act to --
- (1) Ban the transmission of unsolicited advertisements by electronic
mail when there is no preexisting and ongoing business or personal
relationship, unless the recipient provides an express invitation
to send such advertisements.
- (2) Require unsolicited advertisements begin with the date and
time the message is sent, the senders identity and the senders
return email address.
Status: Referred to the House Commerce Committee, May 22, 1997
Sponsor: Chris Smith (R-NJ)
3.
Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Choice Act of 1997 (S. 771)
Summary:
- (1) Requires any person transmitting an unsolicited commercial electronic
mail message to include as part of the message the word "advertisement"
at the beginning of the message, as well as the name and address
of the sender.
- (2) Empowers the Federal Trade Commission with authority over
unsolicited electronic mail. This includes the ability to conduct
investigations and impose fines.
- (3) Allows a state to bring an action on behalf of its residents,
so long as that state notifies the Federal Trade Commission.
- (4) Requires that senders of unsolicited electronic mail terminate
those messages upon the request of the recipients of those messages.
Status: Referred to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee, May 21, 1997.
Sponsor: Frank Murkowski (R-AK)
V.
Clinton Administration Approaches to Data Privacy
A.
New Comprehensive Privacy Action Plan
(See Attachment 5)
Announced May 14, 1998 by Vice President Gore, the Plan consists of
the following elements:
- Medical Privacy: The Vice President called on Congress to pass legislation
which would restrict access to medical records and allow for individuals
to correct their records.
- One Stop Opt-Out: The Vice President indicated that the FTC will be
sponsoring a new Web site, located at "www.consumer.gov".
At this site, consumers will be able to (1) bar companies from pre-screening
their credit records, (2) restrict the sale of their drivers license
data to data vendors and (3) remove their names and addresses from direct-mailing
lists.
- Appropriate Use of Federal Government Data: The Vice President announced
that the President had sent a new Memorandum to agency heads to ensure
that new technologies are used in accordance with existing governmental
privacy laws and to evaluate legislative proposals with regards to those
governmental privacy laws.
- Privacy Summit: The Vice President asked the Commerce Department to
hold a summit within the month of June to bring together privacy advocates
and industry representatives. This summit will focus on self-regulation
and childrens privacy issues.
B.
A Framework for Global Electronic Commerce
Announced July 1, 1997 by President Clinton, the Framework is the equivalent
of a Clinton Administration Mission Statement regarding electronic commerce.
It is based upon these five principles:
1. The private sector should lead.
2. Governments should avoid undue restrictions on electronic commerce.
3. Where governmental involvement is needed, its aim should be
to support and enforce a predictable, minimalist, consistent and
simple legal environment for commerce.
4. Governments should recognize the unique qualities of the Internet.
5. Electronic Commerce over the Internet should be facilitated
on a global basis.
Regarding privacy issues, the Framework endorses self-regulatory regimes.
The Administration indicated that it would engage its key trade partners,
such as the European Union, to increase understanding of the American
market-driven approach to privacy. Although the Framework endorses industry
self-regulation, it concludes that if effective protection is not possible
through this method, the Administration will reevaluate its approach.
By July 1, 1998, a privacy self-regulation progress report is due before
President Clinton and Congress, to evaluate the effectiveness of self-regulation.
C.
Department of Commerce: Elements of Effective Self-Regulation for Protection
of Privacy
In support of President Clintons Framework, the Department of
Commerce has published a discussion draft of a staff discussion paper
on privacy self-regulation. This paper identifies the key principles
that are necessary for an effective self-regulatory regime.
1. Principles of Fair Information Practices
- Awareness: Consumers need to know --
- The identity of the collector of their personal information
- The intended uses of the information
- The means by which they may limit its disclosure.
Data vendors are responsible for raising consumer awareness
about these issues and can do so through:
- Privacy Policies
- Notification
- Consumer Education
- Choice: Consumers must be able to make choices about whether
and how their information will be used. To make these choices
possible, consumers must be offered simple, easily understood
and affordable mechanisms. In some circumstances, such as medical
information or childrens information, data vendors should
not use the data without the consent of the appropriate person.
- Data Security: Companies should take reasonable precautions
to protect the datas accuracy and integrity. This should
extend to those third parties to whom they may send data.
- Consumer Access: Consumers should be able to access the
information that has been collected about them, as well as be
able to correct any inaccuracies.
2.
Enforcement
- Consumer Recourse: Companies should offer some form of dispute
resolution to provide redress for consumer complaints.
- Verification: Companies must be able to demonstrate that
the claims they make about their privacy protection regimes
are accurate.
- Consequences: Examples of consequences include cancellation
of the right to use a seal or logo, posting the name of the
violator on a bad actor list or disqualification from a trade
association. FTC liability may also exist if the company has
failed to live up to its privacy policy.
D.
Federal Trade Commission
1.
Monitoring Self-Regulation
(See Attachment 7)
In March 1998, the FTC conducted a survey of commercial Web sites
to determine the extent to which they disclose their privacy policies
and whether consumers are offered a choice as to the online collection
and use of their personal data.
The FTC surveyed 1200 Web Sites, included the 100 most frequently
visited sites, 200 childrens sites and 900 commercial sites
from a database of sites maintained by Dun & Bradstreet.
The FTC looked for 4 elements in privacy policies, aside from whether
they are easy to find:
1. Notice to consumers as to whether their information will be
transferred to other parties
2. Whether a choice is provided to consumers as to the use of
the data
3. Whether consumers can access their own personal data
4. Whether consumers are informed about security precautions
taken to protect the data.
The results of this FTC study will be included in an upcoming report to Congress,
which will focus on the effectiveness of self-regulation for personal data.
This report will be published in June 1998.
2. Individual Reference Services
- In December 1997, the FTC published a report to Congress
approving the self-regulation principles promulgated by the
Individual Reference Services Group (IRSG).
- Individual reference services are vendors who collect and
disseminate personal identification information about consumers,
such as their credit ratings.
- The IRSG comprises 14 companies, a substantial majority
of the companies comprising the individual reference service
industry.
- The IRSG Principles are as follows:
(1) Restrictions on the Availability of Non-Public Information:
The IRSG treats customers differently, based on their access
to non-public information. The greater the information access
of the customer, the greater the controls on the customer.
(2) Monitoring Use and Maintaining Audit Trails: Each service
is required to maintain a record of higher-end subscribers,
such as professional users. This record must contain the solicitors
identity, the types of uses the subscriber employed and the
terms and conditions that the subscriber agreed to. This record
is to be kept for three years after the service-subscriber
relationship ends. Services do not have to record what information
their subscribers accessed.
(3) Consumers Access to Personal Information and Methods
to Ensure Information Accuracy: The methods to ensure accuracy
include only accepting data from reputable sources and correcting
inaccuracies presented by individuals. Alternatively, an IRSG
member can direct the individual to the source of the data.
(4) Ability to Opt-Out: Individuals may opt-out of the general
distribution of their information, but cannot opt-out of distribution
to professional and commercial users.
(5) Consumer Education and Openness: The services are to
educate the public and users about privacy concerns. Each
service must have a privacy policy statement which meets requirements
such as disclosing to whom it may disclose information. Services
are to also notify consumers through advertisements or other
educational efforts.
(6) Compliance Assurance: IRSG members practices are
subject to review by a reasonably qualified independent professional
service.
- The FTC did criticize the IRSG Principles
(1) The IRSG Principles fail to limit or control the use
of publicly available information.
(2) The Principles fail to require specific audit trails
of the records accessed by each user.
(3) The Principles fail to allow individuals to access public
records or publicly available information maintained by IRSG
members.
Despite these concerns, the FTC has recommended that the IRSG
Group be allowed to demonstrate that their Principles are a
viable self-regulatory system. In addition, IRSG members have
agreed to re-examine the FTCs concerns by June 1999.
3.
Unsolicited Email (Spam)
The FTC has engaged in three initiatives in this area:
- Self-Regulation: A group of interested parties, led by the Center for
Democracy and Technology, is preparing a report outlining potential options
on this front.
- Enforcement Actions: The FTC has brought several actions against individuals
that it believes are making fraudulent solicitations through unsolicited
commercial email, including FTC v. Maher (D. Md., filed Feb. 19, 1998) and
FTC v. Cooley (D. Ariz. filed Mar. 4, 1998).
- Education: FTC staff has produced materials warning consumers about the
dangers of unsolicited commercial email.
E. Medical Information Privacy & the Department of Health & Human
Services
Pursuant to the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act, the Department of Health and Human Services must promulgate regulations
for medical information privacy standards within six months of August
1999, if Congress has failed to enact health privacy legislation by August
1999.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services has recommended that five
principles guide any proposed legislation:
1. Restricted Purposes: Health care information should be only
disclosed for health care purposes.
2. Security: Those who legally receive health information must
take reasonable precautions to protect the information.
3. Consumer Control: Individuals should have the ability to know
what is in their records, who has examined their records, how they
can change inaccurate information in their records and where they
can obtain their records.
4. Accountability: To enforce these principles, those found violating
them should be severely punished, including the possibility of criminal
penalties.
5. Balancing Of Interests: Privacy interests should be balanced
with other national priorities.
VI.
Practical Considerations Given the Potential Legal Changes in Data Privacy
Laws
A.
Monitor Developments
Follow the issue closely during 1998. U.S. law could change rapidly
in response to negotiations with the European Union over its Personal
Data Directive.
B.
Review Directive Implementation
Carefully follow the development of the Directive and consider
its implications upon your operation. The scope of the Directive
may even be broad enough to include email messages which contain
personal data. Each Member State of the European Union must adopt
the Directive, but they may legislate slight changes from the
Directive when it is adopted.
C.
Assess Web Sites
Determine whether your Web site can differentiate users based
on geographic location. This may be necessary if you anticipate
problems complying with the Directive.
D.
Review Data Collection
Investigate how your Web site collects information. Is it automatic
collection, via a cookie, or voluntary information? The European
Union may react strongly against the automatic collection of data
when that data is collected without the knowledge of the data
subjects.
E.
Review Users of Data
Determine how the data from your Web site will be used. If you
are seeking the consent of your customers to use their data, it
is particularly important that you establish all of the specific
uses before obtaining their consent. Under the Directive, the
purposes of data collection have to be both specific and explicit.
F. Adopt Privacy Policies
(See Attachment 2)
Consider including a prominent privacy policy statement on your
Web site. It should include treatment of the following issues:
- Your identity (the data controller)
- The purposes for collecting data
- How long the data will be kept
- How the data is kept secure
- The procedures for keeping the data accurate, including how individuals
can correct inaccuracies in their data
- How individuals can access their personal data, as well as learn
who will receive their data
- Opt-in or opt-out provisions for individuals
- Dispute resolution procedures
G.
Review Your Consent Form
Consider using a consent
form on your Web site. Make sure your consent form reflects all the possible
uses for the data, including the possible transfer of the data via email.
|
|
 |
|
| |
|

Copyright © 2010
Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP.
All rights reserved.
|
|