You May Have to Pay More Based on Your Race, White House Fears

Report urges agencies to step up enforcement of civil-rights laws.

Shoppers wait in line while shopping at Toys'R'Us in Fort Worth, Texas.
National Journal
Brendan Sasso
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Brendan Sasso
May 1, 2014, 11:40 a.m.

People may be pay­ing more for products based on their age or the col­or of their skin, White House of­fi­cials fear.

Busi­nesses are in­creas­ingly col­lect­ing vast amounts of data on con­sumer be­ha­vi­or and as­sem­bling de­tailed pro­files on in­di­vidu­als. That data could lead com­pan­ies — either in­ten­tion­ally or in­ad­vert­ently — to dis­crim­in­ate against people in pri­cing, em­ploy­ment, hous­ing, health care, or oth­er op­por­tun­it­ies, the White House said in a re­port Thursday.

John Podesta, a seni­or ad­viser to Pres­id­ent Obama who led the “big data” re­view group that pre­pared the re­port, warned that new data-min­ing prac­tices threaten to “cir­cum­vent long-stand­ing civil-rights pro­tec­tions.”

The re­port urges gov­ern­ment agen­cies to im­prove their tech­nic­al ex­pert­ise so they can bet­ter spot and crack down on il­leg­al dis­crim­in­a­tion that re­lies on data col­lec­tion.

Firms can track which products people buy, the web­sites they browse, the emails they read, and even their GPS loc­a­tion. That in­form­a­tion can help tar­get more rel­ev­ant ads — such as a pro­mo­tion for a hor­ror film.

But the White House poin­ted to one study which found that people who search for “black-identi­fy­ing” names are more likely to be shown ads with the word “ar­rest” than people who search for “white-identi­fy­ing” names. Gov­ern­ment ser­vices aimed at people us­ing smart­phone apps could dis­ad­vant­age the poor or eld­erly (who are less likely to have smart­phones), the of­fi­cials warned in the re­port.

“‘Big data’ isn’t just a pri­vacy is­sue — it’s also a civil-rights is­sue,” Seeta Peña Gangadhar­an, a seni­or re­search fel­low with the New Amer­ica Found­a­tion, said in a state­ment ap­plaud­ing the White House re­port.

“New tech­no­lo­gies en­abling massive data col­lec­tion and ana­lys­is prom­ise many eco­nom­ic and prac­tic­al be­ne­fits, but they also have a dark side, cre­at­ing new risks of data-driv­en di­git­al dis­crim­in­a­tion and the re­in­force­ment of ex­ist­ing in­equal­it­ies through auto­mated de­cision-mak­ing.”

The re­port also re­it­er­ates the White House’s sup­port for the “Pri­vacy Bill of Rights” — a set of prin­ciples the White House out­lined in 2012 for how on­line firms should handle per­son­al in­form­a­tion. The White House urged Con­gress to en­act the prin­ciples in­to law at the time, but the is­sue has gone nowhere on Cap­it­ol Hill.

Com­merce Sec­ret­ary Penny Pritzker an­nounced Thursday that her de­part­ment will work with busi­nesses and pri­vacy groups to de­vel­op le­gis­lat­ive lan­guage for the prin­ciples.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion also an­nounced plans to ex­pand some fed­er­al pri­vacy pro­tec­tions to people out­side the United States. The Pri­vacy Act of 1974 cur­rently grants U.S. cit­izens rights to ac­cess cer­tain in­form­a­tion that the gov­ern­ment col­lects about them.

But the re­view doesn’t ad­dress Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency sur­veil­lance. Obama an­nounced the re­view group of “big data” is­sues in the same speech in Janu­ary when he out­lined re­forms to the NSA. Podesta ex­plained that the pres­id­ent be­lieved “big-data tech­no­lo­gies had to be hav­ing an im­pact else­where.”

Al­though the White House is push­ing for more pri­vacy-pro­tec­tion laws, of­fi­cials em­phas­ized that the col­lec­tion and use of large amounts of data can also lead to in­nov­at­ive new ser­vices and boost the eco­nomy.

For ex­ample, data can help doc­tors ana­lyze and com­bat dis­eases or help sci­ent­ists bet­ter un­der­stand cli­mate change, the White House said.

“We be­gin by re­cog­niz­ing that the United States is a lead­er in the field of big data and we want to en­sure that con­tin­ues,” Pritzker said.

What We're Following See More »
CITES CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
3 days ago
THE LATEST
MINIMUM 2 PERCENT GDP
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
4 days ago
BREAKING
MANAFORT AND FLYNN
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
4 days ago
THE DETAILS

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Source:
BUT WHITE HOUSE MAY USE AGAINST HIM ANYWAY
Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
5 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Source:
BUSINESSES CAN’T PLEAD FIFTH
Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
5 days ago
THE LATEST

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login