Just Because A Site Has A Privacy Policy, Doesn't Mean It Will Keep Your Data Private

from the that's-how-it-works dept

Last week there was a fair amount of coverage of the fact that Canadian regulatory agency, CRTC, had revealed private data on its website. That story, by itself, is interesting enough, but the followup from the CRTC was even more interesting. It claimed that since the CRTC's privacy policy stated that any data you gave it was a part of the public record, it was fine:

Note that all information you provide as part of a public process, except information granted confidentiality, whether sent by postal mail, facsimile, e-mail or through the Commission's website at www.crtc.gc.ca, becomes part of a publicly accessible file and will be posted on the Commission's website. This information includes your personal information, such as your full name, e-mail address, postal/street address, telephone and facsimile number(s), and any other personal information you provide.

Fair enough, right? After all, the privacy policy states right out that the data will be revealed. Except... as we've noted in the past, most people falsely believe that if a site has any privacy policy, it means their data will be safe. This situation highlights this exactly. Most people assumed that the existence of a privacy policy itself meant the data would be kept private -- even though the policy itself says otherwise. Most people never bother to read the policy, and assume privacy policy = privacy. The truth, of course, was that the CRTC's "privacy policy" was actually a "non-privacy policy," but most people had no idea.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can Technology Solve The Privacy Questions Around Behavioral Advertising?

from the beats-regulations dept

Jim Harper makes a really good point as there's a growing clamor for regulators to step in and legislate around online privacy concerning things like behavioral targeting of advertisements. Before we rush into new laws, let's see if technology can solve the problems, such as Chris Soghoian's new tool to let users add a browser extension that let's them block out all targeted advertising cookies. That doesn't necessarily solve the issue with ISPs selling clickstream tracking, but it does suggest that technology may do a decent job protecting against some of these issues.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Cox Gets Aggressive With Traffic Shaping

from the taunting-the-fcc dept

In a move that's basically baiting the FCC and Congress to see if they will act, Cox has announced that it's going to experiment with rather aggressive traffic shaping, granting priority to bits that it feels have a great priority. Why Cox gets to describe what gets a priority and what doesn't seems pretty questionable. Cox is also the company that implemented a three strikes policy on file sharing without telling anyone.

To be honest, this seems like a really tone deaf move by Cox -- and I'd imagine that plenty of telcos and cable companies are pissed off about Cox calling extra attention to the topic right now. There's been plenty of talk of new net neutrality regulations in Congress, and with Cox putting the issue so squarely on the table, it's as if they're begging for such regulations (or at least to be slapped down by the FCC). You would think they would at least wait until it wasn't an issue getting so much attention before drawing extra scrutiny and daring regulators to act.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Pilot Program To Educate Judges On Patent Issues Really Depends On Who's Doing The Educating...

from the pros-and-cons dept

It looks like attempts at patent reform this year may come in small pieces, rather than a big comprehensive plan. For example, Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Darrell Issa have reintroduced some new legislation that would create a pilot program to enroll certain judges in a program to educate them on patent issues. On the face of it, this sounds good. After all, more education on issues related to patents seems like it should help avoid some of the more ridiculous outcomes we've seen in patent courts in the past. So, it's no surprise that some are excited about this proposed program.

However, just as when similar legislation was introduced in the past, I'm worried about unintended consequences. Specifically, there's a big question in terms of who is going to be doing this "educating" and what the "curriculum" will entail. After all, when a specialized patent court, the CAFC, was first created, even though not all judges involved were patent lawyers, those who had less experience simply deferred on many issues to those who came from that world -- and, as we've seen too often, patent attorneys view the world differently than many technologists -- and seem to think that patents are the answer to many questions. So, if the "education" program simply comes from patent attorneys, then the end result could be much, much worse, because judges will have been taught only one side of the issue. That would be very troubling.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Canadian Regulators Say Bell Canada's DSL Throttling Is Fine

from the sorta-misses-the-point,-though dept

Earlier this year, you may recall that Bell Canada started traffic shaping its DSL even at the wholesale level -- and did so without bothering to tell any of its resellers. That meant that various resellers of Bell Canada, which had promised customers an open network, were suddenly lying, without even knowing it. These reseller ISPs protested, and Bell Canada responded by telling them to shut up and deal with it. The other ISPs protested to Canadian regulators who have now sided with Bell Canada, claiming that the traffic shaping is not discriminatory, because it impacts all reseller ISPs the same way. Of course, that's not the type of discrimination the ISPs were complaining about...

The whole thing does seem quite questionable, as Bell Canada effectively changed the terms by which it provided service to its reseller ISPs, without any notification, let alone negotiation. Yet, because Bell Canada is effectively a monopoly as a provider of DSL, the ISPs have no competitive options to which they can turn. It sounds like the regulators could be convinced to examine other aspects of Bell Canada's traffic shaping plans, but for now, it's given the go-ahead on having them force all resellers to provide traffic-shaped DSL, even if they had promised not to traffic shape.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Do We Really Want Congress Choosing Which Business Models Are Best?

from the lobbyists-aren't-pushing-for-the-public-good dept

One of the most disappointing things in watching how Congressional Reps respond to entertainment industry lobbyists is that they seem to accept that the RIAA and MPAA's interests really are about helping "content creators" rather than simply putting in place laws that prop up an increasingly obsolete business model. Braden Cox recently came out with an interesting paper that highlights the fact that lobbyists are almost always either trying to protect their own business model, or make it difficult for other companies' business models to succeed. Yes, this is incredibly obvious, but it's an important reminder of something that is often missed by our politicians.

More specifically, it also explodes the myth that "the tech industry" has a single opinion on most policy issues. The report notes, basically, that different companies support different policies entirely based on their business models. It also notes that any effort by Congress to protect one particular business model is equally likely to harm another business model. In effect, any effort by politicians to prop up one is making an explicit choice over which business models are "best." And, for obvious reasons, we should all be pretty worried when Congress critters put themselves in the position of deciding which business model is best.

Tim Lee then does a nice job following up to show how things like the DMCA are an explicit choice by Congress to say that proprietary software business models are better than open software business models -- even though most in Congress don't recognize this fact. Isn't it time that we let the market decide what the best business models are instead of Congress?

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No, Telecom Progress Hasn't Slowed

from the wonders-of-competition dept

Megan McArdle points to a post by "cactus" claiming that progress in the telecom industry has slowed since the passage of the 1996 Telecom Act, and suggests that this is an argument against deregulation. Megan points out that cactus is likely exaggerating the responsiveness of Baby Bell customer service in the early 1990s. Here's another part of the argument that's really misguided:

"My guess is that the improvement in technology available to the consumer from 1984 to 1996 is more significant than the improvement from 1996 to 2008. (Anyone remember using a BBS?) And the improvements on the cell phone side of the business seem to come mostly on the manufactured hand-unit, which was never regulated because it isn't a natural monopoly."

The problem with this is that if we're talking about Internet access, there were no improvements at all between 1984 and 1996 in what phone companies offered to residential customers to get online. In 1984, if you wanted to get online, you got a second phone line and purchased a modem. In 1996, if you wanted to get online, you got a second phone line and got a modem. Now, the 1984 modem was probably 1200 bps, while the 1996 modem was probably 28,800 bps. And the 1984 online service was probably Compuserve, while the 1996 online service might have been a real ISP. But of course the Baby Bells weren't major players in the modem or online service markets during these years, and neither market was regulated. So touting them as evidence of the virtues of the pre-1996 regulatory regime, while dismissing the analogous improvement in cell-phone handsets since 1996, is disingenuous.

More broadly, it's just silly to claim that progress in the telecom industry has slowed over the last 12 years. Between 1984 and 1996, typical home online speeds increased from 1200 bps to 28.8 kbps, an impressive 24-fold improvement. By 2008, typical internet speeds were upwards of 3 mbps, an even more impressive 100-fold improvement. And 28.8 was the fastest you could go in 1996 without paying exorbitant charges for a dedicated data line. In contrast, some broadband providers are offering speeds as high as 20 mbps—a 700-fold improvement—for under $70/month. Now, I don't think improvements in the telecom market have been primarily due to the 1996 Telecom Act (which wasn't especially deregulatory anyway). Primarily, I think the progress was due to two things: cable companies getting into the broadband and phone markets (which which has created pressures for faster DSL and fiber roll-outs), and the government auctioning off spectrum to increase competition in the wireless market (which has provided additional competition for the Baby Bells' phone business). The former was likely sped along by some provisions of the 1996 Telecom Act, although the the "local loop unbundling" fiasco may have stunted development of DSL service during the same period. On the other hand, spectrum auctions were first authorized by Congress in 1993, so the latter can't be credited to the Telecom Act.

The bottom line, though, is that deregulation is most successful when it's designed to increase competition. A well-designed deregulatory scheme will enhance competition by removing barriers to entry and letting new firms enter the market. Poorly-designed "deregulation" will leave barriers to entry in place and simply relax regulations that limit the monopolist's ability to extract monopoly rents. There was some of each in the 1996 Telecom Act, but either way it's clear that progress continued at a brisk clip after 1996, and increased competition was a big part of that. If Congress wants that progress to accelerate over the next decade, it should look for ways to further increase competition in the telecom industry, not try to turn back the clock to the 1980s.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New Legislation May Open The Door For FCC Regulatory Power Over Internet Content

from the not-a-good-thing dept

We're all for making content better accessible for the disabled -- but we ought to be careful when it comes to mandating it and potentially opening up internet content to the regulatory control of the FCC. A new bit of legislation being introduced by Rep. Ed Markey would (among other things) give the FCC regulatory power to mandate that internet video providers provide captions and a "video description" for the disabled. Basically, it would require "closed captioning" services for "major" video providers. On the face of it, this sounds well-meaning, but it's troublesome to suddenly give the FCC any sort of regulatory say over internet videos. The FCC's mandate is supposed to be over scarce spectrum -- which is (or is supposed to be) managed as a public good. It's not supposed to have regulatory power over much beyond that -- though, obviously, things have changed over the years.

Giving regulatory power over internet video, even for a seemingly "good cause," opens up all sorts of questions -- both legal and technical. Most worrisome, though, is conceptually, that this would open the door to making internet content open to government regulation. While there have been many attempts to regulate the internet over the years, for the most part, the government has seen fit to keep its hands out of regulating most internet content. Opening up internet video to certain requirements is a troublesome "nose in the tent" sort of situation. Rep. Markey, of course, is also well known for his proposed net neutrality bill -- and it's for the very same reason that I'm skeptical of legislating net neutrality. I'm a huge supporter of the concept of net neutrality -- and I believe strongly in exposing any provider who breaks neutrality. But once you open the door to the government regulating the internet, they're only going to regulate more and more and more. And, if you don't think that process won't be abused by entrenched interests, you haven't been paying attention to our legal system lately. Good intentioned laws for the internet will almost certainly have bad unintended consequences.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Are People In China Happy With The Great Firewall?

from the some-of-them-appear-to-be dept

We've heard this argument plenty of times in the past, but a recent study suggests that 85% of people surveyed in China are perfectly fine with the Great Firewall, saying that they believe the government has a responsibility to "protect" them from dangerous content. Of course, this is always how the government has positioned the filter: not as "blocking" content it doesn't like, but as protecting citizens from "dangerous" content. Before people act surprised about this, take a step back and recognize that if you did the same study in the US, asking if the government should be protecting children from "bad stuff" online, many Americans would naturally say yes. That doesn't necessarily mean that either is okay -- but does suggest how different the answers are based on how the question is positioned.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Japan's Big Push To Regulate The Internet

from the politicians-should-stay-away dept

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Considering that the only real tool politicians have is the ability to regulate, it's no wonder they try to regulate everything in sight. The Inquirer points us to a report about some efforts underway in Japan to dramatically increase regulation over the internet in a variety of different realms. The first area would be to expand what the Japanese "Broadcast Law" covers to include almost all web content. The law was intended to regulate broadcast content, but by adding in the phrase "open communication" it will now also include just about any public information put on the web, including newsgroups, bulletin boards and blogs. Once that's in place, the Japanese government will then be able to go after any content it finds "harmful," which seems rather loosely defined itself. The second change would push mobile phone operators to put in place various filters to block "harmful" content from minors -- though, again that definition of harmful is loosely described. The report notes that some operators already have such filters in place (though they're not mandatory) and it includes blocking various social network sites and some sites based on politics or sexual orientation. The final change would be to Japanese copyright law that currently says it's legal to download songs for personal use. The change would be to get rid of that exception. At this point, it sounds like all of these proposals are under review, rather than already put in place, but as the article notes, they don't seem to have received very much press attention, despite being major changes concerning internet regulations. All of these changes seem to be the type that politicians like. They all make the politicians look good for either "protecting the children" or helping out big industry lobbyists -- but which do little to actually help the people the government is supposed to represent.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Anything Goes Wrong Online? Yell 'Net Neutrality' As Loud As Possible!

from the crying-wolf dept

Before we get accused of all sorts of incorrect things (as per usual when we post about network neutrality), let's start off with a few clear points: I think that the concept of network neutrality is important for creating conditions that enhance innovation. However, I don't think that means we should mandate network neutrality through legislation. I think what it means is that we should look for ways to increase competition in the connectivity space, as that would make network neutrality a non-issue. Anyone who violated network neutrality would pay for it in lost customers. Unfortunately, with many people having very few connectivity choices, companies can get away with things. However, these firms aren't stupid. They're not randomly blocking stuff just for the hell of it. And, yet, every time a minor technical problem pops up -- such as T-Mobile having problems delivering SMS to Twitter, suddenly everyone makes it out to be a net neutrality violation. Unfortunately, it appears that the phrase "network neutrality" has now become a catch-all for any connectivity provider that has trouble delivering any particular service. While that generates headlines for advocates and politicians who want to keep "network neutrality" in the headlines, it actually does a great disservice to the actual concept of network neutrality. It changes the debate away from one that concerns the actual issues (competition and what is best for innovation) to one that involves lots of needless finger-pointing and blind accusations. So, next time there's a problem on the network, before shouting "network neutrality," at least wait until the details come out.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Two States, Two Very Different Approaches To VoIP Regulation

from the quacks-like-a-duck dept

For many years, states have been trying to tax VoIP providers as if they were telcos. From the states' perspective, they were using a "quacks like a duck" test, whereby any phone service that acted like a traditional phone service should get taxed like a traditional phone service. Since states rely on tax dollars so much, this feeling was reinforced as people started ditching landline phone service for VoIP providers. However, there are a few problems with this. The reason that telcos are taxed is because of the structure of the telephone system, and the fact that the government more or less handed over rights of way and control of the system to private companies. VoIP providers, however, have the calls travel over the internet, changing the nature of the equation, and meaning that most of the reasons for taxing telcos shouldn't apply. Shouldn't, except for politicians who can't see beyond the money. Yet, taxing VoIP is a doubly bad idea, because VoIP is still an emerging service that is rapidly changing -- offering new services and opportunities that weren't possible on landline offerings. Putting a tax on it could kill a lot of that innovation. Too many states don't see that.

Jeff Pulver is showing the contrast between two states in dealing with VoIP regulatory issues. New Jersey has passed a law saying that it will not regulate VoIP, noting "The proliferation of new technologies and applications and the growth in the number of providers developing and offering innovative services using Internet Protocol is due in large part to a light regulatory touch, including freedom from traditional telephone regulation that these new technologies and services and the companies that offer them have enjoyed in New Jersey.... These economic benefits, including consumer choice, new jobs, and significant capital investment, will be jeopardized and competition minimized by the imposition of traditional State entry and rate regulation on Voice over Internet Protocol service and Internet protocol-enabled service."

Unfortunately, Missouri isn't quite so enlightened. Despite various rulings saying that VoIP should not be taxed, Missouri is trying to bend the rules to make at least some VoIP offerings (mainly those provided by cable companies) classified as telco services that need to be taxed. As Jeff notes, if this works, then expect other states to follow suit and create loopholes for taxing VoIP providers... and then watch as all VoIP related innovation happens elsewhere.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Do Search Engines Need To Be Regulated?

from the speak-freely,-search-freely dept

We've seen way too many lawsuits from people who get upset that Google doesn't rank them highly enough (or that Google has erased them from its index for gaming the search rankings). They often seem to think that it's a natural right that Google must rank them and must rank them highly. Of course, some of us feel that Google is a private company, and has the right to rank sites however it wants. If those rankings aren't very good, then that simply represents an opportunity for the other search engines to provide a better solution and steal away users. Law professor Eric Goldman, who tends to agree with us on that point, now points us to a new academic paper suggesting the opposite: that search engines should be regulated as their results represent a form of free speech. Specifically, the paper argues four key points should be regulated into place:

1. Search engines should not be allowed to remove any sites from a search index unless required to remove it by law.
2. Search engines must reveal the basis of their ranking methodology and must continue to use the methodology they have made public
3. Search engines cannot manipulate search results except if there is a clear example of abuse that needs to be changed
4. Search engines should be required to clearly state which results are paid and which are organic

The first three points seem to be based on the idea that somehow some sites' right to free speech is somehow blocked by search engines not ranking them "properly." While the author admits that free speech issues revolve around gov't, not private company, censorship, she presents a rather complex argument that the internet is a platform for free speech and any intermediaries that get in the way of a listener hearing any particular opinion is thus interfering with free speech. It seems like quite a stretch. In the meantime, we've yet to see why this is a problem that requires legal help. Are there really important sites that have been shut out of the public realm by bad search engine rankings? These days, if a search engine really blocked out such a site, it would almost immediately allow the site owners to get publicity for being "blocked" and generate much more attention. However, we've yet to hear any credible claims of any search engine blocking any legitimate site, other than for trying to manipulate the search engine, for which it seems perfectly reasonable to get banned. As for requiring search engines to clearly mark paid and organic search, it's unclear why this isn't already covered by the FTC concerning deceptive advertising. So, at this point, it seems hard to justify the need for additional regulation.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..