FTC Lifts the Veil on Companies That Sell Your Data

A new FTC report says the data-broker industry collects troves of personal information about nearly all Americans.

A man surfs the internet in Beijing on June 15, 2009. The designers of controversial Internet filtering software that China has ordered shipped with all new computers said they were trying to fix security glitches in the programme in the latest blow to the plan to include the filtering software with all PCs sold in China from July 1, which has been criticised overseas and even in China as a bid at mass censorship and a threat to personal privacy. Researchers at the University of Michigan who examined the software last week said it contained serious security vulnerabilities that could allow outside parties to take control of computers running it via remote access. Chinese authorities have a history of blocking sites that feature porn or politically unacceptable subjects such as the brutal crackdown on Tiananmen pro-democracy protests in 1989 and the banned spiritual group Falungong.
National Journal
Laura Ryan
See more stories about...
Laura Ryan
May 27, 2014, 9:15 a.m.

Do data brokers know more about you than your own moth­er?

The Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion thinks they might, and the agency re­leased a re­port Tues­day ur­ging Con­gress to push for more trans­par­ency and ac­count­ab­il­ity for the com­pan­ies that har­vest and sell con­sumer in­form­a­tion.

“The ex­tent of con­sumer pro­fil­ing today means that data brokers of­ten know as much — or even more — about us than our fam­ily and friends, in­clud­ing our on­line and in-store pur­chases, our polit­ic­al and re­li­gious af­fil­i­ations, our in­come and so­cioeco­nom­ic status, and more,” said FTC Chair­wo­man Edith Ramirez in a state­ment Tues­day.

Data brokers are com­pan­ies that ag­greg­ate in­form­a­tion from a vast range of on­line and off-line sources, such as so­cial me­dia and re­tail­ers, to com­pile and sell con­sumer pro­files to mar­keters and oth­ers for vari­ous pur­poses, from per­son­ally tailored ad­vert­ise­ments to fraud pre­ven­tion.

The FTC re­search found that data brokers are col­lect­ing troves of per­son­al in­form­a­tion about “nearly every U.S. con­sumer,” largely with a “fun­da­ment­al lack of trans­par­ency,” and that the in­form­a­tion could be used in ways that are dam­aging to con­sumers.

Among the fed­er­al agency’s re­com­mend­a­tions is the cre­ation of a “cent­ral­ized portal,” a one-stop shop for con­sumers to ac­cess in­form­a­tion about data brokers’ data-col­lec­tion prac­tices, as well as tools to ac­cess their data pro­files.

The FTC’s in­vest­ig­a­tion in­to nine of the ma­jor data-broker com­pan­ies, launched in 2012, found that these com­pan­ies are ana­lyz­ing bil­lions of data points to make in­fer­ences about cus­tom­ers, from the be­nign, like “Dog Own­er,” to the po­ten­tially dam­aging cat­egor­ies that high­light sens­it­ive health, age, or so­cioeco­nom­ic in­form­a­tion, ac­cord­ing to the re­port.

The risk is that com­pan­ies could use this data to tar­get vul­ner­able cus­tom­ers or of­fer vary­ing prices. For ex­ample, someone iden­ti­fied as a “Dia­betes In­terest” could re­ceive ads for sug­ar-free products, but an in­sur­ance com­pany could use that same data to clas­si­fy such a per­son as high-risk, ac­cord­ing to Ramirez. 

“Does it mean many among us will be cut off from be­ing offered the same goods and ser­vices, at the same prices, as our neigh­bors?” Ramirez asked in a state­ment Tues­day. “Will these clas­si­fic­a­tions mean that some con­sumers will only be shown ad­vert­ise­ments for subprime loans while oth­ers will see ads for cred­it cards?”

The data-broker­age in­dustry dates back to mail-or­der cata­logs in the 1950s, but the in­dustry has trans­formed in the di­git­al age. As con­sumers’ con­duct more and more of their lives on­line, data brokers have an un­pre­ced­en­ted amount of in­form­a­tion at their fin­ger­tips, along with the power­ful tech­no­logy to ana­lyze this in­form­a­tion and piece it to­geth­er like nev­er be­fore.

With the ex­cep­tion of a few in­dustry-spe­cif­ic rules to safe­guard sens­it­ive fin­an­cial data, health data, and data about chil­dren, the in­dustry is un­reg­u­lated. That is why the FTC is call­ing on Con­gress to en­act le­gis­la­tion that would in­crease trans­par­ency in the in­dustry and give con­sumers more con­trol over the data col­lec­ted about them.

The FTC’s re­port fol­lows an­oth­er on the data-broker in­dustry re­leased earli­er this year by Sen. Jay Rock­e­feller, which raised sim­il­ar con­cerns about the secrecy of the in­dustry and the risks it poses to con­sumers. Rock­e­feller also in­tro­duced le­gis­la­tion, with Sen. Ed­ward Mar­key, that would en­act trans­par­ency re­quire­ments on data brokers and al­low con­sumers to cor­rect their in­form­a­tion.

Rock­e­feller and Mar­key both praised the FTC’s re­port, say­ing that it un­der­scores the need for le­gis­la­tions. 

“With the re­lease of today’s re­port, which is sup­por­ted by Demo­crat­ic and Re­pub­lic­an FTC Com­mis­sion­ers, our con­clu­sion is stronger than ever — big data prac­tices pose risks of con­sumer harm in­clud­ing dis­crim­in­a­tion based on fin­an­cial, health, and oth­er per­son­al in­form­a­tion,” Rock­e­feller said in a state­ment. “Con­gress can no longer put off ac­tion on this im­port­ant is­sue.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
6 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×