Posts Tagged legislation
Privacy Groups Lobby Congress to Limit Behavioral Targeting
A coalition of ten privacy groups have launched an effort to lobby Congress for new legislation which would limit how web sites and ad networks can collect personal data and browsing habits to target advertising to those users. It is argued that in many cases consumers don’t even realize they are being tracked, and these groups hope its efforts will give consumers more control over their own online lives.
The procedure — which has become increasingly more popular as of late — is drawing increasing criticism as its detractors see it as a breach of privacy. However, advertisers in efforts to improve their results see it as an effective way to ensure their ads are seen by the right eyes.
In a list of recommendations to legislators, the groups said that Congress should mandate an opt-in policy that all sites using the practice must offer users within 24 hours of collecting their first bits of information. Additionally, they want to limit the types of data that can be collected, barring information on race, sexual orientation, finances, or personal health.
If possible to discern the age of the Web user, information collection for those under 18 would be illegal according to the group’s recommendations. If a user wants to opt-out of all behavioral targeting, they should be able to under something akin to the do-not-call list.
Not everybody’s buying the need for such legislation, with at least one industry executive saying it could do a lot of damage.
“Financial services and pharma/health are two of the leading categories for online advertising; the youth demographic is highly attractive to many advertisers, and limiting behavioral targeting to one day without an opt in severely restricts the usefulness of the data,” Lightspeed Venture Partners managing director Jeremy Liew argued.
I do think that some type of regulation on behavioral targeting is needed. I do also think it’s only fair that we know when (and what) we’re being tracked. However, I can see the point that too far-reaching legislation could potentially be harmful, especially to the advertising industry.
Hey, many websites (including this one) are funded by advertising. So, it’s in our interest to keep those advertisers around.
I think BusinessWeek’s Rob Hof says it best:
The key will be coming up with a workable mechanism for consumers to make this trade more consciously—one that isn’t so intrusive that it impedes use of the Internet. If such a mechanism emerges from the coming battle over privacy legislation, that seems likely to be a good thing for all concerned.
Industry Group Wants Cellphone Tax Repealed
Wireless industry group CTIA said Tuesday that it would throw its support behind legislation aimed at ending a 20-year old tax on the personal use of business-supplied cellular phones. At the time the policy was instituted in 1989, cell phones were a luxury item seldom used because of their prohibitive expense.
Now that cell phones are near-ubiquitous, and on top of that much cheaper to use, the law makes little sense any more. Still, users are required to keep detailed logs of their phone usage to comply with these rules. This is because that law considers personal use of these phones as income, which is then subject to federal taxes.
The IRS is currently collecting comments on the policy, as it considers a repeal. Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Representatives Sam Johnson (R-Texas) and Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) also have introduced legislation which would eliminate the tax.
Under the so-called MOBILE Act, a full repeal would be instituted. The IRS is considering a similar repeal, although logging would still be required. CTIA supports the legislation, urging Congress to act on it this year.
While I can understand the IRS’ desire to list a company-provided cell phone as a luxury item subject to tax — at the same time, the benefit of its use is far less than it was in 1989. 20 years ago, if you had a cell phone, it sure was a benefit.
These days, everybody has one. It’s almost like taxing only a select few for something that everybody else has. Simply put, it has become an unfair tax.
In fact, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman may have put it best when he called for a a repeal of the tax himself: he called it “obsolete.. burdensome, poorly understood by taxpayers, and difficult for the IRS to administer consistently.”
Seems to me that if you have somebody from the IRS itself calling for a policy to go, they would probably know best if its worth the trouble or not, no?
Tools
Recent Comments