ILI Student Blog

Month: March 2011

  • Google Book Search and Privacy

    Google Book Search allows anyone to search a massive library of books that Google has scanned. A few years ago, the Authors Guild sued Google to stop the project and various settlement agreements have subsequently been proposed. Judge Denny Chin recently rejected the latest settlement agreement.[1] Though he suggested that the opt-out provision, allowing Google to scan any work unless the right holder opts out, was the main reason for rejecting the settlement, Chin also stated that “the privacy concerns are real.”

    Chin noted the concern that the settlement agreement does not limit what reader information Google can track, potentially allowing Google to create detailed profiles of its readers. Chin also noted issues as to whether and to what extent Google could share such information with others. Finally, though not in the opinion, some have voiced concern over transparency with what the privacy policies will be and how much control users will have over their privacy settings.[2]

    Despite the privacy concerns, Chin apparently does not believe “they are a basis in themselves to reject the proposed settlement.” In coming to this conclusion, Chin notes Google has obliged itself to follow voluntary safeguards. But while Google has previously offered assurances that the “principles” of its normal privacy policy would apply to Book Search, it has declined to offer specific details. Google has also suggested it cannot develop an adequate privacy policy until it finishes developing Book Search, though few would argue Book Search is currently so undeveloped that it does not require any consideration of privacy.

    While privacy issues may not be the deciding factor in the Google Book Search settlement, and Google has certainly sought to downplay them, they will undoubtedly become an important issue once the legal issues are resolved and the practical problems with the project must be dealt with.

    1 See http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/opinion.pdf.
    2 See http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/google_don’t_close_the_book_on_reader_privacy.shtml

  • Cellphone Tracking in China: Tool to Ease Traffic Congestion or to Chill Political Dissidents?

    The Chinese Government has announced plans to track 1.7 million cellphone users in Beijing through location technology, in order to help city authorities better manage traffic (see http://www.bjjtgl.gov.cn/publish/portal1/tab165/info23222.htm). However, this raises concerns that the government may abuse this technology for surveillance purposes, infringing a variety of human rights.

    China maintains a tight grip on the flow of information within and out of the country. It has already blocked sites like Youtube and Twitter, driven Google China out of the mainland and into Hong Kong, and even required telecommunications operators and internet service providers to cooperate with the State in locating leaks of state secrets:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/world/asia/07beijing.html

    http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/21189/20100428/china-telco-isps-communication-information-control-censorship-google-yahoo-facebook-twitter-internet.htm

    With the Chinese government now engaging in such highly comprehensive cellphone tracking, a number of human rights concerns arises, including the possibility of political dissenters being monitored and tracked as the government clamps down on its critics. Apart from its judicial branches of government, Chinese citizens can also make claims, “petitions”, to the highest level of government seated in Beijing. Through its many tactics of getting rid of petitioners, the most heinous is tracking down these individuals, arresting them for social disturbance or throwing them in mental institutions (see http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4c05091b19.html). Cellphone tracking, although politically neutral on its face, can at best chill free speech and peaceful protests (i.e. Jasmine Rallies), at worst, allow government officials and police to have easier access to dissidents.

    Of course, it could be argued that, on a daily basis, individual privacy is hardly interfered with if cellphone tracking is used for its asserted purpose – after all, each person would merely be one of 1.7 million other “trackees” in one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Furthermore, it has been well documented that Beijing has one of the world’s biggest problems with traffic (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11062708). Last August, there was a nine-day traffic jam that stretched 100km just outside of Beijing. However, it is questionable what tracking cellphones can really do to aid traffic flow. The main problem is the amount of cars on the road — better solutions should target a reduction of cars, rather than simply band-aid solutions to track individuals.

    Further, if tracking were really implemented concerns do arise where “targeted” rather than simply “general” cellphone tracking takes place — a capacity that both the Chinese and all other governments possess, and is highly susceptible to abuse.

    For more information:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2011/03/china_said_it_may_begin.html

  • Online Privacy NY Times Saturday Editorial

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/opinion/19sat2.html

    The New York Times

    March 18, 2011
    A New Internet Privacy Law?

    Considering how much information we entrust to the Internet every
    day, it is hard to believe there is no general law to protect
    people’s privacy online. Companies harvest data about people as they
    surf the Net, assemble it into detailed profiles and sell it to
    advertisers or others without ever asking permission.

    So it is good to see a groundswell of support emerging for minimum
    standards of privacy, online and off. This week, the Obama
    administration called for legislation to protect consumers’ privacy.
    In the Senate, John Kerry is trying to draft a privacy bill of
    rights with the across-the-aisle support of John McCain.

    Microsoft, which runs one of the biggest Internet advertising
    networks, said it supports a broad-based privacy law. It has just
    introduced a version of its Explorer browser that allows surfers to
    block some tools advertisers use to track consumers’ activities
    online.

    It is crucial that lawmakers get this right. There is strong
    pressure from the advertising industry to water down rules aimed at
    limiting the data companies can collect and what they can do with
    it.

    Most oppose a sensible proposal by the Federal Trade Commission for
    a do-not-track option — likely embedded in Web browsers. They have
    proposed self-regulation instead, and we applaud their desire to do
    that, but the zeal to self-regulate tends to wane when it is not
    backed by government rules and enforcement.

    Senator Kerry has not yet proposed specific legislation, but he has
    laid out sound principles. Companies that track people’s activities
    online must obtain people’s consent first. They must specify what
    data they are collecting and how they will use it. They need
    consumers’ go-ahead to use data for any new purpose. They are
    responsible for the data’s integrity. And consumers should have the
    right to sever their relationship with data collectors and ask for
    their file to be deleted.

    But there are potential areas of concern. Senator Kerry so far has
    not called for a do-not-track option. He would allow companies to
    write their own privacy plans and submit them to the F.T.C. for
    approval.

    That would give companies flexibility to adapt their solutions as
    technology evolved, but it lacks the simplicity and universality of
    a do-not-track feature. It could yield a dizzying array of solutions
    that would confuse consumers about their rights and options and make
    it more difficult to enforce clear standards. Moreover, it would
    make it tougher for consumers to keep track of how their information
    is used and to whom it is sold.

    Advertising firms still argue that privacy protections could
    undermine the free Internet, depriving it of ad revenue by reducing
    advertisers’ ability to target consumers. This is overstated.
    Advertisers will still need to advertise. If many people opt out of
    behavioral targeting, the firms will find other ways to do it.

    Privacy protections are long overdue. We hope the swell of support
    will lead to significant legislation.

  • Privacy of Mobile Ads

    The  mobile ads boom raises privacy concerns, and creative different forms of self-help that customers have been engaged in, as following:

    The vast majority of cell phones and tablet devices are now equipped with internet browsers. Advertisers have capitalized on this new market by delivering user-specific ad content to these mobile devices. The Swedish research institute Berg Insight estimated that mobile marketing and ad sales would grow to $13.5 billion by 2015. Not only do these mobile devices provide personalized information about the user’s viewing habits, these devices also provide the ability to locate users geographically.

    Legal constraints on the treatment of this type of personal data “are not very high” according to Mohssen Toumi of the consulting firm Booz & Company. Authorities in both the United States and Europe are debating what businesses should and should not be allowed to do. Both the Boucher Bill and the Best Practices Act emphasize providing detailed notice to consumers before the use and collection of their personal data. But if an application is created specifically for a mobile device, a long and detailed privacy notice may be difficult for consumers to read especially given the smaller screen sizes of these devices.

    Some consumers have been unhappy with the level of privacy protection provided by the current regulatory framework and have engaged in several different forms of self-help:

  • Supreme Court Backs Government Transparency Over Corporate Privacy Claims

    In FCC v. AT&T, AT&T argued it was a “corporate citizen” entitled to “personal privacy” and thus, entitled to the FOIA exemption that protects an individual’s private data.  AT&T was trying to block disclosure of documents pertaining to its participation in the government’s E-Rate program.  The Supreme Court  ruled corporations don’t have personal privacy rights.

    Read more about this here.