- From: Daniel Weitzner <djweitzner@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:02:02 -0500
- To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
FYI, I took some notes on this recent opinion and though people in the WG might be interested. No immediate relevance to P3P but it's a strong endorsement of the need to increase consumer choice, both through technology and law. Danny -- A United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) just upheld the FTC's 'do not call list' against the argument that it unconstitutionally restricts the speech of marketers. This is an important case announcing significant support for a number of key privacy principles. (The import of the case is also evidenced by the fact that the caption citing parties involved goes on for 7 pages.) I took some notes on the opinion: The court held that "the do-not-call registry is a valid commercial speech regulation because it directly advances the government’s important interests in safeguarding personal privacy and reducing the danger of telemarketing abuse without burdening an excessive amount of speech." The court's opinion is based on strong support for fundamental privacy principles, widely supported in name but not necessarily accepted as guiding principles for regulation. "The national do-not-call registry offers consumers a tool with which they can protect their homes against intrusions that Congress has determined to be particularly invasive. Just as a consumer can avoid door-to-door peddlers by placing a “No Solicitation” sign in his or her front yard, the do-not-call registry lets consumers avoid unwanted sales pitches that invade the home via telephone, if they choose to do so. We are convinced that the First Amendment does not prevent the government from giving consumers this option." With this, the court, sought to defend the "importance of individual privacy, particularly in the context of the home, [affirming] that “the ancient concept that ‘a man’s home is his castle’ into which ‘not even the king may enter’ has lost none of its vitality.”" The restrictions in favor of privacy in the challenged regulations are premised on that fact that the regulations increase, rather than decrease, the choices that consumers have over information they receive: "Consumers who wish to restrict some but not all commercial sales calls can do so by using company-specific do-not-call lists or by granting some businesses express permission to call." The court seems particularly concerned that consumers ought to have more fine-grained choices: "Therefore, under the current regulations, consumers choose between two default rules – either that telemarketers may call or that they may not. Then, consumers may make company-specific modifications to either of these default rules as they see fit, either granting particular sellers permission to call or blocking calls from certain sellers." Much of the privacy debate, especially in the 90s, was framed in the language of government regulation vs. industry self-regulation. This opinion takes a pretty clear stand against relying solely on 'company specific rules' to protect individual privacy: "[T]he FTC found ... that the company-specific approach is seriously inadequate to protect consumers’ privacy from an abusive pattern of calls placed by a seller or telemarketer.” Finally, the court speaks on the proper role of technology in privacy protection and intruston. Technology can help consumers, but alone it's not enough, because marketers are also gaining significant data gathering advantage from new technologies: "Forcing consumers to compete in a technological arms race with the telemarketing industry is not an equally effective alternative to the do-not-call registry." This is not the last word on any of these issues, as the case could go to the US Supreme Court and the questions are likely to end up back in Congress' lap. (readers can find the full opinion at http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/index.cfm) -- Daniel J. Weitzner +1.617.253.8036 (MIT) World Wide Web Consortium +1.202.364.4750 (DC) Technology & Society Domain Leader <djweitzner@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Weitzner.html
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 10:02:27 UTC