WASHINGTON-While Congress debates whether it should enmesh itself in the online privacy debate, the wireless Web industry may be taking itself out of the debate by requiring customers to opt-in before customers receive customized advertisements on their wireless devices.
“You debate opt-in, opt-out but the marketplace takes care of this. … The wireless Web, which is virtually non-existent but is presumably where we are headed, a lot of these companies are adopting opt-in,” said Clyde Wayne Crews, director of technology studies at the Cato Institute.
Crews made his comments as he led a policy forum at the Cato Institute on “Should the government regulate online privacy? A tech industry debate.”
Various bills have either been introduced or are expected to be introduced in Congress this year regarding the protection of personal privacy in an online environment. It is hard to tell whether any of these proposals will become law as Congress gets caught up in campaign finance, the Bush tax plan and general appropriations measures. Crews believes the prospects of privacy legislation this year continue to lessen. Others see it as being a top priority for Congress or it becoming one if something disastrous happens on the Internet.
“All that has to happen is a privacy Exxon-Valdeze … and it is over!” said John Palafoutas, senior vice president for AeA, formerly the American Electronics Association, referring to the shipwreck in Alaska that prompted changes in environmental and shipping laws.
While the prospects of such legislation passing differ, various organizations have set out policy goals either for or against such legislation.
While AeA is calling for such legislation, the Information Technology Association of America is against it.
“AeA supports the adoption of federal legislation. … We need federal pre-emption language. … It is the libertarian, less government position. … We can’t have 50 state laws governing privacy,” said Palafoutas.
“Federal pre-emption would be a laudable objective but it could end up being a bait and switch where we think we are getting federal pre-emption but what we actually get is fairly onerous,” said Mark Uncapher, ITAA vice president and counsel.
Palafoutas’ stated belief that federal legislation is the libertarian way was perhaps an attempt to get support from the audience. The Cato Institute is seen as a libertarian, less government think tank.
The main push for legislation seems to come from the fear of what might happen, instead of what actually has happened, said Uncapher.
“I call it the privacy phantom. It is an example of privacy advocates speculating and then reacting. … What more can industry do if it is not being done and it is illegal,” said Uncapher, disputing a scenario expressed from a representative of the Bill of Rights forum attending the event where a Web bug was able to get access to personal private data on a person’s computer. This demonstration at a recent Capitol Hill event was labeled illegal and not happening and yet it was reported in the press that Web bugs exist thus causing an unnecessary and unwarranted furor.
The Privacy Coalition has urged Congress to pass legislation that would allow consumers to have access to all information that is collected about them and limit the use of that information by the collector.
Palafoutas does not believe this is possible. “It is virtually impossible for consumers to get access to all the information that is collected on them. [General Motors Corp.] GM has more than 100 different Web sites and they are all managed differently,” he said.
