Privacy und Facebook — ist das nun off-topic oder im Scope des Kartellblog.? Den “like”-Button verwende ich im Blog nicht mehr, aber es gibt eine (vor sich hin dümpelnde) Page für Kartellblog.
Egal, hier ein Link zum Settlement von Facebook mit der U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), das gestern bekannt wurde. Sie kennen die FTC hier aus dem Blog als Kartellbehörde, aber die FTC hat ein zweites Gesicht, den Verbraucherschutz. Das Settlement in der Zusammenfassung durch die FTC:
Specifically, under the proposed settlement, Facebook is:
- barred from making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of consumers’ personal information;
- required to obtain consumers’ affirmative express consent before enacting changes that override their privacy preferences;
- required to prevent anyone from accessing a user’s material more than 30 days after the user has deleted his or her account;
- required to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program designed to address privacy risks associated with the development and management of new and existing products and services, and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of consumers’ information; and
- required, within 180 days, and every two years after that for the next 20 years, to obtain independent, third-party audits certifying that it has a privacy program in place that meets or exceeds the requirements of the FTC order, and to ensure that the privacy of consumers’ information is protected.
Falls Sie’s noch nicht gesehen haben, hier die Stellungnahme von Mark Zuckerberg im Facebook-Blog. Zitat:
That said, I’m the first to admit that we’ve made a bunch of mistakes.
Thus, while Congress struggles to craft ‘comprehensive baseline privacy’ legislation in the European model, the FTC is using its existing 1938 authority over unfair or deceptive trade practices to build a common law of privacy. This is a process of discovery: what’s the right balance between protecting privacy and the consumer benefits of encouraging the development of new services? That process won’t be perfect or easy, but it’s much more likely to keep up with technological change than legislation or prophylactic regulation would be, and less likely to fall prey to regulatory capture by incumbents as a barrier to competition.
Case-by-case adjudication is a venerable American tradition—one that’s more, not less, vital in the rapidly changing field of consumer privacy. Rather than rushing to write new laws, Congress should focus on ensuring the FTC has the resources it needs to use its existing authority effectively. That means, most of all, having a larger core of technologists on staff to guide what is supposed to be our expert agency on privacy.