Have you ever wondered why after searching for a product on
Amazon you begin to see advertisements for that and similar products in
advertisements on other webpages? It is the result of the work done by data
brokers. Data brokers are companies that most of the public know nothing about,
but they know everything about the public, and they are not small companies. One
of the largest data brokers reported over $800 million in revenue for 2015. Not
only are they large, but they have been around for a long time. They use public
records to collect data that is then organized, packaged, and sold to other
companies to help target ads to the appropriate consumers. With the advent of
the internet data brokers were quickly given access to much more information
than ever before. Currently there are no laws regulating how this companies
collect, store, or share this data. Instead the industry is left to regulate
itself.
In the years 2014 and 2015, in both the house and the senate,
bills were introduced that would allow for new laws that would regulate the
data broker industry. These bills were known as the Data Broker Accountability
and Transparency Act. Both years the act was introduced it eventually died
without being passed. The act became a
law it would define a “data broker” as a commercial entity that collects,
assembles, or maintains personal information concerning an individual who is
not a customer or an employee of that entity in order to sell or provide third
party access to the information. It would prohibit data brokers from using
information about a person that makes a “false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation,” and would require that the data brokers establish
procedures to make sure that the information that they collect, assemble, or
maintain is accurate. If the data is not accurate and the data broker is aware
of the error, they could not legally use the data without correcting it first.
In addition, the data broker would be required to provide means for individuals
to access and verify that their personal information is correct, and allow
individuals to dispute any inaccuracies that they find with the data. In order
to facilitate such correction, the data broker would be required to inform the
individual of the source of the information and who they would need to contact
to make the correction. Once corrected, and the individual shows proof of the
correction, the data broker would be required to update their database. The act
would also require data broker to provide a method for individuals to opt out
of having their data collected. In order for the law to be enforced congress
would grant the FTC and states the authority to enforce the act and allow them
to make any rules necessary to carry out its execution.
Benefits and Costs
The benefits of passing such a law would definitely shed
light on a very unknown industry. The requirements of the law would bring these
companies into the spotlight and would make the public aware of the amount of
information that these data brokers have and what they do with it. One of the
co-sponsors of the bill, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), comments that data
brokers are a “shadow industry of surreptitious data collection that has amassed
covert dossiers on hundreds of millions of Americans.” Being able to correct
any errors that is found in the data is also a penitential benefit to the
public. As well as having the ability to opt out of having one’s data collected
is another positive for the bill if it was passed.
Although there are various potential benefits for passing the
law it does come with its costs. One major cost comes from the expenses that businesses
would have to incur in order to create the programs needed to allow for
individuals to retrieve their data from the massive data bases, and to have
policies in place that would allow for individuals to update the data if the
data are wrong. Further costs would be created to create a program allowing for
an individual to opt out of the collect. In addition to costs the definitions
found in the law are very vague and can potentially cause problems for many research firms and other business.
Should this bill become Law?
Based on what Devan said it seems like the costs are greater than possible benefits. Usually I would say that a law should be passed to help educate the public and protect their rights but in this case I do not think that the costs the businesses would ensure is worth it. People can still learn about data mining without a law being passed. Sometimes the population has to take it into their own hands to make sure they know what is going on, there cannot always be a law to prohibit something.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that most of what we know about data brokers is speculation, but that would seem to be just the problem. Although the linked article says that three investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing, the FTC is one of the groups calling for more transparency. I agree that without more evidence, the bill in its current form may be an overreaction. Maybe a better compromise would be to allow individuals access to the data collected on them, with no specific provision for collection. This would still come at a cost for data broker businesses, but operating a business is never free, and giving read-only access to a database is not a massive technical challenge. After this level of transparency is established, it could be determined whether more regulations need to be adopted.
ReplyDeleteIf people are given the option to opt out of their data being collected, I believe many would choose to do so. And this may mean that data brokers would lose access to a massive amount of the information they make profits from. However, since the information is public, the person in a sense has already given permission to the data brokers (part of the public) to view the information. The data borkers just bring together the information for other companies to target advertising.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the collection of public information is necessarily harmful since it is already there. Rather than preventing data brokers from collecting information, there should be a focus on regulating what they can do with that information so it is not misused.
Correcting errors or misrepresentations within the data is another issue, which may fall partially in the data broker's responsibility to fix as well as the subject's to bring about the issue. A solution may be for both the data broker and subject to pay for correcting errors.
In my opinion, such laws should be passed. It may not be in the best interest of data broker companies, but I believe that the interests of the people whose information is being collected should come first. Requiring companies to provide information to people on what they are collecting and asking if the information is correct would build trust between consumers and data broker companies. Passing such laws may also make people trust the government more on digital privacy matters. I think that digital privacy should be considered more closely and laws like the one you mentioned should not be the end of the conversation. However, I think it would be beneficial to take steps to protect individual's digital privacy and the laws could potentially do that.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this law should be passed. A company that makes its entire profit via the selling of personal information should have the expectation of the financial cost of maintaining that data. If I put bread on my table by selling your name, email address, and the weird things you search on Amazon, I should have some sort of expectation that I will need to pay for this information in some way. One thing that was barely addressed (no fault to you Devan, your post was well written), was the opt-out clause of this bill. Personally, I think the actual collection of personal data in and of itself is of much more importance than the accuracy of this data. I don't care so much whether the ads targeted towards me are going off of weird Amazon searches that don't represent my character so much as I care that there are ads created based on my weird Amazon searches. Again we see the "I don't have anything to hide" argument come in to play. I mean, you should only be concerned about data mining if you're searching weird things on Amazon right? Wrong, because your entirely-normal searches are being collected, analyzed, stored, distributed to third parties, and used in ways that in their most mild form are simply annoying. Beyond that are much more serious implications about what can be determined about you as a person by your browsing history and how these assumptions will be used by companies in attempts to market to you.
ReplyDeleteBecause the information that these data brokers collect is already available to the public, I do not believe that any such law is necessary. Also, I agree with the others who mentioned that the costs seem to far outweigh any potential benefits anyways. Why force businesses and states to pay more to enforce this law when the data is already public and it will not make much of a positive impact for anyone? If the bill was more beneficial, I might be more inclined to consider passing it into law, but the costs would need to decrease or the benefits increase.
ReplyDeleteI feel similarly--And I have no problem with the costs that data brokers would incur with this bill. Targeted ads are an extra level of filtering what you see on the internet, and who's to say ads are the only things that are targeted using the information collected by data-brokers. What if search engines only pulled up results that they thought were similar to how you feel? Then there'd be a whole world of information you simply wouldn't be able to access simply because it doesn't "match your profile." Selling information about people to "personalize their experience" is a sad excuse for controlling the products and information those people are exposed to. In my opinion, there should not be any data brokering, and there certainly shouldn't be any targeting of ads or info.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the argument against limiting the powers of personal data aggregation. Just because that information is available to the public does not mean that someone should be collecting it, profiling you, and selling your personality to the highest bidder. Sure, I can see exactly where you are whenever you post to twitter or other social media websites, but how do you feel knowing that there's a program that allows ANYBODY on the internet to track you on a map in real time based on your social feed? What if I told you that app is actually called "Creepy." I think the main problem is that people have no idea what kind of information can be collected about them. Data brokers can see all the data you post publicly, sure, but they can also buy information about you that isn't public from other websites. For instance, if you use a VPN, your IP and name could be sold to/collected by a data broker and then spread further, faster. That's equivalent to having your social security number discovered and sold around! And if that's alarming, then you should be outraged by the fact that data brokers are even allowed to sell your actual social security number if they get a hold of it! Would you be ok with data brokers selling your passwords if they came across them? Depending on the websites you use, this is entirely possible.
I'm honestly a little disturbed by how ok the class seems to be with data brokering, because it really creeps me out. In my opinion, anything that makes a data broker's job harder is a good thing, because I don't want products and information filtered out of my browsing. Suppose a data broker has identified you as a liberal, and hence the only news results that your search engine brings up are liberally slanted articles--don't you think that would affect your ability to think for yourself? Don't we need information that we don't already know and agree with in order to grow as humans? Say no to filtering, say no to data brokering.
"I feel similarly to Christian," is what I meant to say
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I would like to be able to opt out of data brokers selling off my personal data. I don't think that corporations having to spend money to ensure that their data is correct is really a problem. Running a business has costs. I don't think that over-regulation and heaping a lot of unnecessary costs on businesses is good. However, it seems there are not really currently any regulations for data brokers. I believe that some regulation is good. I think digital privacy should have more protections, and it seems like policies at least like the act mentioned would be a good start.
ReplyDeleteIn the DATA Act's current state, I do not believe it should be enacted. "Marketing purposes" and "personal information" are vary vague terms that require much more specific definitions. With no current cases that actually show the damage that data brokers have done, it is unfair to impose legislation that would essentially chain companies to the FTC. However, if specific terms and regulations on data collection - how long it is held, if it is acquired appropriately - form to be the focus of the law, then I would support it.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea that there were no laws regarding how companies collect data. As to the enactment of the bill, I agree with Devan. I do not think that the act as it right now should be enacted. While I think that this is a shady industry, I think that the benefits aren't worth the cost. If regulations to access of personal information are going to be made, it should be more towards the data broker's collection of the data, not the use of it later on. Again agreeing with Devan, I think that we should not enact this bill because it takes power away from businesses and more power to the FTC.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel that data brokers present a real threat to privacy, and the fact that there are no laws in place to regulate them and that they are still considered some kind of "shadow business" really distresses me. I personally support the EU standard of companies being required to obtain express permission from people in order to collect data about them, that they have to be able to give you access to the information they have on you, etc.
ReplyDeleteI am with Alex in feeling that data brokering is absolutely creepy and should be regulated. Personal
(sorry, comment was published before I finished that last sentence)
DeletePersonal data is not something that allows companies a vast amount of insight into our day to day lives, and citizens absolutely deserve a say in how and why that information is being used, just on principle.
I'm not opposed to passing this law, but I wouldn't say I'm in a hurry to pass it, either. I find the personalized ads to be a little creepy, and I was shocked to read how much money data companies make. However, I don't see data mining as being particularly harmful. It's just a marketing strategy. I don't really mind if random online companies have my shoe size or know what textbooks I buy. While I am mildly supportive of such a law being passed, I don't find the issue to be highly alarming.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely support the law, running a business has costs and the information industry is expanding quickly. I don't feel even a little bad making data brokers who sell our information eat a few more costs. Also while data brokers might claim that they will have to create many more programs due to the regulation, these programs should already exist. What kind of data broker are you if you cant update your database, retrieve data or delete data. If you have so little control over your database that you can't alter the data it collects and allow for people to opt out, then you really aren't ready to be selling this information. The cost issue is definitely an excuse that these companies hide behind.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this bill should pass, as well as an amendment to the bill that states differing amounts of information per person be taxed accordingly. Then the federal government can have extra income to deal with as they will, and it will economically pressure the data brokers to collect smaller amounts of data per person. Even with all the costs that these businesses would incur plus the tax, the data brokers would be resilient and still make money because this is a service that a ton of advertisers would pay for. There is no reason for them not to pay for the information. As a side note, I have great respect for data miners as one of my previous jobs I had to data mine and it was one of the worst experiences that I have ever had.
ReplyDeleteIf this bill has vague policy definitions as you claim, then they should just be clarified so that there is no shadow of a doubt as to what they mean. Whether it is more work for data brokers or not doesn't matter, as they technically could and should have created the types of programs mentioned at the outset. Let's be honest here. Not all of the data collected is needed or necessarily correct, and many people probably don't want their personal data, no matter how harmless they may believe it to be, sold off to the highest bidder, which makes these programs a pretty good idea. As technology continues to evolve, the brokers will continuously find new ways to exploit our data; therefore, this bill needs to be adaptable to varying situations. After that the bill should pass.
ReplyDeletePersonally, no I would not pay for this service. However, I do entirely support the idea of having such an option available to those willing to pay that $25 per month. The money could be used to create jobs and pay a new government entity to protect the privacy of these people online. If people were able to opt out by paying that fee, we may be able to diminish a lot of the privacy concerns that Internet data collection has caused.
ReplyDelete