Lawmakers Release Information About How Data Brokers Handle Consumers’ Personal Information

Nine major data brokers provide lawmakers with only a partial glimpse of industry controlling information on hundreds of millions of Americans
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas), co-Chairmen of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, today released responses to letters sent to nine major data brokerage companies querying each about how it collects, assembles and sells consumer information to third parties. The companies –Acxiom, Epsilon (Alliance Data Systems), Equifax, Experian, Harte-Hanks, Intelius, Fair Isaac, Merkle, and Meredith Corp. – responded to lawmaker questions about policies and practices related to privacy, transparency and consumer notification. Data brokers represent a multi-billion dollar industry, aggregating information about hundreds of millions of Americans from both online and offline sources, which they then may sell to third parties for targeted advertising and other purposes. Consumers often have little knowledge of the existence of these companies.
Other signatories on the letters include Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.), and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).
“The data brokers’ responses offer only a glimpse of the practices of an industry that has operated in the shadows for years,” said the lawmakers in a joint statement. “Many questions about how these data brokers operate have been left unanswered, particularly how they analyze personal information to categorize and rate consumers. This and other practices could affect the lives of nearly all Americans, including children and teens. We want to work with the data broker industry so that it is more open about how it collects, uses, and sells Americans’ information. Until then, we will continue our efforts to learn more about this industry and will push for whatever steps are necessary to make sure Americans know how this industry operates and are granted control over their own information.”
A copy of the responses to the lawmakers, as well as the original letters, can be found HERE.
Findings from the responses include:

All companies except for one – Acxiom – rejected the categorization of their business practices as data brokerage. One company called itself a “data provider”, while another reported that since it only “analyzes” data, they should not be considered a data broker.
Only one company provided details on the number of consumers who request access to their information – Acxiom reported over the last two years as few as 77 people per year, out of the 190 million consumers it has collected information on, requested access to their personal information. Several other companies do not allow access to consumer data stating that information is not identifiable.
In addition to collecting data about consumers from sources such as telephone directories, mobile phones, government agencies, financial institutions and directly from consumers themselves, several data brokers reported mining consumer information from social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn.
The companies provided little explanation of the distinction between information they collect and use (e.g, a person is female) versus the information they create by analysis for profiling consumers (e.g. young female interested in weight loss sent coupon for a diet pill).

On July 24, 2012, Reps. Edward J. Markey and Joe Barton (R-Rexas) sent letters to nine major data brokerage companies asking how they collect, assemble and sell consumer information to third parties. Other signatories on the letters include Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), Austin Scott (R-Ga.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).
Acxiom
Acxiom response
Epsilon (Alliance Data Systems)
Epsilon response
Equifax
Equifax response
Experian
Experian response
Harte-Hanks
Harte-Hanks response
Intelius
Intelius response Exhibit A Exhibit B
FICO
FICO response
Merkle
Merkle response
Meredith Corp
Meredith Corp response

Open Source Policy Versus the Last Telecom Monopolist by Daniel Berninger

Open Source Policy Versus the Last Telecom Monopolist by Daniel Berninger
Daniel Berninger
Founder, Voice Communication Exchange Committee
The founding of the Voice Communication Exchange Committee (VCXC)
offers a competitive alternative to the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) and the first example of a startup addressing policy
questions. The decision to target the FCC reflects the government
agency’s status as the last monopolist on the telecom landscape and
the failure of other means of policy reform. The number of companies
regulated and the FCC’s funding doubled since the arrival of the
public Internet and VoIP in 1995. VCXC leverages the transition to
all-IP networks to setup an end game for the telecom regulator as the
100th anniversary of the first government intervention into telecom
arrives next year.
The FCC presides over a domestic telecom industry generating almost a
trillion in revenue and employing over a million people. The
relatively tiny FCC budget of $335 million and staff of 2000 indicates
either striking efficiency or a worrisome concentration of power. The
reality seems unlikely to be the former as there exists no company
among the 6000+ obligated to file the FCC Form 499 or public interest
advocate satisfied with the result. This type of performance usually
makes a monopolist irresistible for entrepreneurs, but startups do not
usually target government agencies. A plan for influencing government
usually involves paying a registered lobbyist.
VCXC applies the same means of disrupting the FCC as Linus Torvalds
applied in the case of the Microsoft operating system hegemony.
Publish the starting point for a competitive alternative and issue an
open invitation for incremental contributions. The open source process
benefits from the energies of people and organizations seeking relief
from an oppressive monopolist. Open source initiatives do not always
succeed and may even rarely succeed, but they do tend to advance the
cause of meritocracy. The collective impact of the open source
movement transformed the software business, and VCXC seeks to test the
approach on questions of governance.
The roots of telecom regulation in the US trace to an agreement
between AT&T President Theordore Vail and President Woodrow Wilson as
outlined in a December 19, 1913 letter from AT&T Vice President Nathan
Kingsbury to the Attorney General. The agreement settled an antitrust
complaint against AT&T and made America the exception as every other
country in the world nationalized telephone networks. The Kingsbury
Commitment represents the first example of a theme repeated over and
over in the subsequent 100 years – government policy makers recognize
the importance of communication as an input to economic and political
power and the resulting policy interventions tend to prove counter
productive.
The most successful communication policy also represents something of
an embarrassment and further illustration of the benefits of
non-regulation. The invention of the transistor at AT&T Bell
Laboratories in 1947 and the awarding of a Nobel Prize did not prevent
the Department of Justice from excluding the AT&T monopoly from
pursuing information technology revenue in a 1956 Consent Decree. The
FCC maintained a separation between the transistor driven
communication and information technology industries through the
Computer Inquiries in the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s and through the Telecom
Act of 1996 as well as in rulings such as the Free World Dialup
Decision in 2004.
The nascent information technology industry regulators sought to
protect from the AT&T in 1956 now enjoys equivalent revenue, profits,
and 4x the collective enterprise value of the still heavily regulated
telecom industry. There exist no differences between the worlds of
information and communication technology sufficient to account for the
outcome aside from the relative benefits of regulation and
non-regulation. The expansion of information technology includes a
wholesale takeover of communication via the Internet and creates a
dilemma for the FCC VCXC seeks to exploit. The transition to all-IP
networks makes telecom and information technology indistinguishable.

Election Night 2012 Tweets that Congratulate Barak Obama

One hundred million votes and 31 million Tweets later, Election Day 2012 has come to a close.

Election Night 2012

Tuesday, November 06, 2012

One hundred million votes and 31 million Tweets later, Election Day 2012 has come to a close. As the results of the election were called by news organizations, the conversation about the election on Twitter surged, hitting a peak of 327,452 Tweets per minute (TPM). Before President Obama took the stage to address the nation, he shared a special update on Twitter. As thousands of supporters cheered in Chicago, more than 455,000 (and counting) retweeted his celebratory message:

Four more years. twitter.com/BarackObama/st…
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 7, 2012

While the announcement of results was the biggest moment of the election cycle, there were many other notable Twitter moments tonight:
-327,452 TPM – 11:19pm ET – Networks call Obama’s reelection
-85,273 TPM -11:12pm ET – IA presidential race called
-69,031 TPM – 9:33pm ET – PA and WI presidential races called
-65,106 TPM – 8:03pm ET – Polls close in various states; AP calls races for IL, CT, ME, DC, DE, RI, MD, MA
As international leaders tweeted diplomatic messages directly to @BarackObama, Twitter also provided a glimpse into global politics:

Warm congratulations to my friend @barackobama. Look forward to continuing to work together.
— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) November 7, 2012

Congratulations @barackobama on being elected to a 2nd term. I hope our countries’ relationship continues to go from strength to strength.
— Mohd Najib Tun Razak (@NajibRazak) November 7, 2012

My sincere congratulations to President@barackobama on your re-election! JG
— Julia Gillard (@JuliaGillard) November 7, 2012

Since the campaign cycle unfolded on Twitter, it’s only fitting that for candidates nationwide, the journey also culminated here. After the votes were tallied, the candidates came to Twitter to share their final campaign Tweets. And so we’ll wrap things up by letting them speak for themselves.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I won’t just be your Senator, I will also be your champion. #masen
— Elizabeth Warren (@elizabethforma) November 7, 2012

This is your victory – your hard work, support, & faith made it possible. Thank you so much. I’m honored to have had you by my side.
— Gov. Tim Kaine (@timkaine) November 7, 2012

Thank you to thousands of volunteers who gave their time & talents. I hope you will keep the faith & always stay strong for Freedom!
— George Allen (@georgeallenva) November 7, 2012

Tonight is a testament to the grassroots and each and every one of you who made it all possible #txsen twitter.com/tedcruz/status…
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) November 7, 2012

Reporter: “Was it worth it?” Sadler: “Absolutely it was worth it!” #thankyouTX #TXSen
— Paul Sadler (@SadlerTX) November 7, 2012

And I’m well aware that I will be the first openly gay member of the United States Senate. #Tammy2012 #WIsen
— Tammy Baldwin(@TammyBaldwinWI) November 7, 2012

I didn’t run to make history.I ran to make a difference. #WIsen #Tammy2012
— Tammy Baldwin(@TammyBaldwinWI) November 7, 2012

I spent 14 years serving as governor, and it was an honor. I will continue to be the proudest and loudest advocate for Wisconsin.
— Tommy G. Thompson (@TommyForWI) November 7, 2012

I am thankful for the opportunity to continue to represent the people of #Mississippi in the U.S. Senate! twitter.com/RogerWicker/st…
— Wicker for Senate (@RogerWicker) November 7, 2012

Posted by Adam Sharp (@AdamS)
Head of Government, News, & Social Innovation

http://blog.twitter.com/2012/11/election-night-2012.html

The Permanent Militarization of America

Military-industrial complex in American life. Eisenhower worried that the defense industry’s search for profits would warp foreign policy and, conversely, that too much state control of the private sector would cause economic stagnation.

The Permanent Militarization of America

November 4, 2012 By AARON B. O’CONNELL Annapolis, Md.
IN 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower left office warning of the growing power of the military-industrial complex in American life. Most people know the term the president popularized, but few remember his argument.
In his farewell address, Eisenhower called for a better equilibrium between military and domestic affairs in our economy, politics and culture. He worried that the defense industry’s search for profits would warp foreign policy and, conversely, that too much state control of the private sector would cause economic stagnation. He warned that unending preparations for war were incongruous with the nation’s history. He cautioned that war and warmaking took up too large a proportion of national life, with grave ramifications for our spiritual health.
The military-industrial complex has not emerged in quite the way Eisenhower envisioned. The United States spends an enormous sum on defense — over $700 billion last year, about half of all military spending in the world — but in terms of our total economy, it has steadily declined to less than 5 percent of gross domestic product from 14 percent in 1953. Defense-related research has not produced an ossified garrison state; in fact, it has yielded a host of beneficial technologies, from the Internet to civilian nuclear power to GPS navigation. The United States has an enormous armaments industry, but it has not hampered employment and economic growth. In fact, Congress’s favorite argument against reducing defense spending is the job loss such cuts would entail.
Nor has the private sector infected foreign policy in the way that Eisenhower warned. Foreign policy has become increasingly reliant on military solutions since World War II, but we are a long way from the Marines’ repeated occupations of Haiti, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic in the early 20th century, when commercial interests influenced military action. Of all the criticisms of the 2003 Iraq war, the idea that it was done to somehow magically decrease the cost of oil is the least credible. Though it’s true that mercenaries and contractors have exploited the wars of the past decade, hard decisions about the use of military force are made today much as they were in Eisenhower’s day: by the president, advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council, and then more or less rubber-stamped by Congress. Corporations do not get a vote, at least not yet.
But Eisenhower’s least heeded warning — concerning the spiritual effects of permanent preparations for war — is more important now than ever. Our culture has militarized considerably since Eisenhower’s era, and civilians, not the armed services, have been the principal cause. From lawmakers’ constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,” “Homeland” and “Call of Duty,” to NBC’s shameful and unreal reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas. Of course, veterans should be thanked for serving their country, as should police officers, emergency workers and teachers. But no institution — particularly one financed by the taxpayers — should be immune from thoughtful criticism.
[snip]
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/the-permanent-militarization-of-america.html>