* Every entity that is given personally identifiable information by an individual should present, and abide by, a 'terms of use' contract for that data.
The FTC held a roundtable — actually a series of talks and panels — last week on the issue of privacy. The commission, it seems, is worried that rules to protect privacy have not kept up with technology. But is government in general and the Federal Trade Commission, in particular, the right place to create privacy rules? Should there be privacy rules at all?
The Federal Trade Commission held a roundtable — actually a series of talks and panels — last week on the issue of privacy. The commission, it seems, is worried that rules to protect privacy have not kept up with technology. But is government in general and the FTC, in particular, the right place to create privacy rules? Should there be privacy rules at all?
I hasten to add that I’m not advocating a free (or “fee”) market for the buying and selling of personally identifiable information (PII), but that existing laws (contract law, copyright, fraud and so on) are good enough with one addition: every entity that is given PII by a person must present, and abide by, a “terms of use” contract for that data.
It was a man I’ve never met, and hadn’t even heard of until a couple of weeks ago, who started me down the path to this thought.
Tim Cole (the right-hand half of Kuppinger-Cole) wrote about Sven Gábor Jánszky who is the founder of 2B Ahead. He saw Jánszky on Germany’s premiere news show (and asked “How often do identity gurus in the U.S. get to air their views on ’60 minutes’?”) and was intrigued by his premise.
Jánszky’s premise is relatively simple: he thinks that the concept of the state protecting people’s privacy is so 20th century. “They want to share their personal information”, he says, and it’s the job of business to help them do it in a controlled fashion. He thinks it’s high time the industry takes the lead in creating a system that will allow everyone to distribute personal information freely, but retain a final say in where it goes and how it’s used. The role of government, Jánszky says, is also simple: stop trying to build walls around the consumer and instead focus on passing laws that enable companies to use personal information, provided they do so in a responsible way and with the full consent and oversight of the consumer.
In the United States (and around the world) we’ve seen public outcries over Google Buzz and FaceBook whenever it was deemed that they were eroding people’s privacy. And every time the corporate entity has made the changes that the “mob” deemed necessary — no government intervention needed.
If the FTC wants to pass rules to show they take privacy seriously, then one rule — to require a contract between the person described by the PII and the organization wishing to use it — is all we need. A serious two-way contract and not the sort of take-it-or-leave-it we too often see (such as software “shrinkwrap” contracts) so that the user is required to give informed consent and the provider is required to respect the user’s wishes. It really shouldn’t be that hard to do.
