Earlier this month the FTC laid out its preliminary recommendations for comprehensive Online Consumer Protection legislation. Many expected a detailed outline of protection strategies, similar to that presented to Credit Card companies earlier this year, but all I see is an idealized list of e-topian concerns that further underscore the discrepancy between industry interest and legislative understanding.
Firstly, this is intended to be an outline for NEW law. It only makes sense that this new law attempt to predict the future online environment. The internet, almost by definition, is a purely applied technology. The internet and its extended service network are, by nature, one of the fastest growing and changing technology sectors in the world. So why does this list of legal recommendations employ such fluffy and ineffective language to address the future of global commerce and does it even do that? When I read through this list it seems a checklist of answers to Facebook privacy concerns. It's almost as if the FTC is redesigning the social network's privacy page for us. Don't get me wrong, I am a real advocate of consumer protection. Maybe it's just me being an impatient product of the Internet revolution but doesn't it seem like our legislators only release reactionary material? Where are the going concerns over the NEW Stuxnet worm or the NEW online bank-fraud wave or even the recent discovery that the entire world's online traffic has been periodically copied and mined when passing through domestic Chinese servers? Are we really discussing "opt-out" options from advertisements and data mining in a day and age where users can use retinal scans to authorize instant purchases and transfers of money or transmit 3-D holograms of classified material from their phone? The FTC is addressing the web in a reactionary and out-of-date fashion, similar to the way the TSA addresses terrorism ( that is that they only profile people and weapons that have been used against them in the past). I'm all for legislation, I'm just tired of it being 5 years late and having a 5 year relevance-period.
Secondly, do we really expect the online business community to wake up tomorrow and decide that data mining, the single greatest competitive advantage many companies employ in the e-commerce realm, is inherently immoral? Do we really expect an "opt-out" notice every single time we are tagged by an ad spider? Do we really expect to gain ease-of-access to databases that most of us don't even know exist? If we wanted companies to follow these models of transparency someone should have plugged all this into an Al Gore speech 12 years ago. As long as the FTC is using ink to address the digital age, it will address it in the most ineffective of ways. If the FTC really expects these "reasonable" changes then it must be prepared to get its hands dirty and start designing software and plug-ins to facilitate its mission. As it stands, my Google pop-up/ad blocker does more for my web privacy than any alternative the FTC has thrown at me yet.
Firstly, this is intended to be an outline for NEW law. It only makes sense that this new law attempt to predict the future online environment. The internet, almost by definition, is a purely applied technology. The internet and its extended service network are, by nature, one of the fastest growing and changing technology sectors in the world. So why does this list of legal recommendations employ such fluffy and ineffective language to address the future of global commerce and does it even do that? When I read through this list it seems a checklist of answers to Facebook privacy concerns. It's almost as if the FTC is redesigning the social network's privacy page for us. Don't get me wrong, I am a real advocate of consumer protection. Maybe it's just me being an impatient product of the Internet revolution but doesn't it seem like our legislators only release reactionary material? Where are the going concerns over the NEW Stuxnet worm or the NEW online bank-fraud wave or even the recent discovery that the entire world's online traffic has been periodically copied and mined when passing through domestic Chinese servers? Are we really discussing "opt-out" options from advertisements and data mining in a day and age where users can use retinal scans to authorize instant purchases and transfers of money or transmit 3-D holograms of classified material from their phone? The FTC is addressing the web in a reactionary and out-of-date fashion, similar to the way the TSA addresses terrorism ( that is that they only profile people and weapons that have been used against them in the past). I'm all for legislation, I'm just tired of it being 5 years late and having a 5 year relevance-period.
Secondly, do we really expect the online business community to wake up tomorrow and decide that data mining, the single greatest competitive advantage many companies employ in the e-commerce realm, is inherently immoral? Do we really expect an "opt-out" notice every single time we are tagged by an ad spider? Do we really expect to gain ease-of-access to databases that most of us don't even know exist? If we wanted companies to follow these models of transparency someone should have plugged all this into an Al Gore speech 12 years ago. As long as the FTC is using ink to address the digital age, it will address it in the most ineffective of ways. If the FTC really expects these "reasonable" changes then it must be prepared to get its hands dirty and start designing software and plug-ins to facilitate its mission. As it stands, my Google pop-up/ad blocker does more for my web privacy than any alternative the FTC has thrown at me yet.
Comments
Post a Comment