Continuing the theme, we are making it more complicated than it is . . . . The Internet Privacy Bill proposed by Representative Boucher is more complicated than it has to be.
If Facebook affiliates, ad networks, or other 3rd parties offer value to consumers by sharing their personally identifiable data, then why wouldn’t they disclose the benefits to the consumer and ask for their consent! The very fact they want to avoid asking for consent implies that there is no benefit to the consumer. Why would the government encourage this or grant this freedom? Furthermore, there is no downside to the ad networks. If the individual does not want to consent, the ad network still has the anonymous data with which they can target ads to be relevant to the interests of the general audience on a website or its webpage. What is the difference between this ad and an ad targeted to an individual? And what advertiser can afford to pay to personalize each ad? I highly doubt there is data to prove the additional investment and impact on the intended target delivers ROI. In fact, I think most consumers consider it creepy at this stage in the communication process that a website knows enough about them to push a personalized message when they have never shared information with that site. In other words, requiring an ad network to ask for consent will not hamper their freedom of commerce one bit and may even improve their performance!
But this bill allows websites to share personalized data with affiliate
3rd parties unless or until consumers “opt-out”.