September, 01 2009, 12:17pm EDT

Washington, D.C.: Consumer And Privacy Groups Urge Congress to Enact Consumer Privacy Guarantees
WASHINGTON
A coalition of ten consumer and privacy
advocacy organizations today called on Congress to enact legislation to
protect consumer privacy in response to threats from the growing
practices of online behavioral tracking and targeting.
"Developments
in the digital age urgently require the application of Fair Information
Practices to new business practices," the groups said. "Today, electronic information from consumers is collected, compiled, and sold; all done without reasonable safeguards."
The groups noted that for the past four
decades the foundation of U.S. privacy policies has been based on Fair
Information Practices: collection limitation, data quality, purpose
specification, use limitation, security safeguards, openness,
individual participation, and accountability. They called on Congress
to apply those principles in legislation to protect consumer
information and privacy.
Behavioral advertising, where a user's
online activity is tracked so that ads can be served based on the
user's behavior, was cited as a particular concern: "Tracking people's
every move online is an invasion of privacy. Online behavioral tracking
is even more distressing when consumers aren't aware who is tracking
them, that it's happening, or how the information will be used. Often
consumers are not asked for their consent and have no meaningful
control over the collection and use of their information, often by
third parties with which they have no relationships."
The coalition outlined its concerns and
recommended principles for consumer information privacy legislation in
letters sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, its
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection and
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet.
Read the Principles here: https://www.uspirg.org/privacy-legislative-primer
Read a copy of the letters here: https://www.uspirg.org/Waxman-letter
https://www.uspirg.org/Boucher-letter
https://www.uspirg.org/Rush-letter
Read the two page overview here: https://www.uspirg.org/privacy2pgr
"Consumers must have their privacy
protected as they conduct business and personal matters online,"
explained Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital
Democracy. "Ensuring that our financial, health, and household
transactions have adequate safeguards must be a top Congressional
priority."
Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.) has
indicated that the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the
Internet will consider consumer privacy legislation this fall. Hearings
were held this summer.
"The rise of behavioral tracking has
made it possible for consumer information to be almost invisibly
tracked, complied and potentially misused on or offline. It's critical
that government enact strong privacy regulations whose protections will
remain with consumers as they interact on their home computer, cell
phones, PDAs or even at the store down the street. Clear rules will
help consumers understand how their information is used, obtained and
tracked," said Amina Fazlullah of U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
"In the event of abuse of consumer information, this legislation could
provide consumers a clear pathway for assistance from government
agencies or redress in the courts."
"Respect for human dignity is at the
core of our concerns, but we are also worried that online behavioral
tracking can be used to target vulnerable consumers for high-price
loans, bogus health cures and other potentially harmful products and
services," said Susan Grant, director of Consumer Protection at
Consumer Federation of America.
"Technological advances have made it
far too easy to surreptitiously track individuals online," said Melissa
Ngo of Privacy Lives. "Congress needs to step in and enact legislation
that will protect consumer privacy rights no matter what technology is
used to collect their data."
"When a consumer goes
online, they expect that the information collected from the pages they
visit will be kept private from companies trolling the Web looking for
personal information," said Joel Kelsey, of Consumers Union. "We are
setting a very dangerous precedent for American families if we allow
advertisers and Internet companies to monitor our every click and
analyze our every Web stroke, just to sell our information off without
our knowledge."
"Limiting
commercial tracking of our online activities may also help protect
privacy against the government, which often gets information about us
from private companies," said Lee Tien, of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation.
"Behavioral ad technology represents
the cutting edge of insidious surveillance. It is essential that
national policy puts privacy first so that consumers can fully
participate online without fear of unfair data collection and use,"
said Evan Hendricks, editor of Privacy Times.
So far the online industry has argued
that self-regulation provides adequate consumer protection. The
coalition said formal regulation is necessary.
"The record is clear: industry
self-regulation doesn't work," said Beth Givens, Director of the
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse "It is time for Congress to step in and
codify the principles into law."
"We've seen in industry after industry
what happens when the fox is left to guard the chicken coop --
consumers lose," said John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog.
"Regulations that can be enforced to hold the industry accountable are
essential."
Among the main points that the coalition said should be included in consumer privacy legislation:
- Sensitive information should not be collected or used for behavioral tracking or targeting.
- No behavioral data should be collected or used from anyone under age 18 to the extent that age can be inferred.
- Web
sites and ad networks shouldn't be able to collect or use behavioral
data for more than 24 hours without getting the individual's
affirmative consent. - Behavioral
data shouldn't be used to unfairly discriminate against people or in
any way that would affect an individual's credit, education,
employment, insurance, or access to government benefits.
About the members of the coalition:
Center for Digital Democracy:
The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) is dedicated to ensuring that
the public interest is a fundamental part of the new digital
communications landscape. URL: https://www.democraticmedia.org
Consumer Federation of America: Since 1968, the
Consumer Federation of America (CFA) has provided consumers a
well-reasoned and articulate voice in decisions that affect their
lives. URL: https://www.consumerfed.org
Consumers Union: Consumers Union is a nonprofit
membership organization chartered in 1936 to provide consumers with
information, education and counsel about goods, services, health, and
personal finance. URL: https://www.consumersunion.org
Consumer Watchdog: Consumer Watchdog (formerly The
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights) is a consumer group that
has been fighting corrupt corporations and crooked politicians since
1985. URL: https://www.consumerwatchdog.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation:
When freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense. URL: https://www.eff.org
Privacy Lives: Published by Melissa Ngo, the
Website chronicles and analyzes attacks on privacy and various defenses
against them to show that privacy lives on, despite the onslaught. URL:
https://www.privacylives.com
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: The Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse is a consumer organization with a two-part mission: To
raise consumer awareness about privacy and to advocate for privacy
rights in policy proceedings. URL: https://www.privacyrights.org
Privacy Times:
Since 1981, Privacy Times has provided its readers with accurate
reporting, objective analysis and thoughtful insight into the events
that shape the ongoing debate over privacy and Freedom of Information.
URL: https://www.privacytimes.com
U.S. Public Interest Research Group:
The federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) stands
up to powerful special interests on behalf of the public, working to
win concrete results for our health and our well-being. URL: https://www.uspirg.org
The World Privacy Forum:
WPF is focused on conducting in-depth research, analysis, and consumer
education in the area of privacy. Areas of focus include health care,
technology, and the financial sector. URL: https://www.worldprivacyforum.org
U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students in state capitols across the country, we take on the special interests on issues, such as product safety,political corruption, prescription drugs and voting rights,where these interests stand in the way of reform and progress.
LATEST NEWS
Maduro Vows Venezuela Will Be a 'Colony Never Again' as Trump Intensifies Threats
He has described President Donald Trump's push for regime change as a "colonial threat" to "seize" Venezuela's oil.
Dec 02, 2025
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro remained defiant on Monday as US President Donald Trump plotted "next steps" against the South American nation with top national security brass.
Before thousands of Venezuelans at a rally in Caracas, the nation’s embattled president said he would not accept peace on US terms unless it came “with sovereignty, equality, and freedom.”
“We do not want a slave’s peace, nor the peace of colonies! Colony, never! Slaves, never!” he said.
The speech came days after Trump announced that the US would close Venezuelan airspace, which many interpreted as a final step before a series of strikes on the mainland.
The US has framed its military buildup in the Southern Caribbean as part of a campaign to stop drug smuggling, the same justification it has used to carry out the extrajudicial bombings of more than 20 boats in the region—which have killed at least 83 people—while disclosing zero proof of the victims' involvement with drug trafficking.
Trump has also accused Maduro of being the leader of the so-called "Cartel de los Soles," which he slapped with the label of “Foreign Terrorist Organization” last month, even though it is not an "organization" at all, but a media shorthand to refer to alleged connections between Venezuelan leaders and the drug trade.
Meanwhile, both US and international assessments have found that Venezuela is but a minor player in the global drug trade.
The US has amassed more than 15,000 troops outside Venezuela, the most it's sent to the region since 1989, when the administration of former President George H.W. Bush launched a land invasion of Panama to overthrow its drug-running dictator Manuel Noriega. Documents obtained by The Intercept last week suggested that the US seeks to maintain "a massive military presence in the Caribbean" for years to come.
"By a factor of at least 10, the US presence is too great for even an intensified anti-drug operation," wrote US national editor Edward Luce in the Financial Times on Tuesday.
Trump's motive for stopping drug trafficking was further called into question after he pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, a onetime US ally who was sentenced last year to 45 years in prison for helping to traffic at least 400 tons of cocaine to the US. The pardon was issued as part of Trump's efforts to influence Honduras' upcoming election to secure the victory of right-wing candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura.
The goal of regime change was essentially confirmed on Monday when Reuters reported that Trump had offered Maduro safe passage out of Venezuela if he were willing to abdicate power during a phone call on November 21.
“You can save yourself and those closest to you, but you must leave the country now,” Trump reportedly told Maduro.
Maduro reportedly said he'd be willing to accept the offer if his family members were granted complete amnesty and the US removed sanctions against them, as well as over 100 other Venezuelan officials. He also asked for the case against him before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to be dropped.
Trump rejected that deal, and his offer of safe passage expired on Friday, the day before the US announced it had closed Venezuelan airspace. Trump confirmed to the press on Sunday that the talks had happened, but provided few additional details.
Maduro has categorically denied involvement with drug trafficking and has portrayed the White House's sabre-rattling as a "colonial threat." Last week, while brandishing the sword of South American anticolonial hero Simón Bolívar, he pledged that Venezuela would be a "colony never again."
On Sunday, he accused Trump of trying to "seize" the nation's oil reserves. He has called for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to step in to help the country counter what he said were “growing and illegal threats” from Trump.
Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves—about a fifth of the Earth’s total, and more than Iraq had at the time of the George W. Bush administration's 2003 invasion. However, US sanctions against Venezuela largely block American oil companies from accessing the reserves, which are controlled by the nation’s state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela. These sanctions, which have limited Venezuela's ability to export its most valuable natural resource, are considered one of the primary reasons for the nation's economic instability in recent years.
While at a rally in 2023, Trump said he regretted not having "taken [Venezuela] over" during his first term. "We would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door,” he said.
"We’ve seen this tragic play before," wrote Richard Steiner, a former marine professor with the University of Alaska, this weekend in Common Dreams. "The Bush administration justified its disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq with the pretext that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which, as it turned out, it didn’t. And as US Central Command commander General John Abizaid admitted about the Iraq war at the time: 'Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that.'"
"A similar pretext—this time 'drug interdiction'—is being used to justify a potential US invasion and regime change in Venezuela," he continued. "But this is not about stopping the flow of dangerous drugs, it is about actually increasing the flow of the dangerous drug some pushers want to keep us all hooked on—oil."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘We Must Stop Tinkering Around the Edges’: Van Hollen Makes Case for Medicare for All Amid ACA Fight
"Yes, let's extend the ACA tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen. "Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits."
Dec 02, 2025
Democratic US Sen. Chris Van Hollen on Monday became the latest lawmaker to champion Medicare for All as the best solution to the country's healthcare woes as tens of millions of Americans face soaring private insurance premiums.
In a social media post, Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that "we must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system," pointing to massive administrative costs and poor health outcomes under the for-profit status quo.
"Yes, let's extend the [Affordable Care Act] tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions," said Van Hollen. "Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits. We need Medicare for All."
We must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system.
Yes, let's extend the ACA tax credits to prevent a huge spike in healthcare costs for millions. Then, let's finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits.
We need Medicare for All. pic.twitter.com/lszdO1vw2u
— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) December 1, 2025
Van Hollen's remarks came as lawmakers continued to negotiate a possible deal to extend enhanced ACA subsidies that are set to lapse at the end of the year, an outcome that would further drive up healthcare costs for millions.
Politico reported late Monday that most senators "believe the chances for a bipartisan breakthrough" before a planned vote next week "are roughly zero."
"Instead, the most likely outcome is that Senate Democrats put up a bill that has little GOP support for a vote, if any, while Republicans offer a competing bill of their own," the outlet noted. "And even those partisan proposals remained in flux as lawmakers returned to Washington from a weeklong recess."
Neither side of the negotiations is offering much more than a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. Democratic leaders want a clean extension of the subsidies to avert catastrophic cost increases, while President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers are demanding new restrictions on the ACA that would make the system worse.
A handful of progressive lawmakers have used the worsening US healthcare crisis to make the case for a fundamental overhaul, one that would replace the for-profit model with a Medicare for All system that guarantees coverage to everyone for free at the point of service—and at a lower overall cost than the current system.
Van Hollen is the newest Senate cosponsor of the Medicare for All Act, formally backing the legislation led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) just last month.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act in the House, expressed "100%" agreement with Van Hollen's Monday post.
"Thank you, Chris Van Hollen!" Jayapal wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Furious Backlash' Inside Pentagon as Hegseth Seeks to Avoid Blame for Deadly War Crimes
"This is murder," said one legal expert.
Dec 02, 2025
Finger-pointing has reportedly begun inside the Pentagon as the Trump White House has tried to shield US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from taking the blame for a double-tap strike on a purported narcotics smuggling vessel that many legal experts say was an obvious war crime.
According to the Washington Post, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt set off "a furious backlash within the Defense Department" on Monday after she declared that Adm. Frank Bradley, not Hegseth, made the decision to launch a second strike to kill two men who had survived an initial strike on a purported drug boat off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago on September 2.
One defense official told the Post that Leavitt's statement was "'protect Pete' bullshit," while another said that the administration appeared to be "throwing us, the service members, under the bus."
Hegseth on Monday praised Bradley in a post on X as "a true professional" who "has my 100% support." However, Hegseth also appeared to make clear that Bradley was the person in the chain of command who made the final decision to authorize a second strike on the survivors.
"I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made—on the September 2 mission and all others since," Hegseth wrote.
Even Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume found Hegseth's praise for Bradley to be disingenuous, and he described it as "how to point the finger at someone while pretending to support him."
Bradley is set to give members of Congress a classified briefing on the strikes on Thursday amid bipartisan demands for more information.
The question of who authorized the second strike on the boat is crucial in determining who would face potential future war crimes charges. Earlier reporting from the Washington Post claimed that Hegseth gave a spoken order to "kill everybody" in the boat strikes, which was then interpreted as a justification for launching a second strike on the survivors.
Rachel VanLandingham, a military expert at Southwestern Law School, told Al-Jazeera that, regardless of who authorized the strike, it was clearly illegal.
"That second strike against individuals who are shipwrecked, clinging desperately to the side of their boat wreckage—that’s a war crime," she said. "It’s a war crime because those individuals who are shipwrecked have protected status under the law unless they were, for example, shooting a gun at somebody."
Todd Huntley, a former Staff Judge Advocate who served as a legal adviser on drone strikes carried out in Afghanistan and other nations by Joint Special Operations task forces, told The Intercept he had no doubt that the second strike on the survivors was a prosecutable offense under either federal law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
"This is about as clear of a case being patently illegal that subordinates would probably not be able to successfully use a following-orders defense," he explained.
Rebecca Ingber, professor at Cardozo Law School, told Time that authorizing the second strike violated "one of the most basic and longstanding rules" of the laws of armed conflict.
"It is absolutely unlawful to order that there will be no survivors,” she explained. "There is no actual armed conflict here, so this is murder."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


