Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

FTC Internet Privacy Proposal Slammed By Ad Industry

“Do Not Track” settings planned by the Federal Trade Commission may not go far enough according the Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Google Chrome 9 Advances The 3D Graphical Web
(click image for larger view)
Slideshow: Google Chrome 9 Advances The 3D Graphical Web

Will the future see a "Do Not Track" setting in browsers that prevents data brokers and Web sites from tracking a consumer's every click?

In December, the Federal Trade Commission made that recommendation when it released "Protecting consumer privacy in an era of rapid change: A proposed framework for businesses and policymakers." In the proposal, released for public comment, the FTC said that the previous approach, in which industry groups could self-regulate by setting and disclosing their own privacy policies, had failed.

"Current privacy policies force consumers to bear too much burden in protecting their privacy," said the FTC. Furthermore, it warned that more advanced technologies were enabling "rapid data collection and sharing that is often invisible to consumers."

Industry groups, however, have slammed the FTC's proposal, suggesting it would wreck the ability of Web sites to provide personalized content. "The Internet is comprised of millions of interconnected Web sites, networks and computers -- a literal ecosystem, all built upon the flow of different types of data," according to a statement released by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). "To create a Do Not Track program would require reengineering the Internet's architecture." Instead, it suggested a new self-regulated program for online behavioral advertising.

But consumer rights groups have been arguing differently. The Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) on Friday released a statement recommending that the FTC require that all surveillance technologies in use be disclosed. It also wants people to be allowed to view and correct the data collected about them, in addition to a Do Not Track feature.

On Friday, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRC) released similar recommendations, including what it calls a "one-stop opt-out process" for consumers. According to the PRC, there are currently at least 133 data brokers in the United States, all of which have different procedures -- or offer no option -- for consumers to opt out. Some organizations also put hurdles in place, such as requiring consumers to mail a copy of their driver's license together with any opt-out request, while others have levied a fee.

Legislation would be a crucial component of any Do Not Track feature, since the FTC can't create laws, but only advise Congress. Earlier this month, however, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) introduced a bill that would require the FTC to develop Do Not Track standards, and give it the power to enforce companies' compliance with those regulations.

What would a Do Not Track approach look like to consumers? The three major browser developers are creating their own strategies: Mozilla Firefox 4 uses a Do Not Track header that gets transmitted to any Web site visited. Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 allows for user-created Tracking Protections Lists that forcibly block tracking via the browser. Google Chrome, meanwhile, provides a "Keep My Opt-Outs" extension that alerts any companies that are members of the National Advertising Initiative to not track that user.

PRC endorsed the Firefox approach to "do not track," citing its "simplicity for the user as well as being universal and persistent," and noted that together with legislation, it would be the toughest approach for data brokers to circumvent.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
More SolarWinds Attack Details Emerge
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  1/12/2021
Vulnerability Management Has a Data Problem
Tal Morgenstern, Co-Founder & Chief Product Officer, Vulcan Cyber,  1/14/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2020: The Year in Security
Download this Tech Digest for a look at the biggest security stories that - so far - have shaped a very strange and stressful year.
Flash Poll
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
COVID-19 has created a new IT paradigm in the enterprise -- and a new level of cybersecurity risk. This report offers a look at how enterprises are assessing and managing cyber-risk under the new normal.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-20619
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-19
Cross-site scripting vulnerability in GROWI (v4.2 Series) versions prior to v4.2.3 allows remote attackers to inject an arbitrary script via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2020-29450
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-19
Affected versions of Atlassian Confluence Server and Data Center allow remote attackers to impact the application's availability via a Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability in the avatar upload feature. The affected versions are before version 7.2.0.
CVE-2020-36192
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-18
An issue was discovered in the Source Integration plugin before 2.4.1 for MantisBT. An attacker can gain access to the Summary field of private Issues (either marked as Private, or part of a private Project), if they are attached to an existing Changeset. The information is visible on the view.php p...
CVE-2020-36193
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-18
Tar.php in Archive_Tar through 1.4.11 allows write operations with Directory Traversal due to inadequate checking of symbolic links, a related issue to CVE-2020-28948.
CVE-2020-7343
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-18
Missing Authorization vulnerability in McAfee Agent (MA) for Windows prior to 5.7.1 allows local users to block McAfee product updates by manipulating a directory used by MA for temporary files. The product would continue to function with out-of-date detection files.