U.S. Senator Introduces Do-Not-Track E-Commerce Bill, With Exemption That Makes It Irrelevant For All

Written by Evan Schuman
May 11th, 2011

On Monday (May 9), a U.S. Senator introduced a bill to limit or prevent E-tailers from capturing information about their customers without asking. Like prior Senate technology efforts, the exemptions to the bill make it unable to execute its core purpose.

Even if the bill—called the Do Not Track Online Act Of 2011 and introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.—didn’t suffer from those rather generous exemptions, it’s unclear how much of an impact it would have. Its telephone solicitation predecessor is the Do Not Call list. Quick show of hands: How many reading this article have signed up for that list? Of those who did, how many have continued to get lots of phone solicitations, with no practical way to make them stop? ‘Nuff said.

To further minimize worries, as of Wednesday (May 11), the bill had zero cosponsors. As such, it certainly doesn’t look like the Senate will pass the bill anytime soon. Is it possibly a news release bill, one designed to justify a news release but never be actively pursued?

Just in case it does go anywhere, here’s what the bill actually mandates. It wants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to create Web regulations dealing with E-tailers. (To be precise, the bill doesn’t directly say that. Its actual wording: the FTC “shall promulgate regulations that establish standards for the implementation of a mechanism by which an individual can simply and easily indicate whether the individual prefers to have personal information collected by providers of online services.” The authors can write a sentence like that and have the gumption to use the phrase “simply and easily”?)

Then the bill adds a Senate-sized loophole. E-tailers can collect and use a consumer’s personal information “notwithstanding the expressed preference of the individual” if the data is, in the opinion of the E-tailer, “necessary to provide a service requested by the individual, including with respect to such service, basic functionality and effectiveness, so long as such information is anonymized or deleted upon the provision of such service.”

Let’s break that down. “Upon the provision of such service.” In short, until you’ve finished providing the service. In an ongoing relationship—say, Amazon and a regular customer—when does that end? Wouldn’t Amazon legitimately argue that the data is necessary to create the type of service customers expect?

From or’s perspective, knowing who its customers are and their likes/dislikes is absolutely “necessary” to provide a service.

The anonymous part is also problematic. Most E-tailers are perfectly content to not know the name of a customer. It’s a “nice to know,” but the value is associating that person’s actions with that person. “The person who visits us from their IP address and who uses this E-mail address loves the color blue. When they show up, show them lots of blue products.” That’s still anonymous.

So much of the current E-Commerce and M-Commerce worlds are intertwined with the constant collection of all manner of data. Halting the collection is not the answer. No, what the Senate should be doing is requiring the strict protection of that data. Forget PCI. If a chain is found to have been lax in its data protection and a cyberthief breaches the company, let it face federal law violations. That will get any firm’s attention, which is a lot more than this bill is likely to do.

P.S. More proof that Sen. Rockefeller doesn’t seem to be seriously trying to make this bill go anywhere: With the split Senate, any bill’s future depends heavily on courting lots of votes from the other side of the aisle. In the news release touting this bill’s introduction by the Democratic senator, what is the verbatim list of groups cited as it attempted to curry Republican votes? “American Civil Liberties Union, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Consumer Watchdog, Consumer Action and the Center for Digital Democracy.” Yeah, that’ll do it.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.