Internet: US pressure group tries to stifle internet privacy legislation

Perhaps the most telling point about NetChoice's approach is the presumption that businesses should be entitled to collect and use for whatever purposes they like. The group has produced a list of what it says are the ten worse laws relating to the internet currently being proposed in the USA. One of them is "a bill by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) to let the Federal Trade Commission create regulations to dramatically reduce the use of tracking data that drives Internet advertising, by enforcing a global opt-out preference by users." The Group says "Neither Rep. Speier nor the FTC have been able to demonstrate to Americans why the world needs Do Not Track." Perhaps a more pertinent question is why it is not automatically illegal to track unless the customer specifically agrees to be tracked. Privacy advocates argue that tracking is akin to secret surveillance on an individual: it's difficult to argue against that view. The group uses a free-market argument "The effect of a global opt-out will reduce the population of users for whom targeted ads can be delivered. If ads aren't targeted, advertisers will pay less and sites may be forced to show a greater quantity of lower-paying ads. And if that doesn't make up the lost revenue, sites will likely spend less on new features and services." Yes, they will. Or they will need to find an alternative business model.

But to be fair, not all of NetChoice's arguments are so consumer-hostile: they were instrumental in securing the defeat in Colorado of a Bill that was chucked out by the Court which found it was unconstitutional: that required out of state retailers to report to Colorado tax authorities purchases delivered to Colorado addresses. California and Hawaii have similar laws in preparation.

A plan by Missouri and Indiana to extend "do not call" to internet marketing is panned as simply "does not work" over the internet. That's true but only because internet marketing is so full of scammers and chancers. Instead, all commercial mail should require a verified opt-in procedure. Then so much spam masquerading as lawful e-mail advertising would be simply illegal. And the lists should be checked by local law enforcement with power to seize computers used for illegal mailing.

Behavioural Advertising Restrictions (New York) is slated as "Severe restrictions on websites' ability to collect user information that enables websites to provide free services and content." Surely consumers and website visitors should have the right to reject all tracking and use of personal information.