A Model Regime of Privacy Protection (Version 2.0)

This version incorporates and responds to the many comments that we received to Version 1.1, which we released on March 10, 2005. Privacy protection in the United States has often been criticized, but critics have too infrequently suggested specific proposals for reform. Recently, there has been significant legislative interest at both the federal and state levels in addressing the privacy of personal information. This was sparked when ChoicePoint, one of the largest data brokers in the United States with records on almost every adult American citizen, sold data on about 145,000 people to fraudulent businesses set up by identity thieves. Other companies announced security breaches, including LexisNexis, from which personal information about 32,000 people was improperly accessed. Senator Schumer criticized Westlaw for making available to certain subscribers personal information including Social Security Numbers (SSNs). In the aftermath of the ChoicePoint debacle and other major information security breaches, both of us have been asked by Congressional legislative staffers, state legislative policymakers, journalists, academics, and others about what specifically should be done to better regulate information privacy. In response to these questions, we believe that it is imperative to have a discussion of concrete legislative solutions to privacy problems. What appears below is our attempt at such an endeavor. Privacy experts have long suggested that information collection be consistent with Fair Information Practices. This Model Regime incorporates many of those practices and applies them specifically to the context of commercial data brokers such as ChoicePoint. We hope that this will provide useful guidance to legislators and policymakers in crafting laws and regulations. We also intend this to be a work-in-progress in which we collaborate with others. We have welcomed input from other academics, policymakers, journalists, and experts as well as from the industries and businesses that will be subject to the regulations we propose. We have incorporated criticisms and constructive suggestions, and we will continue to update this Model Regime to include the comments we find most helpful and illuminating. Notice, Consent, Control, and Access 1. Universal Notice 2. Meaningful Informed Consent 3. One-Step Exercise of Rights 4. Individual Credit Management 5. Access to and Accuracy of Personal Information Security of Personal Information 6. Secure Identification 7. Disclosure of Security Breaches Business Access to and Use of Personal Information 8. Social Security Number Use Limitation 9. Access and Use Restrictions for Public Records 10. Curbing Excessive Uses of Background Checks 11. Private Investigators Government Access to and Use of Personal Data 12. Limiting Government Access to Business and Financial Records 13. Government Data Mining 14. Control of Government Maintenance of Personal Information Privacy Innovation and Enforcement 15. Preserving the Innovative Role of the States 16. Effective Enforcement of Privacy Rights Commentar

A Model Regime of Privacy Protection (Version 2.0)

This version incorporates and responds to the many comments that we received to Version 1.1, which we released on March 10, 2005. Privacy protection in the United States has often been criticized, but critics have too infrequently suggested specific proposals for reform. Recently, there has been significant legislative interest at both the federal and state levels in addressing the privacy of personal information. This was sparked when ChoicePoint, one of the largest data brokers in the United States with records on almost every adult American citizen, sold data on about 145,000 people to fraudulent businesses set up by identity thieves. Other companies announced security breaches, including LexisNexis, from which personal information about 32,000 people was improperly accessed. Senator Schumer criticized Westlaw for making available to certain subscribers personal information including Social Security Numbers (SSNs). In the aftermath of the ChoicePoint debacle and other major information security breaches, both of us have been asked by Congressional legislative staffers, state legislative policymakers, journalists, academics, and others about what specifically should be done to better regulate information privacy. In response to these questions, we believe that it is imperative to have a discussion of concrete legislative solutions to privacy problems. What appears below is our attempt at such an endeavor. Privacy experts have long suggested that information collection be consistent with Fair Information Practices. This Model Regime incorporates many of those practices and applies them specifically to the context of commercial data brokers such as ChoicePoint. We hope that this will provide useful guidance to legislators and policymakers in crafting laws and regulations. We also intend this to be a work-in-progress in which we collaborate with others. We have welcomed input from other academics, policymakers, journalists, and experts as well as from the industries and businesses that will be subject to the regulations we propose. We have incorporated criticisms and constructive suggestions, and we will continue to update this Model Regime to include the comments we find most helpful and illuminating. Notice, Consent, Control, and Access 1. Universal Notice 2. Meaningful Informed Consent 3. One-Step Exercise of Rights 4. Individual Credit Management 5. Access to and Accuracy of Personal Information Security of Personal Information 6. Secure Identification 7. Disclosure of Security Breaches Business Access to and Use of Personal Information 8. Social Security Number Use Limitation 9. Access and Use Restrictions for Public Records 10. Curbing Excessive Uses of Background Checks 11. Private Investigators Government Access to and Use of Personal Data 12. Limiting Government Access to Business and Financial Records 13. Government Data Mining 14. Control of Government Maintenance of Personal Information Privacy Innovation and Enforcement 15. Preserving the Innovative Role of the States 16. Effective Enforcement of Privacy Rights Commentar

Sponsored Blog Content: What do the Regulations Say? And what do Bloggers Say?

Influencer marketing – the use of opinion leaders such as bloggers with many followers and readers to disseminate product messages – is gaining advertisers’ interest. This paper presents the law and self-regulative provisions concerning blog advertising in both Europe and the US and documents the actual practice of disclosing blog advertising: whether and if so how, bloggers disclose influences from advertisers, and how these disclosures align with the regulations in place. The Federal Trade Commission Act and related guides in the US, and self-regulative provisions in Europe urge advertisers and endorsers, such as bloggers, to disclose any commercial relationship. These disclosures should be clear and conspicuous because advertising to consumers should be recognizable as such. Although advertisers increasingly encourage bloggers to promote products, it is unclear whether bloggers comply with disclosure requirements. To test compliance with disclosure requirements, we performed a content analysis of 200 blog posts drawn from the top-20-ranked sites in the Netherlands and the United States. We found that 65% of the posts mention brands and products. Yet, only 15% of the blog posts provided some commercial sponsorship disclosure. To determine whether posts mentioning brands were organic, unsponsored endorsements, we made repeated attempts to contact authors. Of those that responded, most claimed that their writing was not sponsored, but a small number received remuneration and did not disclose it. Furthermore, among the disclosing bloggers, we found regular problems in their sponsorship disclosures: many only state ‘sponsored’ or ‘affiliated link’; only 1/3 stated the name of the actual sponsor; most require the users to “scroll down,”; and most are in the same font as ordinary text. Our findings raise several regulatory issues; namely, the need for more concrete guidance on disclosure format, and it highlights the difficulty of monitoring compliance with the existing provisions. In so doing, our findings also provide important input for the European Commission’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance exercise, which tackles, among others the Unfair Commercial Practice Directive