The counter-reaction to the widespread privacy abuse necessary in the "Social Freeconomic" business model (Datamining for Money) was widely predicted (by us among others) but is now in full swing, with legislation moving both in the California and the US Federal system.
California (from Ars Tech):
The legislation in question comes from the office of state senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach). Lowenthal's bill would require the state's Attorney General to deploy regulations by July 1, 2012 forcing any business that uses, collects, or stores online data to offer California consumers "a method to opt out of that collection, use, and storage of such information."
According to its summary, the bill would specify:
that such information, includes, but is not limited to, the online activity of an individual and other personal information. The bill would subject these regulations to certain requirements, including, but not limited to, a requirement that a covered entity disclose to a consumer certain information relating to its collection, use, and storage information practices. The bill would, to the extent consistent with federal law, prohibit a covered entity from selling, sharing, or transferring a consumer's covered information. The bill would make a covered entity that willfully fails to comply with the adopted regulations liable to a consumer in a civil action for damages, as specified, and would require such an action to be brought within a certain time period.
What would this "covered information" include? The "date and hour of online access," the location from which the information was accessed, the "means" (presumably the broadband device and its operating system) by which the data was obtained and stored, the user's IP address, "personal information" that would include but not be limited to postal and e-mail addresses, and government identification numbers such as drivers' licenses, passport numbers, and tax IDs. Credit card numbers and security codes are also part of the definition. The legislation in question comes from the office of state senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach). Lowenthal's bill would require the state's Attorney General to deploy regulations by July 1, 2012 forcing any business that uses, collects, or stores online data to offer California consumers "a method to opt out of that collection, use, and storage of such information."
Federal (from Washington Post)
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va) on Friday said he will introduce a “do not track” bill that would allow consumers to block Web sites and marketers from tracking their activity on the Internet. The bill, to be released next week, comes amid heightened interest by lawmakers in creating new online consumer privacy rules following a hacker attack on Sony PlayStation data and the logging of user location information on Apple’s iPhone and Google Android phones. Rockefeller’s bill is separate from a more comprehensive bill on privacy and security.
“Consumers have a right to know when and how their personal and sensitive information is being used online—and most importantly to be able to say ‘no thanks’ when companies seek to gather that information without their approval,” Rockefeller said in a release.
The legislation, called “Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2011,” works off recommendations by the Federal Trade Commission for such a mechanism. Specifically, the bill would require online companies to honor a consumer choice not to be tracked online. It would require the Web company to destroy or make anonymous information about users once it is no longer useful. And it would put the FTC in charge of enforcement of companies that violate the law.
Update - a second piece of legislation has been tabled -
NYT:
The announcement was followed by the release of a discussion draft of bipartisan legislation from Representatives Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Joe Barton of Texas that would amend the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 by adding protections for children and teenagers who use mobile devices. “We have reached a troubling point in the state of business when companies that conduct business online are so eager to make a buck, they resort to targeting our children,” Mr. Barton said in a statement issued on Friday. “I strongly believe that information should not be collected on children and used for commercial purposes.”
The Do Not Track Kids Act of 2011 would require companies to explain the type of information being collected and how that information was being used and would require parental consent before the collection of a child’s information.
What is interesting is to track the Do Not Track opposition - a Who's Who of dataminers - Facebook, Google et al. Ars Tech again:
Google and Facebook are warning legislators of dire consequences if California passes a "do not track" bill. The proposed law would require companies doing online business in the Golden State to offer an "opt-out" privacy mechanism for consumers.
Senate Bill 761 "would create an unnecessary, unenforceable and unconstitutional regulatory burden on Internet commerce," says the letter in opposition to the measure. "The measure would negatively affect consumers who have come to expect rich content and free services through the Internet, and would make them more vulnerable to security threats."
* Signed: Google, Facebook, Time Warner Cable, CTIA - The Wireless Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and about thirty other associations and companies.
Well they would, wouldn't they - and lobbying spend is being upped accordingly:
In the fourth quarter of 2010, the social network spent $130,000 in the quarter (up from $38,117 in the fourth quarter of 2009). In total, Facebook spent $351,390 on lobbying in 2010. Not only is this quarter the most Facebook has ever spent on lobbying, but the social network is well on its way to surpassing its 2010 total spend in the first two quarters of 2011.
.................
In fact, Google also spent record dollars on lobbying efforts this past quarter, shelling out $1.48 million. That’s compared to the search giant’s Q1 spend in 2010, which came in at $1.38 million. Google spent a total of $5.2 million in lobbying last year.
Sadly, no one is spending a fraction of that on representing the interests of "we the people" who are being increasingly scraped and datamined. Frankly though, I am surprised that "Bricks and Mortar" retailers don't band together and help fund the opposition, as the ability to track and datamine gives massive advantages to these sorts of businesses over other forms of retailing.
