Jessica Guynn of the LA Times:

The FTC wants to know what the brokers do with the information. It also wants to know if the data brokers let consumers review and correct their personal information or opt out from having their personal information sold.

I can guess that they sell it as “background check” data to both reputable and shady services of that kind, and almost certainly none of them allow correction or opt-out.

It’s one thing to consent to tracking efforts by Amazon, Google, and Facebook, whose labyrinthine Terms of Service are at least publicly-available. It’s another thing to be tracked without consent, without even agreeing to a TOS we didn’t really read, by companies who profit by selling that information to still other companies.

We need legislation on this, as in most other areas of consumer privacy, and especially on the internet, mandating opt-in only participation in data collection like this.

Steve Semeraro at the Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog:

Government actors are charged with a duty to act in the public interest and thus can generally be trusted to restrain trade only when the public will benefit. Private actors, by contrast, are driven by the desire to maximize profit and will thus restrain trade when it is privately beneficial but harms the public interest. On 26 November, the Supreme Court will reenter the fray, hearing oral argument in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System.

This is an interesting part of antitrust law: the exemption from antitrust liability for state actors and, in very limited circumstances, private actors acting under the supervision of the state. These issues are more relevant than you may think if you’re not a law student/lawyer/professor/large-scale businessperson.

Consider my recent Amazon prediction, or the reach of international competition law.

Find more information about FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System at SCOTUSblog, or read the 11th Circuit’s opinion at Google Scholar.

Carl Franzen, of TPM Idea Lab:

There are two cases where the FTC believes that companies need to get a consumer’s “affirmative express consent,” that is, an “opt-in,” before using information captured via facial recognition: When identifying anonymous individuals to third parties that wouldn’t otherwise know who they were, and when using any data or imagery captured via facial recognition for purposes outside of what was initially stated by the company.

This is good news because it signals awareness on the part of the FTC that this is an issue. Mr. Franzen provides some good context in his article, so if this stuff interests or worries you, click through to read his analysis. You can also find the FTC’s press release on the issue here, the report itself, in PDF format, here, and the dissenting statement of Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, also in PDF format, here.

Tony Romm, writing at Politico:

The order means Facebook must now obtain consent before sharing a user’s information with advertisers or others in a way that differs from their current privacy settings, and it bars Facebook from again misrepresenting its privacy and security practices.

This settlement will be in place for twenty years. Will Facebook still be here in twenty years?