NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Mandated Opt-In Requirements Run Amok?
Mandated Opt-In Requirements Run Amok? http://j.mp/k6MePu (This message in Google Buzz) - - - Computerworld recently ran an article titled: "Google Buzz settlement called a 'killer' for e-commerce" ( http://j.mp/jw6QQG ) The article's thrust is concerns that information change opt-in requirements mandated as part of the FTC's Google Buzz settlement could become the required standard for all (U.S.) online services. While the tone of the article might be viewed as a bit alarmist, there are associated quite valid concerns to be considered. For many years, I have taken the position that when it comes to significant, serious personal information choices, opt-in is generally preferable to opt-out, since most people tend to stick with the defaults in most situations. However, I've also become increasingly concerned of late that mandated opt-in requirements at increasingly "micromanaged" levels, and relating to relatively trivial data elements, could indeed be counterproductive and create collateral effects that would be to consumers' detriment, not benefit. In this regard, a paper I've noted in the past, Lundblad and Masiello's "Opt-In Dystopias" ( http://j.mp/c3VQiX [Lauren's Blog] ) is very useful reading. While I've been clear that I felt the Google Buzz launch could have been handled better, I also remain convinced that the "privacy problems" involved were in key respects overblown, partly at the urging of Google's commercial adversaries. And I feel that Google's very rapid response and corrections related to the stated concerns were exemplary. Two other points for consideration. First, it seems that efforts to mandate micromanaged opt-in requirements are being directed primarily at the online services sector, but not so much at traditional "offline" telecom, banking, credit card, and related services -- which tend to change even major terms with no more warning than a bill insert and perhaps an opt-out option. And in many cases, these traditional services are dealing with far more personal information than services like Google! And if you don't accept changes from your bank or credit card firms -- that is, if you do opt-out -- you're likely to be told that you no longer can transact new business on those accounts. And that's the second point. What would happen on online services to users who chose not to opt-in to various "micro"-changes? Would they no longer be able to conduct new transactions and other activities? Or would online services be required to keep providing access for those customers under their original terms, which might make no economic sense, and could over time create a nightmare of different users operating on previous terms of service that are increasingly archaic, as the current terms have evolved onward for newer users? The logistical mess that would be created could be impressive indeed, not to mention the confusion caused by the increasing divergence of terms for many older vs. newer users moving forward. The upshot of all this is that opt-in vs. opt-out issues are much more complicated than they may appear to be at first glance in both the online and offline worlds, and this complexity seems to be rapidly increasing. Simplistic regulatory approaches to this area are likely to end up doing more damage than good as far as most consumers are concerned. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org Founder: - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein Google Buzz: http://j.mp/laurenbuzz Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com