White House Asks For 'Transparency' in Data Collection

The White House released a report last week urging companies to be more transparent about how they collect and use customer data. It was silent about the National Security Agency.
The 79-page report, "Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values," examined the data collection practices of companies that collect and store large amounts of consumer information. While the report itself didn't name any names, it appeared to target large data-rich companies such as Google and Facebook, data brokers such as Experian and Acxiom, and online advertising companies.
The authors of the report, led by White House counselor John Podesta, made six recommendations to improve data privacy in the private sector and in government. The report recommended that Congress pass national data breach legislation, extend privacy protections to non-U.S. citizens, and amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to be more in line with how technology is currently used. The report also suggested advancing the 2012 Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, ensuring student data is used only for educational purposes, and ensuring large-scale collection of data is not used in a discriminatory way.
What exactly does that mean?"Consumers deserve more transparency about how their data is shared beyond the entities with which they do business directly, including 'third-party' data collectors," the report said.
Two years ago, President Obama called for a consumer data bill of rights to protect consumers from companies collecting data. The data services industry should have a common website that "lists companies, describes their data practices, and provides methods for consumers to better control how their information is collected and used or to opt-out of certain marketing uses," the report said. The initiative never really gained traction in Congress, but the report recommended the proposal be revived.
Similarly, the effort to enact a national data breach law fizzled before the legislation came up for a full vote. The report said the bills need to be reintroduced.
"A federal law with strong provisions and coordinated enforcement between the federal government and state attorneys general would help alleviate those concerns and promote strong consumer protections," said Gautam S. Hans, a fellow at the Center for Democracy and Technology.
Amending the ECPA is a good idea, as it currently lets law enforcement seize digital communications—namely email—without a warrant. The report recognized that email privacy is critical, and that the law was out of step with how email is currently used, wrote the Electronic Frontier Foundation's staff technologist Jeremy Gillula, deputy general counsel Kurt Opsahl, and activism director Rainey Reitman on the EFF's Deeplinks blog.
"Law enforcement should be required to get a warrant before reading your email, regardless of where it's stored or how long it's been there," they wrote.
Collecting and analyzing large amounts of data can result in individuals being discriminated against when applying for jobs, searching for housing, or obtaining healthcare. The Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should proactively make sure this sort of discrimination doesn't become common, the report said.
"We were also glad the report emphasized the dangers of big data when it comes to fairness and discrimination," Gillula, Ospahl, and Reitman wrote.
What the Report Forgot"Despite being a fairly thorough analysis of the privacy implications of big data, there is one topic that it glaringly omits: the NSA's use of big data to spy on innocent Americans," the EFF noted, calling the report "surprisingly silent."
CDT said the commercial collection of data and the NSA's surveillance programs are linked, CDT's Hans said. "To address commercial collection and use of data without discussing the danger of government access is a half answer at best," he said.
Podesta claimed on a press call discussing the report the omission was intentional, because the group's focus was on other sectors, according to the Washington Post. "It's in no way hypocritical" for the White House to talk about data collection issues, he said.