Dear FTC,
I’d like to propose the following idea to regulate online and behavioral advertising and networks: Any ad network which collects user information across more than one website should be required to occasionally display a Public Service Announcement (PSA) instead of an advertisement. The PSA should be a standard format and include a notice something like this:
“XYZ Corp collects information about your computer as you visit websites within our advertising network. You have a right to know how we collect this information, a right to periodically inspect, amend, or delete the information. We use the following methods to collect information:

• Browser Fingerprinting [link to more information]
• Behavioral Analysis [link to more information]
• Cookies and Other Client-Side Object [link to more information]
• …etc.

We have collected the following information about this computer:

• Browser History [click to inspect] [click to delete]
• Screen Resolution
• Operating System
• Google search terms
• Website Visit Length
• …etc.

There is a world of personal information flowing beneath our feet. My identity is bought, sold, analyzed and re-analyzed across the world in milliseconds. Notwithstanding that my identity is an passive participant in this shadow world, my fleshy identity is actively kept out.
Perhaps a periodic Personal Information Public Service Announcement might be a step to allow me to re-take control of my identity.

The White House and Department of Homeland Security have recently released a public draft of the National Strategy for Trusted Identity in Cyberspace (NSTIC). The NSTIC outlines an ambitious identity management strategy for the United States, but public discussion has been extremely limited. The NSTIC is a very significant policy document which may have an impact on internet commerce, online speech, identity management, identity trust frameworks, and online anonymity. We, the undersigned, are concerned that the current public comment period is insufficient for a policy document of this magnitude and request an extension of the public comment period in order to pursue public dialog.

A policy of this magnitude should be given at least a 90 day public comment period. However, public discussion has been limited and the discussion period is almost over. Therefore, we request that the public comment period be extended for at least 30 days to facilitate more robust public discussion. We also request that subsequent public comment periods on this topic extend for at least 90 days.

We are concerned that the NSTIC is silent on an implementation timeline and other significant details currently missing from the draft. We request clarification on the agency’s proposed timeline and process. We also request an opportunity to convene an in-person discussion with an appropriate White House or DHS official to discuss this important matter and engage in further public discussion.

We look forward to supporting your efforts to engage a robust public discussion on the NSTIC.

Note: A version of this article originally appeared on the Security Catalyst Blog

Avoid a Legal 500 Error. Debug your privacy policy.

Legal Programming

By Aaron Titus

I’m an awesome programmer. The only thing keeping me from Python, PHP, or Ruby coding awesomeness is knowledge… and skill… and training… and, um practice. OK, I may not be a Ruby all-star, but I could be if I wanted to. Likewise, you can do anything for yourself that an attorney can do for you, including writing legal documents. Lawyers just happen to have knowledge, skill, and training. And if I wanted an iPhone app, I’d talk to a programmer. If I wanted legal documents, I’d talk to a lawyer.

In fact, lawyers are programmers. Writing legal documents—like privacy policies—is just like writing code.

Read the rest of this entry »

Note: This post originally appeared on The Security Catalyst Blog

Writing a privacy policy is a careful balance: Being realistic about what you can perform, protecting and instilling confidence in your customers, facilitating business growth and adaptation, complying with law, and above all, being honest.

Your privacy policy and security practices are the subject of federal, state and international laws, as well as FTC regulation. The FTC regulates unfair and deceptive consumer practices, and has a history of privacy policy enforcement actions. In fact, it is currently hosting a series of “Privacy Roundtable” discussions, focusing on behavioral advertising, social networking, mobile marketing, data aggregation and correlation, data brokering, cloud computing, and other now-common practices.

With increasing scrutiny on privacy policies and practices, here are six things every CEO should know about their company’s privacy policy.

Be Honest

Your mamma was right: Honesty is the best (privacy) policy. Be up front about what you do (or may do in the future) with your customer’s personal information. Many privacy policies make one of three “honesty” mistakes: 1. Over-Promising, 2. Under-Promising, 3. Omission. Each carries liability, so it is better to avoid any of the three.

Don’t over-promise. Your company may be held responsible for the representations in your privacy policy. Look out for phrases like “state-of-the-art,” “everything in our power,” or “our highest priority.” If your company really does use “state-of-the-art” technology to protect privacy, good for you. But you probably don’t, so be honest about it. While you may think that such phrases are just feel-good fluff, the FTC has brought actions against companies who fail to provide the state-of-the-art consumer protections they promised, even though they used otherwise reasonable practices.

Don’t under-promise. FTC guidelines and many state laws require that your company takes reasonable and appropriate measures on a case-by-case basis. It may be tempting to try and disclaim all duties to protect your customers, especially if you’ve had a breach. But this approach has pitfalls. First, it is impossible to disclaim all duties to your customers’ privacy. Second, you may scare away potential customers, or invite scrutiny (as Facebook well knows). Third, FTC actions have indicated that businesses cannot take a “wait-and-see” approach to consumer privacy. Instead, companies have a duty to act reasonably and detect problems before they cause loss, particularly if the they have made privacy promises to their employees or customers.

Tell the whole truth. Another temptation is to remain conveniently silent on a privacy issue you’d rather not talk about. This is also a risky strategy, because state laws (such as California, Texas, and soon-to-be Massachusetts, to name a few) impose specific disclosure requirements. Whether or not required by law, failure to disclose important privacy practices can spark FTC enforcement action as a deceptive consumer practice.

Be Complete & Conspicuous

Aside from potential FTC action, California law requires any company which holds personal information about a Californian to identify the types of information it collects about customers, explain how the consumer may change or update the personal information, and identify an effective date. The law also imposes an affirmative duty to disclose whether information will be disclosed to third parties for marketing purposes. California law also requires that a link to your company’s privacy policy be conspicuous. Most of the time, a link from the home page or in the footer will be sufficient.

A privacy policy is legally compliant when it addresses all of the various legal and regulatory requirements, but it is only complete when it addresses the full range of your unique business practices. For some organizations, that may be broader than you think. For example, a typical University engages in educational, financial, healthcare, network provider, non-profit, and goods and services activities on behalf of their students. That’s why there can be no such thing as a “boilerplate” privacy policy.

Privacy Policy Must Reflect (Changing) Practices

Like Ying and Yang, privacy Policy and Practice are complementary and inseparable. One consistent pattern of FTC actions is that updated information security practices are necessary to protect consumers’ privacy. As FTC guidelines indicate, “Good security is an ongoing process of assessing risks and vulnerabilities… Your business practices and privacy policy must be consistently updated to reflect current best practices and available technology.”

Get it Right the First Time

Even though your privacy policy must adapt to changing business needs, privacy policies cannot be retroactively modified. This issue is important in the following scenario: Suppose that your company decides it wants to sell customer personal information to marketers, but your privacy policy states that personal information “will not be shared with third parties without [customers'] explicit consent.” Changing the policy to allow you to sell personal information may apply prospectively, but new policy provisions will not apply to existing customers, without their consent. This can even apply to a transfer of personal information in a bankruptcy proceeding.

That’s why it’s important to get it right the first time. Your company’s privacy policy must allow you enough wiggle-room to adapt to future conditions, be complete, and still protect your customers. If you need to materially change your policy, make sure that you have the infrastructure to determine which version of your policy applies to which customer. It matters.

If You Say it, Do it

We’re all familiar with the Miranda phrase, “anything you say can and will be used against you …” by the FTC. If you make a representation in your privacy or security policy, you’d better be able to live up to it. FTC enforcement actions demonstrate that website owners must adhere to any statements of privacy or security, whether the statement is made online or offline.

Each representation about privacy or security is treated as a “privacy promise.” Feel-good marketing fluff does not belong in a privacy policy, because even “fluff” can create duties or liability, even if the duty is not required by law. Explicit security-related promises (such as a promise to use “state-of-the-art technology”) requires that the company take affirmative and ongoing steps to ensure that sufficient security is provided.

For example, in 2004 Gateway Learning Corp found itself the target of an FTC Deceptive Practice enforcement action for renting its customer list to marketers, even though their privacy policy said they wouldn’t. In recent years the FTC has taken similar action against Eli Lilly & Co., Microsoft, Guess, Inc., Tower Records, and Petco.com to name a few.

If your privacy policy says it, then do it.

It’s Your Business

As a soon-to-be attorney, I can say that you should have a lawyer review your privacy policy. Lawyers help the privacy policy comply with legal and regulatory requirements, but it’s your responsibility to make sure that the policy is complete. In fact, I would go so far as to say that 30% of a privacy policy is compliance, and the other 70% is completeness.

If those numbers are any indication, they mean that your privacy policy should have 70% of its input from the Customer Service Department, the Accounting Department, Sales, Marketing, and perhaps even R&D. Without their feedback it will be impossible to document your important privacy practices and create a complete privacy policy. Privacy policies are not legalese and magic words. They are a blueprint of vital business processes. There is one sure way to get in trouble: Relegate your privacy policy to the legal department, and fail to get cross-departmental participation in its drafting. Banishing your privacy policy just to the lawyers may get you in trouble because the end result may be compliant, but incomplete And ironically, an incomplete privacy policy is a non-compliant policy.

Take Charge

As a CEO, COO, or Managing Director, you should do three things:

1. First, read your privacy and security policy. If it confuses you, it will confuse your customers. If it confuses your customers, it might be interpreted as deceptive by the FTC.
2. Second, make sure you can live up to your privacy policy. Watch out for buzzwords like “state-of-the-art,” “everything within our power,” “always,” and “never.” Make sure that you haven’t painted yourself, your customers, or your employees into a corner.
3. Third, update your privacy policy to reflect your business practices, or update your business practices to match your policy. Being honest and complete about your business practices is tough work, but will pay dividends long-term.

I spend most of my free time working on Privacy Commons, and so I was excited to see Christopher’s post and critique on the subject. Thanks as usual, Christopher, for your thought-provoking questions and observations. Likewise, Aza, CUPS, and Ralf Bendrath. Great work—each of you. I want to pick each of your brains sometime. I also want to apologize in advance for any incomplete sentences or thoughts. This is a slapped-up post.

Some Problems With Privacy Policies

As Christopher, myself, and many others have pointed out, the problems with privacy policies are myriad. Here are a few:

• Inaccessible or Unintelligible. many privacy policies are not easily understood or even physically accessible; so complicated and wrapped in legalese that they are “nigh useless” to the average consumer.
• Complicated Solution. Unless we’re careful, a Privacy Commons may end up equally or more complicated than the status quo.
• Non-Standard. Privacy Policies are not standardized, making it impossible to compare apples-to-apples.
• Incomplete. They often fail to address important privacy issues or fail to consider all potential parties
• Unsophisticated. Many boilerplate privacy policies demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of how privacy policies translate to privacy and business practices. Some simply don’t address the most salient issues, which may be unique to their industry. Consequently, many of the policies never translate to practice.
• Treated as Only Legal Documents. Privacy policies are often treated as “compliance” documents and relegated to the legal department. Consequently, many fail to address or actually contradict field practices.
• Privacy Waiver. Many privacy policies waive, rather than confer, privacy rights. The medical industry is extremely efficient at this practice.
• Technology-Dependent. Privacy policies which strictly enumerate technologies quickly become outdated in the face of emerging technologies.
• Non-Binding. Most importantly, US courts have consistently interpreted privacy policies to be unbinding notices, rather than contracts. As a result, privacy policies generally create no enforceable rights or enforceable expectations of privacy. In this sense, privacy policies can create a false expectation of confidentiality, privacy, or even fiduciary responsibility.

Some Assumptions About Privacy Policies

Based on my experience in technology, advocacy, and the law, I want to air some of my basic assumptions about Privacy Policies. Of course, I invite challenges to these assumptions:

1. Mitigate Liability. Privacy is the subject of dozens of laws and regulations. The present primary business case for developing, maintaining, and conforming to a privacy policy is to mitigate liability.
2. Inform Data Subjects. Data Subjects include consumers, employees, or any individual about whom information is collected, stored, or aggregated.
3. Empower Data Subjects. Mere information is not enough. A privacy policy which produces information overload without actionable intelligence is counter-productive.
4. Articulate Privacy Practices. For the benefit of both data subjects and the data stewards who must execute the privacy policy, it must explain and reflect real business practices.
5. People Don’t Read. Anything more than about two paragraphs will never be read. That’s why high-level iconography is so appealing (and achievable).
6. Must Be Easy-to Understand. Because people don’t read. Fewer words and easy-to-grasp iconography are better.
7. Short Policies Are Inherently Incomplete. Two paragraphs and pretty pictures may be sufficient to inform consumers on the portions of the privacy policy they find most important, but will always be incomplete. More on this below.
8. Adoption & Enforcement. A Privacy Commons must be optimized for adoption, rather than enforcement. That’s simply because despite the Federal Government, the states and the FTC’s regulation in the area, a privacy commons must be market-driven to be successful.
9. Sector-Specific. Different sectors/activities collect different sets of personal information, are regulated differently. In order to ensure that privacy policies are relevant, they must be taylored to specific activities.
10. Living Documents. A privacy policy which was correct six months ago may not be correct today.
11. Privacy Policies are Complex. Deal with it. Privacy Policies are complex, just like Creative Commons or the Telephone. More on that below.
12. Business Documents. Privacy Policies are business documents with legal, practical, business, and ramifications for corporations, their agents and employees, and data subjects.

Thinkers like Christopher Parsons worry that a Privacy Commons will be unnecessarily complex. Non-attorneys are often (justifiably) baffled at why lawyers take 3,000 words to say what can be said in 300 and a handshake. It turns out that a simple handshake is not as simple as most people think. Behind each handshake there is a wide range of assumptions which are not as standard as one might believe. Many (if not most) disputes arise when there is a misunderstanding about an unspoken assumption—the meaning of a word, or silence on a particular issue. That’s why it takes lawyers so many words to say something so simple; simple things are not as simple as we thought.

To demonstrate this point, we need look no further than Creative Commons. While the human-readable version of the “Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike” creative commons license consists of 5 images and 286 words, the legal version contains 3,384 words. Clearly the unnecessary work of a verbose lawyer who needed to justify his existence, right?

Not so fast. The full Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license covers a whole bunch of other stuff that consumers don’t usually take time to think about, unless of course there is a dispute. It’s only at that point that we’re glad we included it. The legalese version covers essential topics like media and language translation, public performance, DRM, collections of works, waiver of compulsory license fees, preservation of moral rights, representations and warranties, limitation on author’s liability, termination, severability, waiver, and entire agreement, just to name a few. Consumers don’t (and shouldn’t) think about this kind of stuff when they proverbially “shake hands” with a licensee. Creative Commons is simple on the surface, but look under the hood and you’ll see the complexity necessary to create the elegance that most people associate with the CC licenses. Saying that the legalese version of a Creative Commons License (or Privacy Commons Policy) is a “necessary evil” is incorrect and misses the point. It’s not evil at all; it’s just necessary.

It’s like a telephone—an elegant piece of equipment which is exceedingly easy to use. The end-user only cares about a few things: Connectivity, line quality, cost, and accessibility. Yet the infrastructure and technology supporting telephony and networking is extremely robust and complex. Consumers pay the telcos to worry about all of the other stuff so they can focus on the four or five things that consumers care about. The millions of miles of copper, routers, substations and central offices aren’t a “necessary evil,” they’re just necessary.

Some Conclusions About Privacy Policies

We’re just going to have to deal with the fact that privacy policies are complex, and will continue to be complex. The best solution (as I see it) is to do three things: ID c.

• Require Thoroughness. A Privacy Commons-compliant policy is thorough
• Identify Cultural Notions of Privacy. Identify culturally important notions of privacy, and embody them in easy-to-understand iconography. Christopher Parsons suggests these notions might center on Data Collection, Data Sharing, Data Identification, Data Tracking, Data Deletion, and Aggregation, which I think is a good start. And Ralf Bendrath offers these excellent icons, which are more elegant than any I’ve seen.
• Embody the Cultural Notions of Privacy in Iconography. Then let the legalese version fill in the (necessary) gaps.

A privacy policy which conforms to Privacy Commons requirements will be complete, informative, easy to understand, and easy to adopt. Like Creative Commons, Privacy Commons seeks to identify common cultural notions of privacy, and embody them in easy-to-understand policy frameworks, with simple high-level iconography.

Note: I usually blog on securitycatalyst.com and jeffreyneu.com, but this post doesn’t fit very well on either.

~IDENTITÄT – The »Gestalt« of digital identity

~IDENTITÄT – The »Gestalt« of digital identity is the bachelor’s thesis of Jonas Loh and Steffen Fiedler. The students at University of Applied Sciences Potsdam, Germany crawled more than 100,000 personal raw data sets on the web and analyzed their contents, including parameters of time. They developed methods for visualizing and comparing the data, resulting in a series of “personal interpretation[s] of the dig­ital identity as an amorphous sculpture.”

The results are striking embodiments of complexity, movement, incongruity, and finiteness; much like the average identity. These sculptures are successful because they capture the movement and growth of one’s identity, convoluted and tied in messy knots of contradictions, incompleteness, and experimentation.

~IDENTITÄT is a reminder of the simultaneous complexity and finiteness of human identity, and a warning that our digital identities are nothing more than a collection of credit reports, Facebook pages, Google results, bank account numbers, and archived e-mails.

As an odd mashup of Geek, Identity Guy, and Architect/Designer, I couldn’t help but give this project a shout-out. And though I think that the description “gestalt” is a little overstated, the provocative sculptures teach us new ways to abstract something as indeterminate and personal as your identity. Bravo, Jonas and Steffen.

Hat tip: Identity Woman.