Advocacy Project

Drag to rearrange sections
Rich Text Content

                The advocacy project digs deeper into the issue and argues for a proposed solution. I met a lot of difficulties as I was writing this paper because I rarely use argument. Through reading sample essays and exchanging opinions with Brian and my peers, I have somewhat got a sense of argument and avoided simply restating the narration like before, leading to what we see right here.

Creating a Comprehensive Federal Privacy Protection Law

                In today’s society, mobile devices are standard for every person. As their location services bring convenience to people’s lives, it also cultivated a new controversial industry practice that uses consumers’ location data for profit and behavioral influence. Google, which uses consumers’ location history for customized advertisements has gained nearly 210 billion dollars of revenue in 2021. (Johnson) Another example of exploitative action is Cambridge Analytica’s voter-profiling advertisements in 2018 with data provided by Facebook. (Susser) Using consumer data for a company‘s growth is not necessarily wrong, but the problem lies in many service users are not aware of the actions being done with their data and their rights as a consumer. A study from the Carnegie Mellon Univerity on the difficulty of websites’ privacy settings delivers worrying results: “Almost all participants required assistance finding privacy choices in websites’ account settings and privacy policies”. (Tkacik) To combat these privacy-related concerns, there needs to be a strong national regulatory solution that prevents the misuse of personal data and raises the awareness of consumers. 

                A promising solution is called the Innovative and Ethical Data Use Act of 2018, published by Intel as a legislative bill in 2018. This document focuses on improving the digital privacy protection of consumers by creating detailed guidelines for companies to follow and empowering the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. attorney generals by creating new federal legislation. The final version of the bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate on May 23, 2019, with the purpose to “... improve the protection of personal privacy…consistent with the Fair Information Practice Principles.” (Legislation) Intel’s proposal can be an effective strategy to combat the misuse of data as it addresses the fundamental issue which is the lack of a national regulatory framework on data privacy. 

                The U.S. currently has multiple state legislation that protects consumer’s privacy with regulatory guidelines for business behaviors. However, most of the legislation only covers a small portion of data privacy with only three comprehensive data protection laws in California, Virginia, and Colorado. (Klosowski) State laws are major steps forward, but multiple state laws are ineffective in terms of full protection. The existence of multiple standards can also create confusion. In New York Times’ interview with a data protection officer, Whitney Merrill, he points out that “a federal law would make matters easier for everyone,” due to its “consistent approach”. (Klosowski) Intel’s Associate General Counsel and Global Privacy Officer David Hoffman also share this perspective, suggesting uniform national legislation creates a better society and economic environment compared with fifty individual laws. (Chiavetta) Still, the state privacy legislation proves the possibility of using legal methods to protect customers. Their presence also indicates that national legislation is politically feasible.

rich_text    
Drag to rearrange sections
Image/File Upload
Picture1.png
attachment 19242700  
Drag to rearrange sections
Rich Text Content

                Intel’s bill attacks the roots of the problem by empowering the consumer with their rights to data usage. To protect consumers’ location data, the bill asks companies to “provide explicit notice to an individual prior to the collection from that individual of personal data…include…geolocation data.” (Legislation) Consumer awareness of the ongoing collection of their data is an important step toward better regulation. This awareness allows consumers to make decisions on the extent to which they are willing to share their location data, which is putting the power of decision on data usage back into the hands of consumers. The clause also complements another section of the bill, where it states location data is “...where an individual has a reasonable expectation that personal data will not be collected or used.” (Legislation) Due to the variety and sophistication of smartphone applications, it would be hard to notice if a calculator software is secretly tracking the user’s location. Thus, providing an early usage notice to the customers is necessary for consumers to gain control of their digital footprint. Intel’s proposed federal law that asks every entity to comply with can make applications more manageable. Aside from the pre-notice, the proposal also asks companies to shift more powers to their users. Users must be able to “halt further processing of [their] data or…obtain deletion of the personal data relating to the individual, and any analysis or predictions based upon the processing of that personal data.” (Legislation) Compared to the current situation, this change may greatly improve the environment of data safety. An article from the associated press investigates how Google uses two separate parts of the phone, “My Activity,” and “Location History”, to mislead its users so that location history will still be stored and used. (Nakashima) The proposed legislation can address this problem by urging companies to provide detailed and clear information on how to opt-out of data collection.

                The drafted bill also incentives companies to protect their users’ privacy by holding them accountable for any violations with criminal or civil charges. Attorney generals can file charges against “company officers” who “constitute a conscious effort to avoid learning the truth” (Legislation) in the process of certifying compliance with the act and penalize them for “fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years” (Legislation). Setting a clear penalty is ideal for the early prevention of misuse and noncompliance with the act. The executive sector of each company is incentivized to provide truth during a hearing and create new business plans that are more beneficial to the consumer’s privacy. There are also civil penalties that increase the cap of fine to “$1,000,000,000” (Legislation) and the range of jurisdiction. Companies that imposed privacy risks will be evaluated by their “degree of culpability, any history of similar prior conduct, ability to pay, [and] effect on the ability to continue to do business.” (Legislation) The detailed process of enforcement at federal and state-level may encourage more lawful practice in the future. 

                Moreover, this bill is improved from past legislation as it also ensures technology innovation and encourage changes towards a new business model. Intel’s proposal shifted away from the traditional data minimization approach such as California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and “laid a foundation for a focus on business behavior” models. (Kerry) In other words, Intel’s strategy tries to shape the business to incorporate data privacy into the application itself before launching a new product, instead of burdening the companies with heavy regulations after a feature has been added. Doing so not only reduced the lack of incentive from the extra work due to the law but also protected businesses will make new changes. As Hoffman points out, “data minimization can hurt both innovation and privacy.” (Chiavetta) Intel’s approach is potentially less costly compared to other methods because creating a consumer protection solution along with the product requires much less time and effort for firms compared with implementing protection afterward. Since companies are usually profit-driven, legislation that minimizes the cost of compliance may achieve more successful results. A flexible adaption of a new law can be therefore soothed and avoid disincentivizing innovation. 

                Despite the promising results, the actual implementation of the law would be costly as it burdens the FTC with more responsibilities. Intel suggests, that FTC’s Beauru of Customer Protection increase its employees “by at least 500 people in order to adequately protect Americans from predatory data practices.” from its current team of fifty people. (Hoffman) According to statistics from the U.S. government, FTC currently has 1160 employees (Agency), which means the bill is asking for an expansion of 50 percent. A drastic change as such requires huge political effort and a clear procedure to ensure the execution. Intel address this concern, Intel also specifies the new duties of FTC under the new law. Which includes rulemaking, enforcement, and providing guidance to both Congress and companies. (Legislation) These new responsibilities pave the path of transition into the new law as it connects the two ends of the string: legislators and law adapters. By placing FTC as a medium in between, it can provide information about the market situation and even make legislative suggestions based on their experience to the congress. On the other side, FTC can provide guidance to companies on how to comply with the law. The benefits brought by the expansion of FTC may balance the cost it entails.

rich_text    
Drag to rearrange sections
Image/File Upload
Picture2.png
attachment 19242697  
Drag to rearrange sections
Rich Text Content

                While some may worry that Intel, as a technology company, composed the bill in ways that are beneficial to themselves or the industry by leading the discussion, this problem was addressed with an online discussion platform created by Intel. The platform invites other privacy professionals to participate in the revision process and allows internet users to make comments on each topic. Shaun Jamison, a scholar from the Mitchell Hamline School of Law, praised Intel’s inclusive approach, suggesting it “ gives hope that there are parties sincerely interested in moving the law forward.” (Jamison 32) An open dialogue breeds innovative thoughts by giving the mass public an opportunity to voice their opinions. Users can build ideas on top of each other and doing so broadens the perspectives that are put inside the bill, as it was written by tech-related personnel. The interaction between the public and the bill can also reduce the bias through constructive conversations and mutual understanding of creating a better future. Aside from common users, the addition of other private industry professionals also strengthens the professionalism of the proposal. According to an article from the International Association of Privacy Professionals, contributors to the bill include, “IAPP Vice President and Chief Knowledge Officer Omer Tene, Alston & Bird Senior Counsel Peter Swire, CIPP/US, Future of Privacy Forum CEO Jules Polonetsky, CIPP/US, Groman Consulting Group Privacy & Data Protection Advisor Marc Groman, CIPP/US, and World Privacy Forum Founder & Executive Director Pam Dixon.” (Chiavetta) It is important to note that many of these industry leaders came from non-profit advocacy organizations with no affiliation with Intel. Participation from outside of Intel led to the second and third revisions of the bill, which were released in 2018 and 2019. These collaborations between public and private allow for an inclusive, credible delivery and improvements of the drafted bill.

                Innovative and Ethical Data Use Act of 2018 can be an effective solution to the current problem regarding location and data privacy. It shifts companies’ power of controlling and using consumers’ data to the hands of consumers themselves, empowers the FTC to oversee the industry, lists penalties for companies’ non-compliance, and improves upon the successful experience of state privacy legislation. Implementing this bill as federal law would be a great leap forward in consumer protection.

 

Work Cited

Agency Financial Report - Federal Trade Commission. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/agency-financial-report-fy2020/ftc_fy2020_agency_financial_report.pdf. 

Chiavetta, Ryan. “Intel Launches Online Portal for Consultation on Its Draft US Federal Privacy Law.” Intel Launches Online Portal for Consultation on Its Draft US Federal Privacy Law, International Association of Privacy Professionals, 6 May 2020, https://iapp.org/news/a/intel-launches-online-portal-for-consultation-on-its-u-s-federal-privacy-law/. 

Hoffman, David. “The U.S. Must Have Strong Enforcement for a Successful Privacy Regime.” Intel Communities, Intel Corporation, 27 May 2019, https://community.intel.com/t5/Blogs/Intel/Policy-Intel/The-U-S-Must-Have-Strong-Enforcement-for-a-Successful-Privacy/post/1333096.

Johnson, Joseph. “Google: AD Revenue 2001-2020.” Statista, Third Door Media, 7 Feb. 2022, https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-google/. 

Kerry, Cameron F. “Breaking down Proposals for Privacy Legislation: How Do They Regulate?” Brookings, The Brookings Institution, 9 Mar. 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/research/breaking-down-proposals-for-privacy-legislation-how-do-they-regulate/.

Klosowski, Thorin. “The State of Consumer Data Privacy Laws in the US (and Why It Matters).” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Sept. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/state-of-privacy-laws-in-us/. 

“Legislation.” Intel, Intel Corporation, 25 May 2019, https://usprivacybill.intel.com/legislation/.

Nakashima, Ryan. “AP Exclusive: Google Tracks Your Movements, like It or Not.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 13 Aug. 2018, https://apnews.com/article/north-america-science-technology-business-ap-top-news-828aefab64d4411bac257a07c1af0ecb.

Susser, D. & Roessler, B. & Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Technology, autonomy, and manipulation. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). DOI: 10.14763/2019.2.1410

Tkacik, Daniel. “Finding Privacy Choices on Websites Is Hard for Average Users.” CyLab Security & Privacy Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 11 June 2020, https://cylab.cmu.edu/news/2020/06/11-privacy-choices-websites.html.

rich_text    
Drag to rearrange sections
Rich Text Content
rich_text    

Page Comments

No Comments

Add a New Comment:

You must be logged in to make comments on this page.