Cyberprivacy catches eye of Congress

Bills aim to protect consumers

By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff, 6/19/2000

ASHINGTON - After years of piecemeal proposals to safeguard personal information on the Internet, Congress is beginning to seriously address the concept of ''online privacy.'' It is considering an array of legislation that could dramatically increase the rights of consumers who release personal details into cyberspace.

About 300 privacy bills are pending in the House and Senate, and the idea of privacy, registering in the polls as a top concern among Americans, is also making its way into the presidential debate. Democrats and Republicans are touting the same goal: Reassuring the public that private information, from CD purchases to medical records, will not be misused.

Although few expect any laws to pass this year - and skeptics view many of the current efforts as part of an election-year ploy - the proposals have begun gaining momentum in recent weeks, through congressional hearings, federal studies, and informal political debates.

Even some Republican champions of e-commerce, including legislators who oppose a sales tax on the Internet, are contemplating whether new laws are needed to control the trafficking of consumer information online.

''I don't think there's any doubt that some of the practices on the Internet are not what most Americans would want done with their private information,'' said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John S. McCain. The Arizona Republican held privacy hearings last week and is shaping online privacy legislation of his own.

The current political debate divides along deceptively simple lines: Should consumers have to ''opt out,'' informing companies that they would rather not have their personal information divulged elsewhere? Should online companies have to ask permission first, requiring customers to ''opt in'' to a consent agreement that frees their information for use in the public domain? Or should the current system, in which information moves through cyberspace virtually unrestricted, remain intact?

In fact, the political issue is broader and more complicated, affecting information exchanges on and off the Internet. Also, it is fertile political ground, touching on common anxieties among average Americans about what happens when they share their names and interests.

Direct-marketing firms have always kept dossiers on consumer habits in order to target people for specific products. The Internet makes that process easier and more immediate. Consumers who browse the Web now have their habits tracked, thanks to small files known as ''cookies'' that are transferred from certain Web sites to the consumer's computer hard drive while the user is online. The cookies create a roadmap of the user's online browsing habits, allowing companies to compile information on what the consumer is interested in looking at and buying. Although cookies can be removed from a user's hard drive, people who intentionally disable their computer's ability to accept cookies are often denied access to some Web sites.

The information gathered by using cookies allows advertisers to know whom to pursue, an efficient marketing device that industry leaders say is part of what keeps the Internet free of charge.

As a result, a great deal is at stake for online companies, some of which have based their success on the ability to gather consumer information freely in cyberspace. Many leading online firms say they are worried about consumer confidence enough to help them ensure their privacy , and see political motivations behind the current flurry of privacy discussions.

Even some companies that would be largely unhampered by federal regulation are not convinced it would work. Daniel Jay, chief technology officer of Engage, an Andover firm that has developed privacy software allowing online marketers to track consumers anonymously, said it would be ''preferable to figure out how to do it ourselves.''

''I'm a believer that a combination of technology and self-regulation is the only practical solution,'' Jay said. ''How do we hire enough policemen to police the Net?''

That position leaves many legislators in Washington pulled by opposing forces: consumers, who say they favor greater protections, and Internet companies, which insist they cannot flourish in a regulated environment and promise to eventually protect consumer privacy themselves.

In theory, at least, most legislators say they support privacy protections. The two leadiing presidential candidates have come out in favor of the general idea of privacy in recent months.

George W. Bush, the presumptive Republican nominee, is a self-described ''privacy rights person,'' according to a spokesman. Vice President Al Gore has been more explicit about his views. According to an account of his meeting with the New York Times editorial board last week, Gore said consumers should be able to expect that personal information ''will remain private unless they affirmatively give up that right,'' a strict interpretation of the current privacy bills under consideration.

Earlier this month, Gore held a press conference to announce that he would ''protect personal privacy'' by making the sale of Social Security numbers illegal.

Bush plans to unveil a detailed privacy platform by November.

But the political debate is often muddied because all sides say they want privacy rights for consumers.

How to achieve that is the dilemma for many legislators, especially because the answer may involve technological advances on the Internet, a medium most politicians have only begun to understand themselves.

''There is a lot of confusion,'' said Robert Ellis Smith, publisher of Privacy Journal, a Providence-based newsletter that examines privacy issues.

''It's the biggest fear politicians have. Politicians say, `Oh my gosh, I don't understand the Internet, I don't want to be charged with killing it,''' said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Malden.

Some legislators, including Markey, have advocated federal privacy regulation for years. Many also believe privacy rules should vary, depending on what information is at stake. Release of financial and medical records, for example, has drawn intense attention.

One financial services bill in particular has come under scrutiny: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill of 1999, which approved giant banking mergers, but also gave consumers the option of opting out of information-sharing agreements. Under the bill, a bank that merges with an insurance firm would be allowed to pool the checking account information of its customers with the new subsidiary, unless individual customers actively request the bank not disclose such details.

Consumer advocates see that system as weak, placing too much burden on customers to read confusing legal notifications and locate opt-out features on a Web site. To toughen the standard, several bills, two of them sponsored by Markey, have been introduced: bills requiring an opt-in model for banking and medical records.

In addition, several states, including Massachusetts, are considering enacting privacy laws to safeguard consumers while Congress continues its debate. But advocates of stricter privacy protections at the state level say that a federal standard would be preferable to a hodge-podge of state laws.

''Boundaries, in our world, are sort of irrelevant lately, with the global economy,'' said Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Jane Swift, who supports an opt-in model for the most sensitive records.

Swift, who prides herself on being a champion of privacy rights, this year served on a Federal Trade Commission panel that led to one of the most scathing congressional reports on the lack of online privacy. Saying that only 20 percent of online companies conform to four commonly accepted standards - notifying consumers of how information will be used, giving consumers a choice in the matter, making security practices clear, and allowing consumers access to their own records for correction or deletion - the FTC recommended that Congress act on privacy legislation. That report has added momentum to the political privacy debate.

The debate seems to be everywhere in Washington these days. Two hearings were held in Congress last week. Dozens of privacy bills are expected to be unveiled before the end of the year. Among them is a proposal by Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachussetts, to require a minimal effort by companies: disclosing privacy policies on Web sites. Kerry's proposal also calls for a 12-month privacy commission to study the issue.

In the meantime, companies like Engage are continuing to develop software to keep consumer identities separate from their marketing habits, a practice that allows targeted advertising without compromising privacy. Nearly a dozen Web sites have sprung up solely to provide privacy to consumers, allowing users to surf the Web through a third-party site that shields their identities.

Many industry leaders hope the delay in Washington will buy enough time for online companies to solve the privacy issue themselves. But the growing political drumbeat is unlikely to subside before November, and privacy advocates are hoping that will draw support for legislation by next year. They also believe the concept of privacy will become increasingly easy for Americans to understand, even if the technology involved is not.

This story ran on page A01 of the Boston Globe on 6/19/2000.
© Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.

  Back to top




    Prepared: June12, 2000 - 12:02:29 PM



    Privacy on the Internet
    Professor Andreas Teuber