Disqus - Latest Comments for chesterj1

Re: Online privacy bill not what it seems

chesterj1 — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 10:29:25 -0000

Californians face a growing threat of loss to their privacy--as well as their families--by the explosion of ISP data gathering practices. This column fails to address why this law is necessary now--that big cable and telephone ISPs are gathering all our data--from mobile phones, PCs, set-top boxes--and making it available for advertisers and others. Ms. Deveau wants to suggest it will cause problems. Yes, it will--for the data gathering practices of ISPS who want to use our information without first getting permission. The fact that the industry is so scared of this bill should tell you why it's needed. The industry, which Ms Deveau, represents is afraid of allowing consumers to decide for themselves whether their personal information can be used.

Re: Don’t reverse Internet privacy safeguards

chesterj1 — Wed, 06 Sep 2017 17:06:47 -0000

Californians confront an out of control, Big Data-driven, apparatus operated by their phone and cable ISPs. There are no safeguards protecting privacy, something that Ms. Libin should admit. The only federal privacy law protects children. Once you turn 13, you have no protections (my group got that law passed in 1998). Ms. Libin and the companies she represents are afraid of allowing a California consumer to make their own decisions about whether their ISP (who gets paid each month) can also take their personal information and make it available to advertisers and marketers. Calif ISPs, like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, are building powerful systems of surveillance. This proposed bill is a basic safeguard needed for today's mobile phone and digital age.

Re: This attempt to protect internet users’ privacy should get an error message: Guest commentary

chesterj1 — Mon, 17 Jul 2017 15:04:58 -0000

The author clearly knows very little about the lack of privacy protection in the U.S. and what the state of California should do to protect its consumers. The FTC has no regulatory authority from Congress to specifically protect online privacy--except for children 12 and under (a law my nonprofit was responsible for, way back in 1998). When you turn 13, you have no protection. The FTC has looked the other way as Big Data companies have built new ways to track us on our mobile phones, PCs, and even TVs. Today's tracking is done by ISPs right in our neighborhoods, towns and communities. Such geo-targeting allows Big Phone and Cable companies to eavesdrop on us and our families when we shop, go to school or even drive around town. The California proposed law is commonsense. It says ISPs have to first ask you for permission before they use a consumer's most personal data. Why is the broadband industry afraid to have to ask first? Because they want to take our data and sell it to the highest bidder. California should put consumers privacy first.

Re: Former FTC chairman: Collins right on privacy

chesterj1 — Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:49:53 -0000

Sadly, former FTC Chair and now lobbyist for the big phone and cable lobby, is incorrect. The FTC doesn't have the power to protect our privacy. When he was a public servant, Mr. Leibowitz himself called on Congress to give the FTC some real authority to protect the public. Sen. Collins has done a disservice to people in Maine, who now have no chance of ever having their personal information protected.

Re: Why Congress should act now on internet privacy

chesterj1 — Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:09:30 -0000

Unfortunately, the former Congresswoman doesn't know that the FTC can only protect privacy in one area--and that's for children. Even that protection, which my NGO is responsible for, has limits. The FCC's consumer privacy safeguard is a major step forward protecting our Internet freedoms. Those that try to undermine it--whether as lobbyists or misguided individuals--are helping expose American families to unprecedented eavesdropping by their cable and phone ISPs.

Re: FCC, FTC are playing a shell game with online privacy

chesterj1 — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:18:04 -0000

The FTC has totally failed to protect consumer privacy--which is why the ISPs and companies like Google want to deep-six the first real protections Americans have ever had. Anyone who knows the commercial digital data business understands the FTC is toothless--deliberately kept so by the very companies and industry groups that have lobbied to keep rulemaking power out of the FTC's grasp. Bravo Gigi Sohn for speaking digital truth to self-serving corporate PR. If Congress kills the FCC privacy rule, it will be time to ask the EU to shut down data flows.

Re: Google now letting parents set up accounts for kids under 13

chesterj1 — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:36:03 -0000

Ad and data profiling, targeting and tracking of children is what this is about, as well as undermining their privacy. Missing form the story is how the children's privacy law has saved tens of millions of kids from being tracked and targeted for junk food and other harmful ads. A more serious analysis would show that data surveillance practices that happen to all of us don't happen to children because of the law's opt-in requirements. Someone other than a person who gets funded by Google and other data companies should be reporting on these issues for the Merc.

Re: Clearing up the Senate's confusion on FCC privacy rules

chesterj1 — Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:37:50 -0000

ISPs have made major investments in Big Data gathering, analysis and targeting technologies that enable them to better spy on the American people. Cable and phone broadband companies pose a unique and powerful threat to our privacy--offline and online. The reason the big ISPs and their supporters want to kill the new FCC safeguard is precisely because it empowers individual people to make decisions on how their most sensitive information can be used. It's shameful to support the elimination of a consumer safeguard that places Americans--not giant broadband companies--in charge of their data.

Re: FCC Rule Repeal Won’t Kill Privacy Protections

chesterj1 — Tue, 07 Mar 2017 14:58:55 -0000

It's flatly untrue to say that American consumer privacy will be protected if the FCC kills its new safeguards. The FCC rule is the only policy on the books, in addition to the kids privacy act enacted back in 1998, that actually gives people some control over how their most sensitive information can be gathered and used, including financial, health, geolocation. Today, the U.S. faces the greatest loss of privacy ever, as commercial giants such as the biggest broadband ISPs expand their Big Data practices that track us regardless of what device we use or content we view. The further loss of our privacy when we use mobile devices, computers and even TV should be of concern to every American who cherishes freedom.

Re: FCC should not leave broadband privacy rules to FTC

chesterj1 — Tue, 07 Mar 2017 14:53:20 -0000

Thank you, Commissioner. The broadband ISPs, including Verizon, Comcast & AT&T, have expanded their Big Data driven digital surveillance on its customers and their families. Without the new FCC privacy safeguard, our all most sensitive information--including our geolocation, will be gathered and used without our consent. The attempt to kill privacy safeguards by the FCC is a big giveaway to the digital data lobby.

Re: Academics Give FCC Broadband Proposal Failing Grade

chesterj1 — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 13:56:40 -0000

It appears these "scholars" are simply against empowering an individual to make their own privacy decisions on broadband networks. They fail to acknowledge the FTC has no authority--beyond the children's privacy law--to regulate data collection (esp. in its current cross-device, all-the-time, anywhere, context). It's ironic that while these scholars likely support academic freedom, they don't want to allow consumers to have their own ability to make independent decisions about their data.

Re: Consumer internet privacy: Leaving the backdoor unlocked

chesterj1 — Wed, 25 May 2016 10:16:00 -0000

Unfortunately, former Rep. Boucher is incorrect. The ISPs have made significant investments to stealthily gather and use data generated by their subscribers, without any real privacy protection. Why should Americans have to pay for monthly broadband and device access and have no rights over how their--and their families--information is gathered and used? The FCC proposal would empower the consumer to decide. As for the FTC, it doesn't have the legal authority to issue privacy regulations (except on children--a law we helped pass in 1998). Until Congress gives the FTC rulemaking power, it cannot play an effective part dealing with the growing loss of privacy we experience daily. The FCC has a unique role to play and Mr. Boucher should support its proposal that helps the average American online.

Re: FTC’s credibility tarnishes as its privacy offensives grow

chesterj1 — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:13:11 -0000

The author works for some of the biggest data collection companies on the planet, who routinely invade our privacy--including Facebook and Google. His opposition to effective privacy self-regulation on facial regulation contributed to unprecedented walk-out by all the consumer and privacy groups at Obama Adm stakeholder discussion. Why are his member companies fearful of FTC--it's because they are willing to ask tough questions and point out harmful practices. This piece is a typical lobbyists' lament when they have to face the hard truths about who they represent.

Re: YouTube Kids’ opponents are asking the wrong questions

chesterj1 — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:01:19 -0000

Given that your company's clients have investments and relationships with Google/YouTube, you should provide that information. It's not senseless, but a more ethical approach.

YouTube is also a network organized by Google (such as Google Preferred). This is addressed in our complaints, which those who care about children and digital media should carefully review.

Re: YouTube Kids’ opponents are asking the wrong questions

chesterj1 — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:24:04 -0000

Mr. Kleeman should also identify when he writes on children's media issues who his employer is working with. Dubit, where he now works, identifies that its clients include Kellogg's, Cartoon Network, Nick and others. All this should be disclosed. In particular, if any of Dubit's clients has a relationship with Google/YouTube, readers should now be informed.

Re: YouTube Kids’ opponents are asking the wrong questions

chesterj1 — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:57:55 -0000

We ask the right questions for those concerned about the welfare of children in the digital age, and not just one of the people trying to monetize them. I suggest Mr. Kleeman needs to take a more serious look at the market--which we have studied closely. As more global regulators and child development experts review the emerging marketplace, including YouTube Kids, we will see a growing call for the kinds of safeguards we expect the FTC to implement.

Re: Danny Schechter, the News Dissector, Dies in NYC at 72

chesterj1 — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:45:03 -0000

Thank you, Don, for the thoughtful column. Danny was a visionary, committed activist, principled and talented journalist. He led the way for much of the U.S. progressive media agenda. A courageous fighter whose spirit lives on.

Re: Why Environmentalists Should Care About Net Neutrality

chesterj1 — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:18:48 -0000

One issue to consider regarding sustainability is that the basic business model online—from Google, Facebook and what the U.S. cable and phone co’s want to do better as well—is to promote massive individualized and continuous product consumption. That’s what Google and Facebook now do worldwide, for example, in EU, Asia, South America, etc. The one-to-one targeting made possible by digital and "Big Data" delivers the most powerful system of marketing ever developed. Everyday, Google, Facebook, Verizon and Comcast etc. push it further, using an increasingly pervasive system of commercial surveillance. Among their tools are advanced forms of data mining, the use of neuromarketing to deliberately bypass our conscious awareness, social media analysis that tracks and makes "actionable" what we do with our friends, and the monitoring of our real-time "hyper-local" location.

We are also now witnessing a wave of consolidation, as major online providers
acquire or merge with databrokers, mobile companies, online video
providers, etc. The focus of all these mergers is to "monetize" the public
via the sales of ads and for marketing (including by political
candidates, parties, as well as Pharma, credit cards, junk food, etc).

That’s why in addition to NN, we need to limit and challenge the market power of the dominant Internet companies and their personalized data-driven marketing paradigm. Without such a check, we cannot achieve environmental sustainability—let alone social justice and ensure alternative voices will be able to continue their work. The fight for NN is just one part of a much needed effort to change the political culture of the digital media.

Re: Ann Cavoukian and Christopher Wolf: Sorry, but there’s no online ‘right to be forgotten’

chesterj1 — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:29:19 -0000

First, Mr. Wolf should engage in more candor--he is an attorney that works with the data collection industry, and his Future of Privacy Forum is funded by Google, Facebook and many other data companies that have an interest in this issue. What neither he or Ms. Cavoukian address is the massive intrusion of privacy--ongoing commercial surveillance--that has been established in the EU and elsewhere by Google and other (mostly US) data collection companies. The ruling helps restore to an individual some of the rights they should have regarding the use of their personal information. The authors should have acknowledged the parameters and safeguards that have been proposed around the issue of a user deleting some of their information, which are part of the proposed EU Data Protection regulation. The powerful online data industry lobby fears the the Human Rights approach to privacy that has been established in the EU. It is the only serious threat to their business model that gathers, analyzes and makes actionable for commercial and other purposes every bit of our individual and collective information.

Re: Talk on Why State Legislatures Shouldn’t Regulate Internet Privacy

chesterj1 — Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:07:36 -0000

As Prof. Goldman must know, the growth of hyper-local/mobile data collection and the expansion of commercial surveillance practices at the micro-neighborhood level, are just one example of why local authorities must play a role protecting privacy and consumer protection online. Policymakers must be able to protect citizens and consumers in their communities--where very real discriminatory and other problematic practices occur. Given the failure as well to enact any federal policies, given the political clout of the Silicon Valley and Madison Ave. lobbies, someone must protect the public. There's a more nuanced approach to digital policymaking, where there are multiple levels of safeguards embedded into the system.--Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy, Washington, DC

Re: Jay Cline: U.S. takes the gold in doling out privacy fines

chesterj1 — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:39:51 -0000

Fines are not a meaningful measure, and have done nothing to stop the routine violation of American privacy that occurs daily. The so-called Safe Harbor is unsafe when it comes to protecting the data of EU citizens. The author would provide readers with a better analysis if he examined actual data collection practices from the companies that received fines.

Re: Online privacy: Do we need 'Do-Not-Track'?

chesterj1 — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:05:18 -0000

The author should first disclose his own conflicts on the issue, given that his group is funded by the online data mining industry, including Experian, Google, Yahoo, etc. Do Not Track merely gives some minimal control to consumers to decide whether unknown third parties can track them online and use their information without permission. It's a modest consumer protection tool that empowers the individual. Online users should not have to accept a digital media system that secretly spies on them site to site and across platforms--on whatever they do. Consumers require the ability to make informed decisions about who can collect and sell their information--including data about their finances, health and kids. I look forward to a column from the author about the data collection practices of his members--and whether he approves of them once he learns what they actually do.

Re: Our FTC Privacy Story And Its Critics

chesterj1 — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 08:56:16 -0000

This is an inadequate review and analysis of the story. I asked many of
the consumer and privacy groups which deal with the FTC if they had
been interviewed by Mr. Maass. They all responded they hadn’t been
contacted. For a report not to interview the leading groups working on
privacy at the FTC doesn’t reflect the level of serious journalism one
associates with Pro Publica. The report also failed to provide the
context of the political and regulatory environment that shapes privacy
decisions—something essential if one is to understand the issue and the
FTC’s role. Privacy and consumer advocates have both criticism and
support for the FTC under Chairman Leibowitz. But it has made
significant strides on a complex issue that is at the heart of our
political and financial system. Greater in-depth reporting was required
to do this story—but what we had appeared designed to grab a cheap
headline. Pro Publica should insist its journalists engage in
investigative reporting—recording interviews, obtaining documents,
speaking to a broad range of sources. I urge you to commission another
report on the privacy issue, including the FTC’s role. The public
deserves more serious reporting, analysis and nuance about a issue that
affects our daily lives.

Re: Our FTC Privacy Story And Its Critics

chesterj1 — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 12:40:49 -0000

This is an inadequate review and analysis of the story. I asked many of
the leading consumer and privacy groups which deal with the
FTC if they had been interviewed by Mr. Maass. They all responded they
hadn't been contacted. For a report not to interview the leading groups
working on privacy at the FTC doesn't reflect the
level of serious journalism one associates with Pro Publica. The
report also failed to provide the context of the political and
regulatory environment that shapes privacy decisions--something
essential if one is to understand the issue and the FTC's role. Privacy and consumer
advocates have both criticism and support for the FTC under Chairman
Leibowitz. But it has made significant strides on a complex issue that
is at the heart of our political and financial system. Greater in-depth reporting was required to do this story, but I see a
superficial one designed to grab a quick headline. Pro Publica
should insist its journalists engage in investigative
reporting--recording interviews, obtaining documents, speaking to a
broad range of sources. I urge to commission another report on the privacy issue, including the FTC's role. The public deserves more serious reporting, analysis and nuance about an issue that affects their daily lives.

Re: LocalResponse Targets Ads by Tweets, Check Ins, Pins, Etc.

chesterj1 — Fri, 25 May 2012 10:56:56 -0000

There are serious privacy issues which the FTC and state AG's should investigate. No consumer should have a cookie placed on their browser from social media surveillance schemes. Greater responsibility is required from marketers engaged in social media data mining applications.