How you should respond to the security threat likely inside your computer

Nearly two years ago, researchers revealed flaws in the chips of virtually every computer made since the mid-1990’s. The flaws—primarily found in Intel’s chips—create a vulnerability that can be exploited by allowing hackers to obtain unauthorized access to privileged information.


Since the initial exploits were first exposed, new versions have continued to be discovered—the most recent of which was found this past November. While software “fixes” have been released, they tend to reduce the speed and performance of computers—as much as 40 percent, according to some reports. In addition, since the flaw is hardware-based, the “fix” is only good until the next exploit is discovered.

At the time of the discovery of one of the “worst CPU bugs ever found,” there was significant alarm expressed in the news as well as across the cybersecurity community. Since that time, public attention has waned. Unfortunately, the problem has only grown worse. And while there has been considerable discussion of the impact these flaws have on businesses, the impact on consumers has been somewhat overlooked.

That’s why NCL’s #DataInsecurity Project recently released a paper detailing the threat that these bugs—with scary names like Meltdown, Spectre, and Zombieload—pose to consumers, their data, and the performance of their computers.

Every organization or individual running a server or computer with affected hardware should take action to protect themselves. Unfortunately, consumers are less likely to know what to do or have the resources to do it, leaving them more exposed.

For example, consumers are more likely to be running older or outdated software. Consumers are also likely to keep their computers much longer than a business, making their hardware older as well. The way these flaws work, older hardware generally sees a greater slowdown when the security patches are applied.

Additionally, the small businesses that consumers interact with may also be running “legacy” hardware or software. These businesses may not be able to afford the high cost of additional servers to offset the speed loss from the patches or of entirely replacing old systems. This difficult choice for small businesses could mean that some decide against applying patches – with potentially severe consequences for consumers’ data security.

Google has taken preemptive steps to protect consumers, but it also warned that as a result of these security measures, “some users may notice slower performance with some apps and games.” Apple, conversely, has offered software patches but left other security measures as an “opt-in” for consumers.

So, while consumers may not face the same type of risk as businesses, they do face a lot of challenges when it comes to addressing these exploits. Consumers already live in a heightened threat environment, filled with phishing emails and computer viruses. They shouldn’t have to choose between the security of their data or the performance of their computers.

To learn more about these issues and the best way to protect yourself, you can find NCL’s white paper here.

Fraud alert: Use caution when talking to ‘old friends’ on Facebook

Facebook is a terrific tool for staying in touch with old friends, former classmates, family, and community members. Unfortunately, like other popular social media platforms, it also attracts scammers looking to abuse the system for their own gain. We’ve recently heard from nearly a dozen consumers who have contacted Fraud.org about scammers using Facebook’s Messenger service to try to defraud them by posing as long lost friends.

The set-up for these scams is remarkably consistent. Consumers who sent us complaints report that these scams begin when they receive a message on Facebook Messenger from someone impersonating a former classmate or an old friend. When the recipient responds, the scammer strikes up a conversation to build trust. Once trust is established, the impersonator urges the consumer to send a text message to a number the scammer controls to get information on a grant, prize, or even government stimulus funds. When the victim texts the number, they are urged to pay an up-front fee and/or supply personal information (Social Security number, bank account/credit card information, etc.) to collect the non-existent money. Victims who do send the money are then urged to send even more money until they catch on. Unfortunately, the money is often sent via wire transfer or gift cards, which are extremely difficult or impossible to stop or reverse.

While this scam is not new, the request to take the conversation off Facebook Messenger and on to text message is a new twist. This is likely due to the scammers trying to evade anti-fraud technology employed by Facebook.

Here are tips to reduce your risk of falling victim to this scam:

Don’t immediately assume your Facebook friend is who they claim to be. Thanks to widespread data breaches, it is not difficult for scammers to get the information they need to compromise a Facebook account. If you receive a message from someone you have not spoken to in a long time, do not assume that the message is legitimate. The safest course of action is to simply ignore the message.

Test them. If you do engage in a conversation and become suspicious, you can try to verify the identity of the person messaging you by asking them a question only they would know (i.e., who was our 9th grade English teacher?).

Beware requests to take conversations off Facebook Messenger. Complaints we have received often describe requests to move conversation from Facebook (where they can be monitored) to text message. This is a big red flag for fraud.

Anyone who asks you to send money to get money is swindling you. If you are asked to pay money to collect a prize, grant, stimulus check, or any other type of reward, it is a scam.

Turn on two-factor authentication and encourage your friends to do the same. One of the reasons this scam occurs is that consumers tend to re-use passwords across multiple websites (your email and Facebook account, for example). That means that if your username and password are compromised at one website, scammers can use that information to try and compromise your account at other websites. An effective way to reduce the risk of this is to turn on two-factor authentication. This will require anyone trying to log in to your Facebook account to supply a special code (typically provided via text message or an authentication app) before they can log in.

If you suspect that you have become a victim, report it immediately. You can file a complaint at Fraud.org via our secure online complaint form. We’ll share your complaint with our network of law enforcement and consumer protection agency partners who can investigate and help put fraudsters behind bars.

Sign up for the #DataInsecurity Digest

Welcome to The #DataInsecurity Digest, a publication of the National Consumers League, which has been advocating for Congress and the Administration to pass comprehensive data security protections for years.

Since 2015, The #DataInsecurity Digest has delivered important, consumer-focused data security news, policy analysis, and information about upcoming events directly to subscribers’ inbox biweekly.

Curated by NCL’s Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications, and Fraud John Breyault, the publication is a collection of the latest coverage and analysis of data security issues by trusted authors, with commentary offered by Breyault.

We’d love your feedback! Drop author John Breyault a line at johnb@nclnet.org to tell him what you think!

NCL urges Administration to take action to combat COVID-themed fraud, patient harms online

April 10, 2020

Contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC – April 10, 2020 – The National Consumers League (NCL), in partnership with 42 patient and provider advocacy, public health, industry, and research groups, has issued joint letters to Vice President Mike Pence, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other state and federal leaders calling for swift action to protect consumers against COVID-19 misinformation, scams, and fraud online.

“NCL commends the White House Coronavirus Task Force and other officials for their dedication in responding to the coronavirus crisis,” said NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg. “The COVID-19 pandemic makes your work against healthcare and financial fraud more important now than ever. However to further flatten the curve and save lives, we urge the Administration to quickly implement increased evidence-based actions and to help protect consumers from predatory attempts to take advantage of our new economy.”

Since the start of the pandemic, criminals launched thousands of COVID-specific global scams and phishing attacks, using the coronavirus crisis to profit at patients’ expense. “Criminals have exploited the fear and confusion caused by the coronavirus for their own personal profits. More must be done to mitigate the health and financial harms experienced by consumers nationwide,” said Greenberg. In the past few weeks alone, more than 100,000 website domain names have been registered containing terms like “covid,” and “corona,” most of which have been found to be outright dangerous. The Federal Trade Commission indicated receipt of nearly 14,000 coronavirus-related complaints totaling fraudulent losses nearly $10 million.

NCL has long called for increased regulation and enforcement against illegal online acts that result in public health and economic harm. The joint letter encourages the Administration to move swiftly to enact and enforce existing no-cost solutions to better protect consumers. Additionally, it calls on the Administration to  ground their efforts in science, address systemic internet policy problems and prepare for an ongoing wave of COVID-19 related scams during the economic downturn.

Co-signers of the letters include Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies, BIO, Coalition for a Safe and Transparent Internet, Consumer Brands Association, Kroll, Lilly, LegitScript, and USP. The full letter can be read here.

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneering consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

 

How consumers must respond to the security threat inside nearly every computer

Nearly two years ago, researchers revealed flaws in the chips of virtually every computer made since the mid-1990’s. The flaws—primarily found in Intel’s chips—create a vulnerability that can be exploited by allowing hackers to obtain unauthorized access to privileged information.

Since the initial exploits were first exposed, new versions have continued to be discovered—the most recent of which was found this past NovemberWhile software “fixes” have been released, they tend to reduce the speed and performance of computers—as much as 40 percent, according to some reportsIn additionsince the flaw is hardware-based, the “fix is only good until the next exploit is discovered. 

At the time of the discovery of one of the “worst CPU bugs ever found,” there was significant alarm expressed in the news as well as across the cybersecurity communitySince that timepublic attention has waned. Unfortunately, the problem has only grown worse. And while there has been considerable discussion of the impact these flaws have on businessesthe impact on consumers has been somewhat overlooked. 

That’s why NCL’s #DataInsecurity Project recently released a paper detailing the threat that these bugs—with scary names like MeltdownSpectre, and Zombieloadpose to consumers, their data, and the performance of their computers.  

Every organization or individual running a server or computer with affected hardware should take action to protect themselves. Unfortunately, consumers are less likely to know what to do or have the resources to do it, leaving them more exposed 

For example, consumers are more likely to be running older or outdated software. Consumers are also likely to keep their computers much longer than a business, making their hardware older as well. The way these flaws work, older hardware generally sees a greater slowdown when the security patches are applied. 

Additionally, the small businesses that consumers interact with may also be running “legacy” hardware or software. These businesses may not be able to afford the high cost of additional servers to offset the speed loss from the patches or of entirely replacing old systems. This difficult choice for small businesses could mean that some decide against applying patches – with potentially severe consequences for consumers’ data security.  

Google has taken preemptive steps to protect consumers, but it also warned that as a result of these security measures, “some users may notice slower performance with some apps and games.” Apple, conversely, has offered software patches but left other security measures as an “opt-in” for consumers.  

So, while consumers may not face the same type of risk as businesses, they do face a lot of challenges when it comes to addressing these exploits. Consumers already live in heightened threat environment, filled with phishing emails and computer viruses. They shouldn’t have to choose between the security of their data or the performance of their computers.  

To learn more about these issues and the best way to protect yourself, you can find NCL’s white paper here.

NCL applauds FTC action to reign in deceptive marketing in the wireless industry

November 5, 2019

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—Today, the National Consumers League, the nation’s pioneering consumer and worker advocacy organization applauded the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for its successful investigation and settlement with AT&T after the wireless provider misled millions of its customers. In 2014, the FTC found that AT&T had secretly slowed down or “throttled” consumers’ Internet speeds on their supposedly “unlimited” plans and then charged consumers early termination fees if they wanted to switch providers to receive better service. As a result of thsettlement, AT&T will create a $60 million dollar settlement fund that will be paid out to current and former users of AT&T’s “unlimited” plan. 

The following statement is attributable to Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League: 

“When consumers are promised unlimited data, they should receive unlimited data. AT&T’s policy of slowing down consumers data, to the point where they could no longer stream videos after using as little as two gigabits of data, is a classic example of bait and switch. NCL applauds the FTC’s efforts to protect consumers from false advertising and unscrupulous business practices in the wireless industry. NCL looks forward to seeing the FTC take additional steps to ensure that the marketplace remains fair and honest for all consumers.”

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

National Consumers League: Computer chip defects force nearly all consumers to choose between speed and security

October 24, 2019

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

New NCL #DataInsecurity report details threat these flaws pose to consumers—both in terms of the security of their data and the performance of their computers—and how they can protect themselves in the future

Washington, DC—A new report released today by the National Consumers League details how consumers have been impacted by a series of processor exploits announced over the last 22 months that leave nearly every computer and server from the past two decades vulnerable to hacking. With sensitive data at risk, patches have been issued that better secure computers and servers. However, these temporary fixes can result in significant performance problems.

The report, “Data Insecurity: How One of the Worst Computer Defects Ever Sacrificed Security for Speed,” is part of NCL’s #DataInsecurity Project. Timed to coincide with National Cybersecurity Awareness Month, the report is an opportunity to remind consumers about the importance of being safe and secure when online. The report discusses the threat these processor flaws pose to consumers—both in terms of the security of their data and the performance of their computer after the necessary security patches are applied—and how they can protect themselves in the future.

“This paper is a part of NCL’s mission to empower individuals to protect themselves from companies that put their data at risk,” said John Breyault, NCL vice president, public policy, telecommunications and fraud. “The scope and severity of these chip flaws is alarming, undermining both the security and speed of computers. Nearly two years after the flaws first made headlines, it is likely that consumers are still not fully aware of the risks they face if they do not protect themselves.”

The report details seven publicly disclosed exploits, known as “Spectre,” “Meltdown,” “Foreshadow,” “Zombieload,” “RIDL,” “Fallout,” and “SWAPGS,” that take advantage of the flaws found in CPUs manufactured by AMD, ARM, and Intel. While Spectre affects all three major chip manufacturers, all six subsequent exploits largely affect only Intel processors.

The exploits have been discovered on an ongoing basis for nearly two years, with the most recent one found in August 2019. The flaws are a result of a process called speculative execution, a functionality created in the 1990s that allows a processor to predict a user’s next action and perform it in advance, thereby reducing delays and increasing the speed of a computer. Because the flaws are foundational to how a CPU’s hardware is built, each patch is only temporary until the next exploit is discovered. Due to the nature of these flaws, the exploits that take advantage of them may not be traceable.

“Consumers are being forced to choose between the security of their data and the computer speed they were promised,” said Breyault. “We recommend consumers prioritize security, though unfortunately, it comes at a financial and performance cost.” 

The report concludes that the best protection for consumers is to buy a new computer that has a CPU with hardware-level security fixes or is immune from some of the exploits. Unfortunately, the NCL report acknowledges that this may not be practical for many consumers. Therefore, consumers are advised to perform frequent software updates. NCL is also strongly supporting data security bills such as the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017 that would require companies to take preventative steps to defend against cyberattacks and data breaches and to provide consumers with notice and appropriate protection when a data breach occurs.

The full report can be found here.

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

Computer chip defects force consumers to choose between speed and security

October is National Cybersecurity Awareness Month! Since the first observation of this month 15 years ago, the world has gone from about 800 million Internet users to approximately 4.5 billion. Over that same period of time, there has been an extensive amount of time and energy dedicated to improving cybersecurity and cyber hygiene.

Sadly, despite those good faith efforts, it does not appear that consumers have become safer. In fact, it is clear by now that most individuals have, in one way or another, been affected by some sort of hack or data breach—either on a personal computer or through a company that they have entrusted with their sensitive information.

To make matters worse, beyond the heightened cyber threat environment that exists today, a new hardware-based vulnerability found in almost every processor in the world has recently emerged, and it is making it increasingly difficult for consumers to keep their data protected.

A new report released by the National Consumers League’s #DataInsecurity Project, “Data Insecurity: How One of the Worst Computer Defects Ever Sacrificed Security for Speed,” discusses the threat these processor flaws pose to consumers—both in terms of the security of their data and the performance of their computer after security patches are applied—and how they can protect themselves in the future.

The report details seven publicly disclosed exploits, known as “Spectre,” “Meltdown,” “Foreshadow,” “Zombieload,” “RIDL,” “Fallout,” and “SWAPGS,” that take advantage of the flaws found in CPUs manufactured by AMD, ARM, and Intel. While Spectre affects all three major chip manufacturers, all six subsequent exploits largely affect only Intel processors.

The exploits, in short, can allow a hacker to obtain unauthorized access to privileged information. And while patches have been released alongside each exploit, they have led to a decrease in computer speed and performance—as much as 40 percent according to some reports. In addition, the patch is only good until the next exploit is discovered.

The flaws create a real challenge for consumers: apply each temporary “fix” as new exploits are discovered and risk slowing down your device, or don’t and put your sensitive information at risk. And consumers who apply patches remain at the mercy of companies that hold their sensitive data and are faced with a similar dilemma, particularly as they must consider the expenses of implementing these fixes—including costs to add computing power lost by each patch.

The report concludes that the best protection for consumers is to buy a new computer that has a CPU with hardware-level security fixes or is immune from some of the exploits. Unfortunately, this is not practical for many consumers. Therefore, consumers are advised to perform frequent software updates. NCL is also strongly supporting data security bills, such as the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017, which would require companies to take preventative steps to defend against cyberattacks and data breaches and to provide consumers with notice and appropriate protection when a data breach occurs.

As we mark this year’s National Cybersecurity Awareness Month, we should certainly celebrate the progress that we have made. We cannot lose sight, however, of the need to better secure our information and systems moving forward. Awareness and smart data hygiene by consumers is one part. Companies must do their part to secure our information as well.

If you are interested in learning more, you can find NCL’s latest report here.

Protecting information privacy: challenges and opportunities in federal legislation

Polly Turner-Ward

By NCL Google Public Policy Fellow Pollyanna Turner-Ward

On September 11, 2019, policymakers, industry stakeholders, and consumer advocates gathered at The Brookings Institution to discuss the pressing question of how to protect information privacy through federal legislation. Representing the National Consumers League was Executive Director, Sally Greenberg.

How did we get here? 

To set the scene, panelists first discussed why there is consensus on the need for federal legislation to address privacy and data security. The Snowden revelations showed consumers how much of their data is out there, and they began to question whether companies could be trusted to keep their data safe from the government. More recently, in light of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and increasing instances of identity theft and fraud resulting from data breaches, consumers have begun to question whether companies themselves can be trusted with their data. 

Businesses are worried about lack of consumer trust interfering with their adoption of digital products and services. For instance, parental refusal to provide consent to the collection and use of data regarding their kid’s academic performance prevents the personalization of their children’s learning experience. By providing individuals with greater privacy protections, businesses hope that individual participation in the digital economy will increase. 

In response to consumer privacy concerns, a patchwork of state bills on privacy and data security are also popping up. Business claims to be overwhelmed by the idea of complying with these differing regulatory schemes, especially in light of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has already moved many organizations to comply with privacy and data security rules. To support businesses and to regain U.S. privacy leadership, greater international operability is necessary.  

What should federal legislation look like? 

Each panelist set forth their idea of what federal legislation should aim to achieve. Intel drafted a privacy bill which includes various protections but which lacks a private right of action – that is, the ability to take wrongdoers to court if they violate privacy laws. If companies promise not to use your information in certain ways and then do it anyway, in violation of law, you should have the right to take them to courtNCL’s Sally Greenberg directed audience members towards the Public Interest Privacy Principles signed by thirty-four consumer advocacy and civil rights organizations. Advocating in favor of strong protections, strong enforcement, and preemption, and highlighting the importance of “baking data privacy into products and services”, she offered NCL’s vision of a strong, agile and adaptive national standard 

Panelists drew comparisons between this approach and that of the EU’s GDPR, but criticized the time-consuming and resource intensive nature of that legislation. They agreed that U.S. legislation should avoid being too prescriptive in the details. Rather than requiring documentation of policies, practices, and data flow maps, legislation should focus on high-level issues. 

Breaking down these issues according to consensus and complexity, Cameron F. Kelly listed covered information, de-identification, data security, state enforcement, accountability, and FTC authority as solvable issues. Implementation issues, he said, include notice and transparency and individual rights (access, portability, right to object to processing, deletion, nondiscrimination). However, Mr. Kelly noted that disagreement clouds a number of complex issues. These relate to algorithmic transparency, algorithmic fairness, and data processing limitations (use restrictions). Until consensus is reached in these areas, disagreements about preemption and private right of action are unlikely to be resolvable.  

Notice and Transparency  

While notice and transparency are important aspects of a comprehensive approach towards privacy and data security, it is difficult for consumers to process the volume of information contained in privacy policies. Consumers also often have little choice but to “agree” to services that are essential to everyday life. As such, legislators may wish to explore the extent to which a company may force an individual to waive their privacy rights as a condition of service. Consent should only have a limited role in relation to sensitive data uses, and companies should focus on designing user interfaces to enable meaningful consumer consent. Panelists criticized the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) for its lack of detail and for putting the burden on individuals to protect themselves. It was agreed that federal standards should move beyond notice-and-consent and put the burden back on businesses. 

De-identification  

One panelist called de-identification the “secret sauce” to privacy. Preserving the utility of data while removing identification puts the focus on data processing harms. It is important to get de-identification right for valuable research purposes. However, de-identification is often not done well and confusion lurks around pseudonymizationThis technique involves replacing personally identifiable information fields within a data record with artificial identifiers. As data remains identifiable using that technique, data security and privacy risks remain. Companies must be incentivized to effectively de-identify data, to not re-identify, and to contractually restrict downstream users from doing the same. To avoid conflating data security levels with pseudonymization levels, a universal and adaptable de-identification standard must be developed.  

Data security  

Because data security is critical to privacy, panelists agreed that it is the foundation upon which privacy legislation should be built. Panelists warned against an overly prescriptive approach towards data security but suggested that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should offer more guidance. “Reasonable” data security depends upon the nature and scope of data collection and use. This affords organizations flexibility when adopting measures that make sense in terms of information sensitivity, context, and risk of harm. 

However, determining data security standards according to the risk of privacy harm is difficult because “risk of privacy harm” is an unsettled and controversial concept. It was also debated whether “information sensitivity” should be used to determine the reasonableness of data security standards. Public Knowledge argued that all data should be protected in the same way because the distinction between sensitive and non-sensitive data is increasingly questionable. When data is aggregated and sophisticated technologies such as machine learning are applied, each and every data point can lead back to an identifiable person 

While use of off-the-shelf software should generally be considered reasonable, higher standards should apply to companies that are more aggressive in their data collection and use. Extending to third party processors and service providers, organizations must continually develop physical, technical, and legal safeguards. To ensure robust infrastructure to secure their data, they should run tests, impact assessments, and put resources towards data mapping.  

Data processing limitations 

In sectors ranging from education to healthcare, the use of data undoubtedly has the potential to help us solve many societal problemsHowever, data use is pervasive, and new and unpredictably bad outcomes are also possible. Consumers want data to be used in ways that benefit them, for data not to be used in ways that harm them, and for their data to be protected. However, information collection and sharing is largely unboundedIf Congress wishes to move beyond a notice-and-consent model and put the burden back on organizations that handle data, then the boundaries of how data should be collected, retained, used, and shared must be confronted. Without limitations, the high value of data will continue to incentivize organizations to collect and retain data for the sake of it. These practices increase cybersecurity and privacy risks on unforeseen levels.  

Calling out data brokers, Intel’s David Hoffman stated that databases containing lists of rape victims are simply “unacceptable.” However, transfer restrictions are likely to be one of the hardest areas to reach consensus on. Use restrictions, which relate to what organizations can and cannot do with data at a granular level, may be approached by creating presumptively allowed and presumptively prohibited lists. Use and sharing could be presumptively allowed for responsible advertising, legal process and compliance, data security and safety, authentication, product recalls, research purposes, and the fulfillment of product and service requests. Meanwhile, use of data for eligibility determinations, committing fraud or stalking, or for unreasonable practices could be presumptively prohibited. 

However, it is difficult to determine the standards by which a particular data use should be “greenlighted” or “redlighted.” To determine if a data use is for a purpose related to that which a user originally shared data, factors may be considered such as whether the use is primary or secondary, how far down the chain of vendors processing occurs, and whether the processor has a direct or indirect relationship with the data subject. The FTC has done work to articulate “unreasonable” data processing and sharing, and the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Consumer Bill of Rights emphasizes respect for context (user expectations) by laying out applicable factors such as consumer privacy risk and information sensitivity.  

However, context is difficult to operationalizeOne option may be to grant the FTC rulemaking authority to determine issues such as which data uses are per se unfair, or which information is sensitive. The deception and unfairness standard has guided the FTC for decades. However, panelists were concerned about giving the FTC a blank check to use the abusiveness standard to deal with data abuses. Instead, the FTC could be given a clear set of instructions in the form of FTC guidance, legislative preamble, or written in detail in the legislation. If this approach is taken, it would be necessary to confront the difficult question of what harm legislation should seek to address. Because privacy injury is not clear or quantifiable, it is difficult to agree on the appropriate harm standard. A specific list of the types of injury – not an exhaustive list – resulting from data processing would give the harm standard substance, and algorithmic data processing ought to be directly confronted.  

Because the purpose of data analysis is to draw differences and to make distinctionsthe privacy debate cannot be separated from the discrimination debate. Intent to engage in prohibited discrimination is difficult to prove, especially with use of proxiesFor instance, rather than directly using a protected characteristic such as racial heritage as a proxy to offer payday loans, an algorithm could use zip code or music taste as a proxy for race in order to decide who to advertise payday loans to. To provide clarity and to promote algorithmic fairness, existing discrimination laws could be augmented with privacy legislation by defining unfair discrimination according to disparate impact on protected classes (disadvantaged groups). Privacy legislation should ensure that data use does not contribute to prohibited discrimination by requiring risk assessments and outcome monitoring.  

To increase consumer trust and to provide them with recourse when they suspect that they are the victims of unfair discrimination, legislation should directly confront algorithmic transparency and burden of proof. Consumers cannot be expected to understand the mechanisms that determine what advertisements they are presented with or how automatic decisions are made about them. However, organizations should not be able to escape liability by claiming that they do not have access to the data or algorithm necessary to prove discrimination claims.  

Enforcement 

Panelists agreed that State Attorney Generals need to be able to enforce the law and that the FTC requires increased resources and enforcement powers. As Congress cannot anticipate every possible scenario, it is appropriate to give the FTC narrow rulemaking authority, the authority to fine for first offences, to be able to approve codes of conduct, and to clarify guidance on how to comply with the law on issues such as de-identification. The FTC needs vastly more resources to be able to accomplish this oversight and enforcement role. The jury is out as to whether Congress will pony up.  

Sally Greenberg described the importance of also including an option for private parties to bring classaction suits. However, there was disagreement between panelists about whether individuals should be able to privately enforce their rights where the government lacks the resources or will to act. David Hoffman highlighted evidentiary problems associated with the difficulty in proving privacy harms. To better serve the public, he argued in favor of the creation of a uniform standard with strong protections.  

Preemption of state laws  

The objective of creating a consistent federal standard was emphasized as a key driving factor for industry for the creation of a federal bill. Not including preemption of state law is a kind of dealbreaker for industry. They claim that complying with a patchwork of fifty different data breach notification standards is hard today. It was suggested that states could be given a window of five years with no preemption to allow them to adapt and innovate, after which time the situation could be reviewed. Or the reverse – preempt for five years and sunset the federal law. These suggestions both have merit, but in the end, answering the questions of preemption and private right of action remain to be seen.

Consumer groups applaud congressional action to improve live event ticketing marketplace

September 20, 2019

Media contact: National Consumers League – Carol McKay, carolm@nclnet.org, (412) 945-3242 or Taun Sterling, tauns@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC—Today, the National Consumers League (NCL), along with seven other leading consumer and public interest groups, sent a letter to Congressmen Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) and Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to applaud the lawmakers’ leadership in fixing the opaque live event industry by reintroducing the Better Oversight of Secondary Sales and Accountability in Concert Ticketing Act of 2019 (BOSS ACT). 

The following statement is attributable to Brian Young, public policy manager at the National Consumers League: 

Unchecked consolidation in the live event industry has led to an opaque ticket marketplace that is rigged against consumers. In addition to undisclosed holdbacks designed to create a false sense of ticket scarcityconsumers are forced to grapple with a litany of fake websites which pose as legitimate box offices, and ridiculous fees that increase the cost of a ticket by an average of 27-31 percent. These outrageous fees typically prevent comparison shopping as they are often not disclosed until near the end of the purchase process. Likewise, despite the passage of legislation in 2016 which banned the use of ticketbuying BOTS, consumers have witnessed an increase of illegal ticket-buying bot usage of nearly 17 percent.  Fortunately, Congressman Bill Pascrell, Congressman Frank Pallone, and Senator Richard Blumenthal are working to bring transparency and competition back into the live event ticket marketplace. Today’s letter from 8 leading consumer advocacy groups applauds their efforts.” 

To add transparency to the live event ticketing marketplace and empower consumers to make informed purchasing decisions, the BOSS ACT would: 

  • Prevent primary and secondary ticket marketplaces from slamming consumers with hidden fees during checkout process; 
  • Prohibit scalpers from impersonating venues’ and teams’ websites to charge higher prices for less-desirable seats; 
  • Require primary ticket sellers to be honest about the number of tickets they plan on selling; and
  • Require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to identify ways to improve enforcement against illegal ticket-buying bots. 

To read the full letter, and learn more about the BOSS ACT, click here. 

###

About the National Consumers League

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.