Privacy

Legislation to Curtail Robocalls!

Amy

Recently, I was interviewed by KOMU, local NBC affiliate, on Robocalls.  In the full interview, I discussed new legislation — but that part did not end up in the broadcast.  I nonetheless wanted to follow up and share the information.

A bipartisan bill has been introduced and reintroduced in Congress to address the growing problem of “spoofed” robocalls that use fraudulent caller identification information to disguise the caller’s true identity.

As the National Consumer Law Center announced:  “Led by Senators Thune (R-S.D.) and Markey (D-Mass.), the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act (S. 151) would direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to develop rules requiring providers of telephone voice services to implement an effective framework for authenticating calls to better enable them to identify and stop unwanted calls before they reach the consumer. It would also increase potential civil forfeitures and criminal fines for intentional violations of the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act (TCPA).

Consumer Reports, the National Consumer Law Center, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumer Action welcomed the progress in the effort against unwanted robocalls.

“Unwanted robocalls harass Americans every day, too often with scams that take advantage of consumers, and yet phone companies drag their feet and fail to truly solve the problem,” said Maureen Mahoney, policy analyst for Consumer Reports. “The TRACED Act takes an important step in ensuring that all phone companies implement technology that will help stop “spoofed” calls, a technique employed by scammers to foil robocall mitigation efforts. Consumer Reports supports this bipartisan effort to address the robocall problem.”

“Once passed, this bill will help tens of millions of Americans reclaim the use of their telephones from the scourge of unwanted and fraudulent robocalls,” said Margot Saunders, senior policy counsel for the National Consumer Law Center. “On behalf of our low-income clients, we strongly support this bill and very much appreciate the efforts of Chairman Thune and Senator Markey to address the serious problem of caller-id spoofing.”

“Authenticating that a call is coming from the source that it purports to be is crucial in the fight against illegal robocalls, which often fraudulently spoof their caller ID,” said Susan Grant, Director of Consumer Protection and Privacy at the Consumer Federation of America. “This bill will move carriers forward to implement call authentication and provide stronger enforcement tools to use against robocallers who flout the law.”

“Spoofed robocalls are the reason that consumers are unwilling to answer their phones these days,” said Consumer Action’s Deputy Director of National Priorities Ruth Susswein. “The TRACED Act is the kind of legislation that consumers have been waiting for – with tools to curb invasive robocalls, hold abusers accountable and help consumers block bad actors from their phone lines.””

See the Press Release at https://www.nclc.org/media-center/pr-consumer-groups-urge-action-on-bipartisan-legislation-to-stop-misleading-spoofed-robocalls.html.

When is a Landlord Allowed to Enter Your Home?

By: jjrbennett 

When is a Landlord Allowed to Enter Your Home?

What Does the Law Say?

Unfortunately in Colorado there is not many protections for a tenant’s privacy in relation to their landlord. Boulder County and City, along with the State of Colorado, have no statutory language for tenant privacy. However there is an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment that is written into every lease.

The Duty of Quiet Enjoyment

Colorado case law provides that a landlord cannot violate the duty of quiet enjoyment. This duty is defined generally to be “a covenant that promises that the grantee or tenant of an estate in real property will be able to possess the premises in peace, without disturbance by hostile claimants.” This covenant protects tenants rights in principle, yet enforcement is difficult. There are also many legitimate reasons for landlords to come in and inspect the premises.

When Can a Landlord Enter the Premises? 

A tenant’s right to privacy is almost entirely subject to the lease. Whatever protections you wish to have relating to your privacy must be negotiated with your landlord at signing.

According to the standard Boulder Housing Lease, a landlord may enter their tenant’s premises, without notice, to:

  • Inspect the residence
  • Repair damage
  • Or show the premises to prospective buyers

The specific language in the Boulder Model Lease is laid out below

“Resident shall permit owner/agent to enter the premises at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice for the purpose of making necessary or convenient repairs or reasonable inspections, or to show the premises to prospective residents, purchasers, or lenders. Entry may be made without prior notice only if owner/agent reasonably believes that an emergency exists, such as a fire or broken water pipe, or that the premises have been abandoned.”

Link: http://ocss.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/imce/BoulderModelLease.pdf

What about the Boulder Housing Code?

The Boulder Housing Code does require that entry be permitted for reasonable repairs which relate to the Code. Therefore, whatever language you negotiate with your landlord for privacy cannot violate this code.

Link: https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan-develop/codes-and-regulations

What Else Can I Do If a Landlord Continues to Invade My Privacy? 

First and foremost, you should attempt to resolve the problem by negotiating with your landlord. This is the easiest and most hassle-free way to resolve all landlord-tenant disputes. Perhaps starting with a tactful letter may be the best way to go.

If negotiations break down, then it is time to consult an attorney or request mediation. Mediation services in the City of Boulder can be found here:

https://bouldercolorado.gov/community-relations/mediation-program

Finally, DO NOT deny entry of your home to your landlord. If your landlord has similar language in your lease as in the Boulder Model Lease above, then your landlord can immediately start eviction proceedings against you.

Conclusion

I hope this is helpful! Best of luck with your future landlord relationships!

-Joshua JR Bennett

Consumer Choice Legislation And You

By: Dylan Sheji 

Third party data collection is a scary topic, and though you might know what it is and various means to minimize its effects it seems like there is no legal way to stop it. Under current U.S. laws consumers have no right to know which data brokers have their data and what data they have. Some laws and agencies exist that could regulate some behavior, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), but only if companies fail to follow their privacy policies or use fraudulent data collection practices. Is there any reprieve for consumers suffering from run-of-the-mill invasive data collection? Three bills and efforts in the past five years seek to resolve these issues in favor of consumers.

 

“Reclaim Your Name”

At a privacy conference in June of 2013, FTC Commissioner Julie Brown called for an initiative she named “Reclaim Your Name.” The program would make data brokers accountable to consumers by providing a user-friendly online portal where consumers could edit and update their information. This program mirrors the Do Not Call Registry available for consumers to avoid telemarketers. The program is a follow up to the “Do Not Track” option implemented in most browsers. This option allows consumers to opt out of tracking by some third parties who have agreed to the initiative. This program would greatly help consumers manage their data, but has not gained much traction by itself since 2013.

 

“Consumer Bill of Rights”

In 2012 the White House first introduced the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, draft legislation that would give consumers more control over their data. The Bill was reintroduced in 2015. The Bill contains broad definitions for personal data and entities covered by the bill. The Bill requires covered entities to give notice to consumers about what data they use and how they use it, and requires covered entities to give consumers options to edit their data for accuracy. The Bill still has flaws, namely weak enforcement fines that are calculated by the number of days during which a violation occurs rather than number of violations. It is still a step forward and brings consumer choice issues to the forefront of legislation.

 

Data Broker Accountability and Transparency Act

In February of 2015 two democratic senators introduced the Data Broker Accountability and Transparency Act to the Senate. This bill would require data brokers to establish procedures to ensure accuracy of personal information and to provide cost free means for individuals to review their data. It would also require data brokers to provide individuals with reasonable means to exclude their information from being used by marketers. There are still many ambiguous definitions in the bill, and many sections aren’t clear in how those provisions should be enforced. The bill was sent to committee in 2014 and forgotten, and met a similar fate in 2015.

 

While there are many legislative initiatives to bring consumer choice back to consumers, many of these bills are gridlocked in a partisan Congress, and are unlikely to become law soon. Consumers must remain vigilant about how their data is used on the Internet.

Privacy in the Digital Age: Data Tracking and Data Brokers

By: Dylan Sheji

It’s a bit of an understatement to say that the Internet changed everything, because it most certainly did. Almost all of humanity’s combined knowledge can be found on the Internet. Friends and family members that live thousands of miles away from each other can be brought together with a single click. There are billions of websites are out there that Internet users browse daily that have a wide range of utility. But as you browse the Internet, have you noticed that the ads you see on websites are starting to follow you? And that they relate to previous Internet searches or websites you’ve visited? These targeted ads are consequences of data tracking, the analysis of Internet user behavior on websites in order to identify buying intentions or interests. The blog posts I write will discuss data tracking, the companies tracking data, how Internet data is tracked, and methods we consumers can use to push back against the collection of our data. This blog post will discuss the concept of data tracking, the companies that track consumer data, and methods of data tracking.

As I said above, data tracking is the analysis of our Internet behavior in order to target consistently annoying personalized ads at us. Data tracking monitors your Internet activity similar to how your credit report tracks you with regards to your financial history. The companies that collect this information are called data brokers. Data brokers take the information they gather and sell it to other companies, namely advertising and marketing companies, in order to directly appeal and advertise to specific groups of Internet users. This is the reason why ads seem to follow us; companies are getting your Internet data in real time and directly advertising to you.

Who are these companies that are tracking our data? Some are foreign to a majority of consumers while others are names we see every day. For example, Facebook and Twitter, repositories of much of our personal data, are some of the top data brokers. And for good reason: we willingly publish so much information about ourselves on these public platforms, and as their privacy statements make clear, what we share is readily available to the rest of the world, including other data brokers and advertising companies. Facebook further developed it’s utility to advertisers in 2014, when it bought Atlas, an ad server, from Microsoft. Atlas allows marketers to measure consumer data and target consumers across all digital sites, not just limited Facebook, and even across every type of device. Other data broker companies are relatively unknown to the average consumer, for example the largest data broker, Axciom, which collects on average 1,500 pieces of information on more than 200 million Americans. Another such company is eBureau, a company that sells Internet profiles to online marketers complete with a real-time scoring system for about 220 million Americans, so that marketers can sell you exactly what you need when you need it.

Now that you know who is tracking our data and why, how do these sites collect information from their users in the first place? The main method of tracking is through “cookies,” small bits of text that are downloaded to one’s browser as one uses the web. These text files contain small strings of numbers that can be used to identify individual computers. Cookies can come the website the user is visiting, called first-party cookies, or from some other website, called third party cookies. First party cookies used by websites are typically not used for advertising, but to analyze website traffic and figure out who is visiting the site and why in order to increase traffic. Third party cookies are more insidious, and can come from any of the companies I listed above without consumer approval or awareness. Most websites have a variety of third party cookies hidden within them. Facebook and Twitter widgets that one sees on many websites also contain these third party cookies. Cookies lack any personal identifiers and aggregate a user’s tracking data from multiple sites to infer interests. This “aggregated not personal” concept is the reason why these tactics are legal; they are anonymous data bits used for marketing purposes and not to track your credit or finances, which is heavily regulated by the government.

At this point all of this data tracking sounds a little too Big Brother, and though there can be positive benefits to receiving personalized ads for items you may actually really need, the easy dissemination of our data is nonetheless frightening. Fear not consumers, in my next blog post I will go over various methods to prevent data brokers from analyzing your Internet data.

Privacy in the Digital Age: Data Tracking and Data Brokers

By: Dylan Sheji

It’s a bit of an understatement to say that the Internet changed everything, because it most certainly did. Almost all of humanity’s combined knowledge can be found on the Internet. Friends and family members that live thousands of miles away from each other can be brought together with a single click. There are billions of websites are out there that Internet users browse daily that have a wide range of utility. But as you browse the Internet, have you noticed that the ads you see on websites are starting to follow you? And that they relate to previous Internet searches or websites you’ve visited? These targeted ads are consequences of data tracking, the analysis of Internet user behavior on websites in order to identify buying intentions or interests. The blog posts I write will discuss data tracking, the companies tracking data, how Internet data is tracked, and methods we consumers can use to push back against the collection of our data. This blog post will discuss the concept of data tracking, the companies that track consumer data, and methods of data tracking.

As I said above, data tracking is the analysis of our Internet behavior in order to target consistently annoying personalized ads at us. Data tracking monitors your Internet activity similar to how your credit report tracks you with regards to your financial history. The companies that collect this information are called data brokers. Data brokers take the information they gather and sell it to other companies, namely advertising and marketing companies, in order to directly appeal and advertise to specific groups of Internet users. This is the reason why ads seem to follow us; companies are getting your Internet data in real time and directly advertising to you.

Who are these companies that are tracking our data? Some are foreign to a majority of consumers while others are names we see every day. For example, Facebook and Twitter, repositories of much of our personal data, are some of the top data brokers. And for good reason: we willingly publish so much information about ourselves on these public platforms, and as their privacy statements make clear, what we share is readily available to the rest of the world, including other data brokers and advertising companies. Facebook further developed it’s utility to advertisers in 2014, when it bought Atlas, an ad server, from Microsoft. Atlas allows marketers to measure consumer data and target consumers across all digital sites, not just limited Facebook, and even across every type of device. Other data broker companies are relatively unknown to the average consumer, for example the largest data broker, Axciom, which collects on average 1,500 pieces of information on more than 200 million Americans. Another such company is eBureau, a company that sells Internet profiles to online marketers complete with a real-time scoring system for about 220 million Americans, so that marketers can sell you exactly what you need when you need it.

Now that you know who is tracking our data and why, how do these sites collect information from their users in the first place? The main method of tracking is through “cookies,” small bits of text that are downloaded to one’s browser as one uses the web. These text files contain small strings of numbers that can be used to identify individual computers. Cookies can come the website the user is visiting, called first-party cookies, or from some other website, called third party cookies. First party cookies used by websites are typically not used for advertising, but to analyze website traffic and figure out who is visiting the site and why in order to increase traffic. Third party cookies are more insidious, and can come from any of the companies I listed above without consumer approval or awareness. Most websites have a variety of third party cookies hidden within them. Facebook and Twitter widgets that one sees on many websites also contain these third party cookies. Cookies lack any personal identifiers and aggregate a user’s tracking data from multiple sites to infer interests. This “aggregated not personal” concept is the reason why these tactics are legal; they are anonymous data bits used for marketing purposes and not to track your credit or finances, which is heavily regulated by the government.

At this point all of this data tracking sounds a little too Big Brother, and though there can be positive benefits to receiving personalized ads for items you may actually really need, the easy dissemination of our data is nonetheless frightening. Fear not consumers, in my next blog post I will go over various methods to prevent data brokers from analyzing your Internet data.

Taking Back Our Data: Cutting Down on Data Tracking

By: Dylan Sheji 

In my last blog post, I told you about how data tracking and data brokers operate, and how they are gaining access to your Internet data. Now that you know who is looking at your data and how they are getting it, this blog post will discuss several methods to limit the amount of your data available online for data brokers. These methods range from simple Internet maintenance to downloading third party apps and extensions that inform you what companies are tracking the sites we visit and provide options for stopping this tracking.

The easiest is to delete your browser’s cookies and data every time you finish browsing. To do so, go to your browser’s preferences and go to the “Privacy” section. In this section select either “clear browsing data” or “remove all website data” to remove cookies. Deleting cookies breaks the link between the user and the cookie identifier assigned to the computer. Yet this doesn’t stop the tracking because, upon the next browse, the server will assume a new person has visited the site and re-assign a cookie value. And some cookies can get around deletion entirely. Flash cookies, a newer type of cookie, allows for the “re-spawning” of cookies, which allows companies to reinstate deleted cookies. Still, deleting your cookies and browser data is a helpful method to cut down on tracking and to free up data on your computer.

Browsers also have options to opt out of tracking on the browser. These options are still located in the Preferences > Privacy tabs of the browser. However opting out has limits, and opting out of one company’s data mining doesn’t prevent another company from mining your data. On Google Chrome, you can have Chrome send a “Do Not Track” request with your browsing traffic. On Safari, under “Privacy” options choose to block cookies and other website data from third parties and advertisers and also select “Ask Websites Not to Track Me.” However, as Chrome’s pop up states after selecting “Do Not Track,” a request is sent while browsing. This doesn’t guarantee that tracking will stop, just that a request is sent. Chrome’s “Do Not Track” pop up even states “many websites will still collect your browsing data.” Again despite their limited effectiveness these are the best methods to reduce data collection without using third party programs.

Third party programs are the most effective methods of reducing data tracking. These programs will let you know who is tracking your data and give you options to stop the tracking. The two most effective programs that I found are Ghostery and Disconnect. Ghostery is an extension that allows users to decide which tracking companies to trust and which ones to block, giving users more control over what companies gets their information. When you click on the Ghostery widget on your browser, it will tell you which companies are tracking the site you are on and allow you to shut them off. The only real downside to Ghostery is that users must manually select the trackers they want to block. Because there are hundreds and hundreds of trackers consumers most likely do not know which ones to block. Ghostery compliments this by providing details about the various trackers on each site, so consumers can inform themselves about which tracking companies are present before shutting them off.

Disconnect is similar to Ghostery but acts in an opposite way, automatically shutting down third party trackers that collect and retain data while allowing first party trackers to operate. Disconnect groups trackers into four categories: Advertising, Analytics, Social, and Content. The Content section is not automatically blocked because this could affect what content the webpage you visit shows, but these trackers can also be turned off. By blocking these trackers these apps allow for greater consumer data management and increase browser performance by removing said trackers.

Data tracking has become a profitable and stealthy marketing system that takes advantage of user data to advertise to consumers. With the methods listed above, you the consumer can start to take back control of your private information.

Your Facebook Account Doesn’t Have to Die with You

By: Michael Havlik

In a 2014 estimate, there were almost 1.4 billion Facebook users in the world, with 890 million of these users spending an average of 21 minutes per day on Facebook. Even senior citizens, traditionally a demographic slow to adopting online technology, are seeing the value of creating a virtual life on social media. In fact, a recent reportfound that the fastest growing social media demographic is persons 50 years and older. Among all of these users, an estimated 4.75 billion pieces of content are shared daily.

Have you ever wondered what happens to your Facebook account–and all that uploaded content–after you die? Fortunately, recent changes to Facebook’s policy has made death a little less scary.

It has been said that “old age isn’t so bad when you consider the alternative.” Similarly, to fully appreciate Facebook’s new policy, it is worth discussing the alternatives. Consider the widely publicized saga of the Ellsworths family following the death of their son, Lance Corporal Justin Ellsworth. Justin, a Marine, died in combat in 2004 while serving in Iraq. After his death, the Ellsworth family wanted to make a memorial of his life by using the e-mails Justin had sent and received while deployed overseas. Yahoo!, the e-mail service provider, denied all requests by the Ellsworth family, citing that it was against their terms-of-service. It was only after a lengthy and costly court battle that Yahoo! gave the family access to Justin’s emails.

Even Facebook’s policy used to be onerous for heirs. In 2012, a family sued Facebook to compel Facebook to give them access to their son’s account. Their son had unexpectedly committed suicide, leaving no note or rationale for the coping family, and the family sought access to help solve the mystery. Even though the family won the lawsuit, Facebook refused to provide the access for some time afterwards.

All of that changed in February of this year (at least for Facebook users). Facebook’s new “Legacy Feature” allows account holders to designate a friend to have certain access after the user passes away. For instance, the legacy contact will be able to pin a post on the decedent’s timeline after death (such as a funeral announcement), respond to new friend requests, or update cover and profile photos. Additionally, users can elect whether they want their legacy contact to be able to download pictures, posts, and videos from their account. And lest you worry about those embarrassing messages with your ex—the legacy contact won’t be able to log in as you or read any private messages.

Alternatively, through this feature, you can tell Facebook to permanently delete your account after death.

Here’s how to designate your legacy contact:

  • From your Facebook profile, click on “Security”
  • Choose “Legacy Contact” at the bottom
  • Enter the name of a Facebook friend as your legacy contact. (Note: an email will be sent to the friend alerting them of their new status)

Does Posting a Legal Notice on your Facebook Wall Protect Your Copyright and Privacy Rights?

By: Michael Havlik 

Earlier this year, anyone actively on Facebook probably saw a resurgence of friends posting a copyright/privacy notice on their wall, addressed to Facebook, and attempting to restrict Facebook’s privacy policies as applied to the user. The message, often full of arcane legalese and citations to various statutes, usually ends with a warning that you, as the user’s friend, remain unprotected unless you perpetuate the message by copy/pasting it to your own wall.

Is there any validity to the message, and any reason why you should post it on your wall? To answer that question, we’ll analyze several of the common claims and citations included in these messages.

(Spoiler alert: as humorously detailed in this video, the message is essentially a hoax, utter nonsense, and has no legal effect whatsoever.)

“I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, or posts, both past and future.”

Facebook’s terms of service state that users “grant [Facebook] a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post.” This is fairly standard language on any social media website. It is binding to all Facebook users, and you cannot modify this “contract” unilaterally by posting a disclaimer on your wall. Coincidently, it is also binding on you regardless whether you’ve read the terms of service or not. If you aren’t comfortable with granting Facebook a license to use your content, you have one option: don’t upload your content on Facebook.

 “I declare that my rights are attached to all my personal data, drawings, paintings, photos, video, texts etc. published on my profile and my page. For commercial use of the foregoing my written consent is required at all times. This places me under the protection of copyright.”

Contrary to the apparent public belief, Facebook does not claim any “copyright” or ownership to any of your personal information that you upload. Also, “my rights are attached…” is meaningless legalese in this context. When this verbiage began circulating several years ago, Facebook released a statement clarifying that “anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. . . . That is our policy, and it always has been.” Indeed, the current terms of service state that “[y]ou own all of the content and information you post on Facebook.”

“…Unless you post this message on your wall, anyone can infringe on your right to privacy once you post to this site.”

This is false. To the contrary, the public can only access the content that you don’t protect using Facebook’s privacy controls.

“NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you do not publish this statement at least once you tacitly allowing the use of your photos, as well as information contained in the profile status updates.”

True, Facebook went public on May 18, 2012. This only means, however, that anyone can now buy and sell its shares on a public market exchange; being a public entity doesn’t change anything under applicable privacy laws. Also true: by using Facebook, you have affirmatively (albeit tacitly) agreed to be bound by the website’s terms of service agreement. This “contract” states that you agree to give Facebook a license to all your information that you upload. Think of this as the price of admission.

“The violation of privacy can be punished by law (pursuant to the UCC and Rome Statute).” Or the alternative, a reference to the “Berne Convention.”

Although the “UCC,” “Rome Statute,” and “Berne Convention” are all real laws, they have nothing to do with internet privacy. The “UCC” is short for the “Uniform Commercial Code,” a set of standardized laws that all states have enacted to govern commercial activity. These laws generally deal with the sale of goods, not privacy rights. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted in 1998 and deal with international crimes against humanity, genocide, and the like. Similarly, the Berne convention, though a real law, is inapplicable in this context.

Online Reviewers Sued for Defamation? How to Protect Yourself

By: Braden Johnson 

The carpet cleaner you hired was late, rude, and left the carpets dirtier than before he arrived. So you find his company’s Facebook page and write a few lines saying what a poor job he did for you. A few months later, you get a letter in the mail. You are being sued by the carpet cleaner for defamation! Is this possible? In today’s social-media driven world, it is.

Technology has given consumers unparalleled opportunities to gather and share information about businesses. With just a few clicks, consumers can share their opinions with millions of people. Businesses are also aware of the power of social media; in fact, many businesses actively seek good reviews and take action to silence bad ones. Suing a consumer for defamation can serve as a powerful way to silence a bad review.

A carpet and rug cleaning business recently sued seven people for defamation after they posted negative reviews about the businesses on a popular consumer review website. According to the owner, the negative reviews brought a 30 percent drop in sales, and he was forced to lay off dozens of people. A lawyer in California, a plastic surgeon in Chicago, and a contractor in Virginia have all filed similar suits.

Although these stories may scare consumers, the companies who bring these lawsuits face many difficulties. First, social-media sites like Facebook, Yelp, and Twitter are protected from many types of lawsuit by federal law. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects online service providers from being sued for the actions of their users. So the companies cannot sue the consumer review websites that display the bad reviews, only the person who posted the review. But this invites the second problem: because reviewers are not generally required to post under their real name, companies often don’t know whom to sue. To find the identity of the reviewer, the company must get a court order which requires the website to identify the person. Most consumer review websites fight these requests forcefully.

Even if a company can obtain the identity of the reviewer, defamation lawsuits are difficult to win. The reviewer can escape liability by proving that the review was true, or based on personal opinion. So a review stating that the carpet cleaner was late is not defamation if it is true. And a review claiming that the carpet cleaner is the worst you’ve ever used is not defamation if it is your personal opinion. This shows why defamation suits against consumers typically fail.

There are several ways to protect yourself from a defamation lawsuit without losing your right to voice your opinion. First, only write reviews for companies and products you have actually used. Reviews based on anything less than personal knowledge are far more vulnerable to a defamation claim. Second, don’t exaggerate. Focus on the facts, not just getting revenge on a company. Third, if your complaint is very serious, consider submitting it through another entity. You can reach out to your state attorney general’s office, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or your local office of the Better Business Bureau.  These organizations can insulate consumers from defamation lawsuits if they are used effectively.

Government agencies and the BBB typically investigate and substantiate claims before they publish them. Therefore, it is almost impossible for a reviewer who submits a complaint through these entities to be sued for defamation. Additionally, these entities sometimes offer mediation or arbitration services to help reach an amicable resolution for the consumer. Companies face pressure to respond to a complaint from the BBB, because the company’s BBB rating is at risk if they don’t resolve the problem. Government agencies have even more power. They can make legally binding requests for information, and can bring a lawsuit on behalf of any consumer who was wronged.

As long as consumers use good judgment, and follow the tips outlined above, it is unlikely that they will ever be sued for defamation. But the danger of these suits serves as a great reminder to consumers: be fair and composed in your company reviews, or else they may come back to haunt you.

The White House View on Information Privacy and Big Data

The White House has begun to look into what companies do with consumer information and recently completed a report on big data. The report looks at the use of information both by companies and the government. It analyzes areas including education, healthcare, advertising, law enforcement privacy law, and discrimination. The full 85 page report can be found at: The White House’s View on Information Privacy and Big Data.

The report includes a number of policy suggestions which contain a combination of technological and legal solutions to the issues raised by big data. The six recommendations from the report are:

  1. Advance the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. The Department of Commerce should take appropriate consultative steps to seek stakeholder and public comment on big data developments and how they impact the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights and then devise draft legislative text for consideration by stakeholders and submission by the President to Congress.
  2. Pass National Data Breach Legislation. Congress should pass legislation that provides for a single national data breach standard along the lines of the Administration’s May 2011 Cybersecurity legislative proposal.
  3. Extend Privacy Protections to non-U.S. Persons. The Office of Management and Budget should work with departments and agencies to apply the Privacy Act of 1974 to non-U.S. persons where practicable, or to establish alternative privacy policies that apply appropriate and meaningful protections to personal information regardless of a person’s nationality.
  4. Ensure Data Collected on Students in School is Used for Educational Purposes. The federal government must ensure that privacy regulations protect students against having their data being shared or used inappropriately, especially when the data is gathered in an educational context.
  5. Expand Technical Expertise to Stop Discrimination. The federal government’s lead civil rights and consumer protection agencies should expand their technical expertise to be able to identify practices and outcomes facilitated by big data analytics that have a discriminatory impact on protected classes, and develop a plan for investigating and resolving violations of law.
  6. Amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Congress should amend ECPA to ensure the standard of protection for online, digital content is consistent with that afforded in the physical world—including by removing archaic distinctions between email left unread or over a certain age.

 

If you are interested in the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights mentioned in the first suggestion, it can be found at the following link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf.

As the report points out, consumers deserve more transparency about how their data is shared. Here are two links to learn about what companies know and have been doing with consumer information:

http://www.worldprivacyforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WPF_Scoring_of_America_April2014_fs.pdf

This webpage contains a report compiled by the World Privacy Forum describing different ways companies are creating scores about consumers. For example, one company is able to use information it knows to predict how likely it is a person will take their medications as ordered by a doctor. Another is the consumer profitability score, used to predict how much money a company can make off of you.

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/what-they-know-2010.html

This webpage contains a number of articles by the Wall Street Journal about what companies and the government know about you.