DOCSLIB.ORG

The Online Privacy Debate: Do Consumers Want to Be Tracked and Profiled? Should They Have a Real Choice? Eric K

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Online Privacy Debate: Do Consumers Want to Be Tracked and Profiled? Should They Have a Real Choice? Eric K Extended Abstract: The Online Privacy Debate: Do Consumers Want to Be Tracked And Profiled? Should They Have a Real Choice? Eric K. Clemons ⎢ Steve Barnett ⎢ Josh Wilson ⎢ Fujie JIN 1. Introduction and Context Consumers and regulators have increasing concerns about online privacy, about consumers’ awareness of online threats, and about regulators’ ability to inform and protect them [11]. We believe that much of this dissatisfaction results from the current wide regulatory gap in which consumer-facing online information services companies operate, which requires profound need for improved privacy legislation around the world. This gap is described in more detail below. In the US, the FTC has been increasingly disturbed by the behavior of the online advertising industry [11]. This includes concerns caused by the absence of clear regulation and as well as by Google’s repeated violations even when clear policy, regulation, and consent decrees were in place. The FTC has long desired that the industry regulate itself [8], resulting in a meeting of online advertisers, and online search providers, including Google, Bing, and Yahoo. There were brutal disagreements within the industry on how to proceed. Some vendors, like Microsoft, felt that protecting consumer privacy could offer a competitive advantage for their planned release of Internet Explorer 10. Other vendors, especially Google, felt that Microsoft’s planned protections jeopardized their entire business model, and managed to convince many online advertisers that it threatened their businesses as well. The meeting reached a potentially unsatisfactory conclusion, declaring that if Microsoft’s IE 10 offered consumers the level of protection that Microsoft proposed, IE 10 would be declared non-conforming to the new self-regulation standard and all privacy protection setting offered by IE 10 would be over-ruled and Google’s default settings would be used instead [9]. There was no attempt to ascertain consumer preferences in the US or elsewhere, or to ascertain the preferences of regulators in the US or elsewhere. We believe that there is a need for a more comprehensive policy to protect consumers’ privacy online. This policy should be coordinated internationally to ensure at least a minimum level of privacy protection for consumers everywhere no matter where they are located, and to protect consumers no matter where the websites they visit are located. This policy should be informed by consumers’ preferences. The need for an informed policy led us to conduct focus groups and surveys to assess consumers’ beliefs and concerns, in the US, Japan, and Korea, the largest online markets in the free world. Our principal findings include the following: (1) Consumers are not satisfied with the amount of information they receive from their governments about online privacy, and are not satisfied with how well they understand online threats to their own privacy. (2) Consumers are not satisfied with the protection they receive from their governments. (3) Consumers’ concerns about information services companies’ intrusions into their private data varies, but only within a very limited range. Perhaps 80% of users object to social network operators mining their posts for marketing purposes. Objections to having texts read, or to having voice communications digitized and data mined for commercial purposes is slightly higher, between 83% and 85%. (4) Between 89% and 98% of users object to being tracked by a single website without their permission, depending on nation; there is an even higher level of resistance to having searches tracked and integrated with behavior at other websites, or to having data from multiple text streams integrated by a single information services operator. (5) Users’ privacy settings should never be ignored and it will be bad business practice to ignore them and bad regulatory policy to permit ignoring them. 2. Defining Privacy There are at least three different ways to characterize privacy and online invasions of privacy. [2, 14, 19] • Perhaps the least threatening form of privacy violation is represented by an uninvited intrusion into a user’s personal space. Online marketing, spam advertising, and pop-ups and sponsored sites around the edges of a web-page can all be seen as invasions of the user’s personal space. Our focus groups indicated that this was the form of privacy violation most salient in users’ minds, across age groups and across nations. When users though of privacy violations from their email, phone, search, or social network providers, they thought almost exclusively about unwanted ads and unwanted interruptions. • Surely the most extreme and most threatening form of privacy violation is represented by fraudulent ecommerce transactions, or even by identity theft. There is no indication that Google, Daum, Navor, Yahoo, or Bing have been associated with such threats to privacy, and there is no indication that consumers were concerned about this. • And surely the form of privacy violations most important to Google, Daum, Navor, and Yahoo are based on personal profiling for some form of commercial advantage. Interestingly, consumers at focus groups in Japan and Korea seemed to focus solely on the first form of privacy violation, the uninvited intrusion into personal space through various forms of spam and targeted marketing. A few hypothetical examples of integration and profiling were sufficient to around consumers’ concerns. What if your phone tracked your position and it was clear that you now had a new geographic center of activity, your home, your office, your favorite restaurants, and the apartment of your illicit lover? What if the phone read your text and knew whom you were seeing for lunch? What if it started suggesting her favorite restaurants? What if it started suggesting your lover’s favorite restaurants to your friends? To your spouse? A participant at one of the focus groups got truly agitated when one of the other participants described targeted ads based on his search history. He suddenly realized that shortly after he was diagnosed with cancer he started to get email ads for cancer treatments, nursing care, and hospices. He realized that this was not simply coincidence and random spam; his search engine provider had made his most personal and sensitive medical history public, based on his searching for information on his specific form of cancer. Participants at focus groups changed their attitudes towards privacy violations as they considered increasingly intrusive hypothetical examples of data mining and data integration. While these hypotheticals eventually became quite intrusive, none actually violated the published privacy policies of major search engine providers. Subjects came to realize during the course of the focus groups that if your search engine provider knows who you are and where you are and what you are going to do next and with whom what you are going to do it, this is potentially compromising. This is potentially compromising, no matter who you are, and no matter how unexceptional your life might appear at the moment. Since participants became increasingly aware of the full range of potential privacy violations only as the focus groups progressed, we believe that the level of awareness among survey subjects was actually lower than the level of awareness of focus group participants. We believe that the survey results are actually weaker than they appear and actually understate levels of concern among online users. Although the survey results appear quite strong, they understand concerns because they are based upon subjects’ thinking principally about the weakest of the three levels of privacy violation. 3. Understanding the Regulatory Gap in Which IS Companies Operate Information services companies operate in a regulatory vacuum, created by the difference between tight privacy regulations imposed upon traditional postal carriers and telecommunications carriers on one side, and the almost total absence of privacy regulation on many information systems companies like Google and Facebook. • A traditional postal carrier cannot read your mail, and a rogue individual mail carrier cannot intercept and read your US mail, nor can a curious neighbor; doing so is a felony. Even government agencies cannot read your mail in the process of a criminal investigation without a court order. In contrast, American companies like Google and Facebook, and foreign companies like Daum and Navor, have built much of their publicly presented business models on their right to read and data mine any and all of your writings, whether public, like a Facebook post, or private, like a gmail or a text from an Android phone. • A traditional telecommunications provider, like AT&T in the US, cannot eavesdrop on your communications or use your phone logs; indeed, it cannot allow a government agency to tap your phone or observe your phone call log without a court order. In contrast, Google can use your call logs from an Android phone to assess your social network, and Google has applied for patents that would allow it convert voice to text, and thus to text mine even your private voice communications. • Likewise, an ISP provider, like Yahoo in Japan, cannot examine your communications, because an ISP provider is treated as a telecommunications company; in contrast, Google Japan can do whatever it wants with the packets that it sees a user generate. We believe that “a packet is a packet is a packet” and similar packets should be treated similarly, whether they are carried by a traditional postal carrier, a package delivery service, an email vendor, the users’ ISPs, or the backbone network that moves that packet between ISPs. Whether the packet is hand written on a single sheet of paper, typed onto a single sheet of paper, typed and loaded into a single SMS frame, or typed and loaded into numerous packets for delivery over the internet, users’ communications should be protected. 4. Experimental Design Whether or not consumers actually believe that privacy is dead, it suits the companies that exploit private information to act as if this is so.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation November 9, 2018
    Before the Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration Developing the Administration’s Approach to Consumer Privacy Docket No. 180821780-8780-01 Comments of Electronic Frontier Foundation November 9, 2018 Submitted by: India McKinney Electronic Frontier Foundation 815 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 USA Telephone: (415) 436-9333 ext. 175 [email protected] For many years, EFF has urged technology companies and legislators to do a better job of protecting the privacy of technology users and other members of the public. We hoped the companies, who have spent the last decade collecting new and increasingly detailed points of information from their customers, would realize the importance of implementing meaningful privacy protections. But this year’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, following on the heels of many others, was the last straw. Corporations are willfully failing to respect the privacy of technology users, and we need new approaches to give them real incentives to do better—and that includes updating our privacy laws. EFF welcomes the opportunity to work with the Department of Commerce in crafting the federal government’s position on consumer privacy. The Request for Comment published in the Federal Register identifies seven main areas of discussion: Transparency, Control, Reasonable Minimization, Security, Access and Correction, Risk Management, and Accountability. These discussion points have been thoroughly analyzed by academics over the past decades, leading to recommendations like the Fair
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Market for Digital Privacy a Failure?1
    Is the Market for Digital Privacy a Failure?1 Caleb S. Fuller2 Abstract Why do many digital firms rely on collecting consumer information–a practice that survey evidence shows is widely disliked? Why don’t they, instead, charge a fee that would protect privacy? This paper empirically adjudicates between two competing hypotheses. The first holds that firms pursue this strategy because consumers are ill-informed and thus susceptible to exploitation. The second holds that this strategy reasonably approximates consumer preferences. By means of survey, I test a.) the extent of information asymmetry in digital markets, b.) consumers’ valuation of privacy, and c.) whether government failure contributes to consumer mistrust of information collection. My results indicate that a.) the extent of information asymmetry is minimal, b.) there is significant divergence between “notional” and “real” demand for privacy and c.) that government contributes to consumer distrust of information collection by private firms. Significantly, almost 82% of Google users are unwilling to pay anything for increased digital privacy. JEL-Classification: D23, K29, Z18 Keywords: privacy paradox, digital privacy, survey, market failure 1 I wish to thank Alessandro Acquisti, Peter Leeson, Chris Coyne, Peter Boettke, David Lucas, Noah Gould, and Nicholas Freiling for helpful suggestions. All errors are my own. I am also indebted to the Mercatus Center for providing funding for the survey conducted by Haven Insights LLC. 2 Assistant professor of economics, Grove City College, Email: 1 INTRODUCTION Google’s motto is “Don’t Be Evil.” But the fact that the company surreptitiously collects the information of over one billion individuals annually leads some to question whether the firm’s business model runs afoul of its dictum (Hoofnagle 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • High Technology, Consumer Privacy, and U.S. National Security
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2015 High Technology, Consumer Privacy, and U.S. National Security Laura K. Donohue Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1457 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2563573 Bus. L. Rev. (forthcoming) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, and the National Security Law Commons HIGH TECHNOLOGY, CONSUMER PRIVACY, AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY Laura K. Donohue* I. INTRODUCTION Documents released over the past year detailing the National Security Agency’s (“NSA”) telephony metadata collection program and interception of international content under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) implicated U.S. high technology companies in government surveillance. 1 The result was an immediate, and detrimental, impact on U.S. corporations, the economy, and U.S. national security. The first Snowden documents, printed on June 5, 2013, revealed that the government had served orders on Verizon, directing the company to turn over telephony metadata under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.2 The following day, The Guardian published classified slides detailing how the NSA had intercepted international content under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act.3 The type of information obtained ranged from E-mail, video and voice chat, videos, photos, and stored data, to Voice over Internet Protocol, file transfers, video conferencing, notifications of target activity, and online social networking.4 The companies involved read like a who’s who of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy Considerations in the Design of Attentive User Interfaces Jeffrey S
    Taking Control of the Panopticon: Privacy Considerations in the Design of Attentive User Interfaces Jeffrey S. Shell Human Media Lab & Surveillance Project Queen’s University Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 Canada [email protected] Introduction Although we all have a strong sense of privacy, researchers and theorists have had a tough time agreeing on a precise and workable definition. Part of the problem is that privacy has different meanings in different contexts to different people. Clarke defines privacy most generally as “the interest that individuals have in sustaining a ‘personal space’, free from interference by other people and organizations” [1,2]. In practice, privacy can be described as a negotiation of interests between individuals, groups of individuals, and organizations [1,2]. In the context of digital devices and ubiquity, the interest of individuals is in ensuring ‘informational privacy’, which can be defined as the combination of communications and data privacy [1,2]. As designers, we must consider the impact of our design decisions on the members of the public who use our systems, and, at the same time, we must listen to those who spend their careers studying these issues. As social scientists, we must continue to make sure that the issues we are discussing are topical, and have a minimum amount of subject specific lingo so we can speak to, rather than about, the development and implementation of emerging technologies. By bringing together designers and social scientists to develop a common mission and vocabulary, consumers will benefit by having access to products and services more friendly to their interests, easing the transition to ubiquity.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Brokers Experian and Equifax
    SUBMISSION TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER - REQUEST FOR AN ASSESSMENT NOTICE OF DATA BROKERS Experian & Equifax (the credit reference ‘data brokers’) A. Introduction and Purpose of this Submission 1. The purpose of this submission is to provide the Information Commissioner with analysis and evidence in order to assist her in assessing the relevant data controllers’ compliance with data protection law. Privacy International is aware that the Information Commissioner has issued assessment notices pursuant to Section 146 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (the “DPA 2018”) and is carrying out audits in respect of Experian and Equifax1 in order to assess their compliance with the data protection legislation, in particular, the General Data Protection Regulation EU2016/676 (“GDPR”). The companies are two major credit reference agencies who through their marketing activities also act as data brokers. In the absence of the Information Commissioner’s actions to date, Privacy International would have invited her to issue such assessment notices in response to the submissions set out herein. 2. Privacy International is gravely concerned at the data processing activities of the data broking and ad tech industry. We are therefore providing this submission in support of the investigation into Experian and Equifax, together with two joined submissions against consumer marketing data brokers Acxiom and Oracle and ad tech companies Quantcast, Tapad and Criteo.2 Together these companies profit from the exploitation of the personal data of millions of people
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy and the Internet of Things
    CENTER FOR LONG-TERM CYBERSECURITY CLTC OCCASIONAL WHITE PAPER SERIES Privacy and the Internet of Things EMERGING FRAMEWORKS FOR POLICY AND DESIGN GILAD ROSNER AND ERIN KENNEALLY CLTC OCCASIONAL WHITE PAPER SERIES Privacy and the Internet of Things EMERGING FRAMEWORKS FOR POLICY AND DESIGN GILAD ROSNER, PH.D. Founder, IoT Privacy Forum ERIN KENNEALLY, J.D. Cyber Security Division, Science & Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Author contributions to this work were done in her personal capacity. The views expressed are her own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Homeland Security or the United States Government.) CENTER FOR LONG-TERM CYBERSECURITY iv PRIVACY AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS Contents Executive Summary 2 Acknowledgments 4 Internet of Things 101 5 Key Privacy Risks and Challenges 6 A Shift from Online to Offline Data Collection 7 Diminishment of Private Spaces 8 Bodily and Emotional Privacy 9 Choice and Meaningful Consent 10 Regulatory Issues Specific to the IoT 12 Emerging Frameworks and Strategies 13 Omnibus Privacy Policy 13 Improved User Control and Management 14 Identity Management 15 Notification 16 Summary 18 Conclusion 19 Endnotes 20 About the Authors 22 1 PRIVACY AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS Executive Summary The proliferation of network-connected devices, also known as the “Internet of Things” (IoT), offers unprecedented opportunities for consumers and businesses. Yet devices such as fitness trackers, personal home assistants (e.g., Amazon Echo, Google Home), and digital appliances are changing the nature of privacy as they operate silently in the background while transmitting data about a broad range of human activities and behaviors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review
    The Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review Editor Alan Charles Raul Law Business Research The Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review The Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in The Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review - Edition 1 (published in November 2014 – editor Alan Charles Raul). For further information please email [email protected] The Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review Editor Alan Charles Raul Law Business Research Ltd THE LAW REVIEWS THE MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS REVIEW THE RESTRUCTURING REVIEW THE PRIVATE COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT REVIEW THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REVIEW THE EMPLOYMENT LAW REVIEW THE PUBLIC COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT REVIEW THE BANKING REGULATION REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION REVIEW THE MERGER CONTROL REVIEW THE TECHNOLOGY, MEDIA AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS REVIEW THE INWARD INVESTMENT AND INTERNATIONAL TAXATION REVIEW THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REVIEW THE CORPORATE IMMIGRATION REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS REVIEW THE PROJECTS AND CONSTRUCTION REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MARKETS REVIEW THE REAL ESTATE LAW REVIEW THE PRIVATE EQUITY REVIEW THE ENERGY REGULATION AND MARKETS REVIEW THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REVIEW THE ASSET MANAGEMENT REVIEW THE PRIVATE WEALTH AND PRIVATE CLIENT REVIEW THE MINING LAW REVIEW THE EXECUTIVE REMUNERATION REVIEW THE ANTI-BRIBERY AND ANTI-CORRUPTION REVIEW THE CARTELS AND LENIENCY REVIEW THE TAX DISPUTES
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy and Consumer Protection
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp INFORMATION BRIEF Research Department Minnesota House of Representatives 600 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Mary Mullen, Legislative Analyst* 651-296-9253 May 2018 The Internet and Public Policy: Privacy and Consumer Protection This brief is one of a series on public policy and the Internet, with special attention to the laws and public policies of the state of Minnesota. Internet privacy and consumer protection are of increasing concern. This publication will look at the various legal mechanisms that have developed to protect the privacy of Internet users and existing laws dealing with consumer protection and privacy. Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2 Common Terms in Privacy Legislation ........................................................... 3 Contract Law and Terms of Use Agreements .................................................. 4 Federal and State Consumer Protection Law ................................................... 6 Federal and State Privacy Laws ....................................................................... 9 Industry Standards and Consumer Expectations............................................ 17 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 20 *Chloe Margulis
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Consumer Privacy Act
    By:AAMartinez Fischer H.B.ANo.A4518 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED 1 AN ACT 2 relating to the privacy of a consumer 's personal information 3 collected by certain businesses; imposing a civil penalty. 4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 5 SECTIONA1.AATitle 11, Business & Commerce Code, is amended by 6 adding Subtitle C to read as follows: 7 SUBTITLE C. PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION 8 CHAPTER 541. PRIVACY OF CONSUMER 'S PERSONAL INFORMATION 9 SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 10 Sec.A541.001.AASHORT TITLE. This chapter may be cited as the 11 Texas Consumer Privacy Act. 12 Sec.A541.002.AADEFINITIONS. In this chapter: 13 (1)AA"Aggregate consumer information" means 14 information that relates to a group or category of consumers from 15 which individual consumer identities have been removed and that is 16 not linked or reasonably linkable to a particular consumer or 17 household, including through a device. The term does not include 18 one or more individual consumer records that have been 19 deidentified. 20 (2)AA"Biometric information" means an individual 's 21 physiological, biological, or behavioral characteristics that can 22 be used, alone or in combination with other characteristics or 23 other identifying data, to establish the individual 's identity. 24 The term includes: 86R17033 TSR-D 1 H.B.ANo.A4518 1 (A)AAdeoxyribonucleic acid (DNA); 2 (B)AAan image of an iris, retina, fingerprint, 3 face, hand, palm, or vein pattern or a voice recording from which an 4 identifier template can be extracted such as a faceprint, minutiae 5 template, or voiceprint; 6 (C)AAkeystroke patterns or rhythms; 7 (D)AAgait patterns or rhythms; and 8 (E)AAsleep, health, or exercise data that contains 9 identifying information.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Control and Surveillance in the Society of Consumers
    International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol. 3(6) pp. 180-188, June 2011 Available online http://www.academicjournals.org/ijsa ISSN 2006-988x ©2011 Academic Journals Review Social control and surveillance in the society of consumers Massimo Ragnedda Dipartimento di Economia Istituzioni e Società (DEIS), Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Università degli Studi di Sassari, Piazza Conte di Moriana 8, 07100 Sassari, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: +39 079229654. Fax: +39 079229660 Accepted January 21, 2011 The new Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) introduced a highly automated and much cheaper systematic observation of personal data. ICTs advance the intensification and the extension of surveillance, such that an expanding quantity of data can now be collected, tabulated and cross- referenced more rapidly and more accurately than old paper files. This process contributes to the building a "new electronic cage" constraining the individual, on the basis of his e-profile and data- matching. Especially two agents of surveillance are interested in collecting and using such data: government authorities and private corporations. Massive stores of personal data held on ordinary people are now vital to both public services and private business purposes. The new electronic cage is more all-encompassing and complete, being able to produce a complete profile of citizens and consumers in real time. Both public and private information agencies rely on one another for creating and modelling the profiles of good citizens/consumers who, by definition, are well integrated into social life, exhibiting predictable behaviour that conforms to the general needs of contemporary consumer/ oriented social relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: a Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers
    A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR BUSINESSES AND POLICYMAKERS PRELIMINARY FTC STAFF REPORT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | DECEMBER 2010 A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR BUSINESSES AND POLICYMAKERS PRELIMINARY FTC STAFF REPORT DECEMBER 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................... i I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................1 II. BACKGROUND ........................................................3 A. Privacy and the FTC ...............................................3 1. The FTC Approach to Fair Information Practice Principles...........6 2. Harm-Based Approach .......................................9 B. Recent Privacy Initiatives ..........................................12 1. Enforcement...............................................12 2. Consumer and Business Education .............................13 3. Policymaking and Research...................................14 4. International Activities ......................................17 III. RE-EXAMINATION OF THE COMMISSION’S PRIVACY APPROACH .........19 A. Limitations of the FTC’s Existing Privacy Models.......................19 B. Technological Changes and New Business Models ......................21 IV. PRIVACY ROUNDTABLES .............................................22 A. Description. .....................................................22 B. Major Themes and Concepts from the Roundtables ......................22 1. Increased Collection and Use of Consumer Data ..................23 2. Lack of Understanding Undermines Informed
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Competition and Markets Authority’S Call for Information on Digital Mergers
    Example Header Text: Ususally have the title of the report here. (Change on A-Master page) Submission to the Competition and Markets Authority’s call for information on digital mergers July 2019 1/03 Digital Mergers Call for Information Competition and Markets Authority By e-mail: [email protected] 12 July 2019 Privacy International and Open Rights Group’s submission to the CMA’s call for information on digital mergers Privacy International and Open Rights Group welcome the Competition and Market Authority (CMA)’s call for information on digital mergers. Privacy International is a non-profit, non-governmental organisation based in London, the United Kingdom (“UK”), dedicated to defending the right to privacy around the world. Established in 1990, Privacy International undertakes research and investigations into government surveillance and data exploitation in the private sector with a focus on the technologies that enable these practices. To ensure universal respect for the right to privacy, Privacy International advocates for strong national, regional and international laws that protect privacy around the world. It has litigated or intervened in cases implicating the right to privacy in the courts of the United States, the UK, and Europe. It also strengthens the capacity of partner organisations in developing countries to identify and defend against threats to privacy. Open Rights Group (ORG) is a UK-based digital campaigning organisation working to protect fundamental rights to privacy and free speech online. With over 3,000 active supporters, we are a grassroots organisation with local groups across the UK. In the following sections, Privacy International and Open Rights Group provide their observations on some of the questions raised in this consultation.
    [Show full text]