[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80042-80044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31971]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Office of the Secretary

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

International Trade Administration

National Institute of Standards and Technology

[Docket No. 101214614-0614-01]
RIN 0660-XA22


Information Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce; National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce; International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce; National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice and request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force is 
conducting a comprehensive review of the nexus between privacy policy 
and innovation in the Internet economy. On April 23, 2010, the 
Department published a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment from all 
Internet stakeholders on the impact of current privacy laws in the 
United States and around the world on the pace of innovation in the 
information economy. The Department now seeks further comment on its 
report entitled, ``Commercial Data Privacy and Innovation in the 
Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy Framework,'' available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/internetpolicytaskforce/. Through this Notice 
requesting comments on the report, the Department hopes to spur further 
discussion with Internet stakeholders that will lead to the development 
of a series of Administration positions that will help develop an 
action plan in this important area.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by mail to the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 
20230. Submissions may be in any of the following formats: HTML, ASCII, 
Word, rtf, or pdf. Online submissions in electronic form may be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#08787a617e696b716667613a38393848667c6169266c676b266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ccbcbea5baadafb5a2a3a5fefcfdfc8ca2b8a5ade2a8a3afe2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>. Paper

[[Page 80043]]

submissions should include a three and one-half inch computer diskette 
or compact disc (CD). Diskettes or CDs should be labeled with the name 
and organizational affiliation of the filer and the name of the word 
processing program used to create the document. Comments will be posted 
at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/internetpolicytaskforce/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this Notice 
contact: Aaron Burstein, Office of Policy Analysis and Development, 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4725, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1880; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#14757661666760717d7a547a607d753a707b773a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98f9faedeaebecfdf1f6d8f6ecf1f9b6fcf7fbb6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>; or Manu Bhardwaj, Office of Policy Analysis and 
Development, National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4985; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2548474d44574152444f654b514c440b414a460b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99f4fbf1f8ebfdeef8f3d9f7edf0f8b7fdf6fab7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>. Please direct media inquires to NTIA's Office 
of Public Affairs at (202) 482-7002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Recognizing the vital importance of the Internet to U.S. 
innovation, prosperity, education, and political and cultural life, the 
Department has made it a top priority to ensure that the Internet 
remains open for innovation. The Department established the Internet 
Policy Task Force to identify leading public policy and operational 
challenges in the Internet environment. The Task Force leverages 
expertise across many bureaus, including those responsible for domestic 
and international information and communications technology policy, 
international trade, cyber security standards and best practices, 
intellectual property, business advocacy and export control.
    Moreover, the Obama Administration has launched an initiative to 
develop an interagency policy structure for commercial data privacy 
issues. The Commerce Department's General Counsel Cameron Kerry and the 
Justice Department's Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal 
Policy Christopher H. Schroeder chair a recently launched subcommittee 
of the National Science and Technology Council that the White House has 
chartered to work on Privacy and Internet Policy issues. Through that 
vehicle, the Administration is engaging agencies throughout the U.S. 
Government in a conversation on commercial data privacy to ensure that 
the Administration speaks with one voice and takes advantage of its 
many areas of expertise to promote the development of strategic and 
comprehensive Internet privacy policies.
    Background: The Department has launched the Privacy and Innovation 
Initiative to identify policies that will enhance: (1) The clarity, 
transparency, scalability and flexibility needed to foster innovation 
in the information economy; and (2) the public confidence necessary for 
full citizen participation with the Internet. On April 23, 2010, the 
Department published a Notice of Inquiry seeking public comment from 
all Internet stakeholders, including the commercial, academic and civil 
society sectors, on the impact of current privacy laws in the United 
States and around the world on the pace of innovation in the 
information economy.\1\ Through that Notice of Inquiry, the Department 
sought to understand whether current privacy laws serve consumer 
interests and fundamental democratic values. The Department also held a 
symposium on May 7, 2010, to discuss stakeholder views and to 
facilitate further public discussion on privacy policy in the United 
States.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notice of Inquiry, Information Privacy and Innovation in the 
Internet Economy, 75 FR 21226 (Apr. 23, 2010), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2010/FR_PrivacyNOI_04232010.pdf. 
Comments received in response to this Notice of Inquiry are posted 
at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/100402174-0175-01/.
    \2\ The Public Meeting Notice, 75 FR 19942 (Apr. 16, 2010), and 
the meeting agenda are available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/internetpolicytaskforce/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has now prepared a report, entitled ``Commercial 
Data Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy 
Framework,'' as a vehicle to spur further discussion with Internet 
stakeholders on this important area of policy development.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The report is available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/internetpolicytaskforce/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Request for Comment: This Notice seeks input on the report. The 
questions below, which also appear in Appendix A of the report, are 
intended to assist in identifying issues. They should not be construed 
as a limitation on comments that parties may submit. Comments that 
contain references, studies, research and other empirical data that are 
not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials 
with the submitted comments.
    (1) Should baseline commercial data privacy principles, such as 
comprehensive FIPPs, be enacted by statute or other means, to address 
how current privacy law is enforced?
    (2) How should baseline privacy principles be enforced? Should they 
be enforced by non-governmental entities in addition to being the basis 
for FTC enforcement actions?
    (3) As policymakers consider baseline commercial data privacy 
legislation, should they seek to grant the FTC the authority to issue 
more detailed rule? What criteria are useful for deciding which FIPPs 
require further specification through rulemaking under the 
Administrative Procedure Act?
    (4) Should baseline commercial data privacy legislation include a 
private right of action?
    (5) What is the best way of promoting transparency so as to promote 
informed choices? The Task Force is especially interested in comments 
that address the benefits and drawbacks of legislative, regulatory, and 
voluntary private sector approaches to promoting transparency.
    (6) What incentives could be provided to encourage the development 
and adoption of practical mechanisms to protect consumer privacy, such 
as PIAs, to bring about clearer descriptions of an organization's data 
collection, use, and disclosure practices?
    (7) What are the elements of a meaningful PIA in the commercial 
context? Who should define these elements?
    (8) What processes and information would be useful to assess 
whether PIAs are effective in helping companies to identify, evaluate, 
and address commercial data privacy issues?
    (9) Should there be a requirement to publish PIAs in a standardized 
and/or machine-readable format?
    (10) What are consumers' and companies' experiences with systems 
that display information about companies' privacy practices in contexts 
other than privacy policies?
    (11) What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of 
different transparency-enhancing techniques in an online world that 
typically involves data from multiple sources being presented through a 
single user interface?
    (12) Do these (dis)advantages change when one considers the 
increasing use of devices with more limited user interface options?
    (13) Are purpose specifications a necessary or important method for 
protecting commercial privacy?
    (14) Currently, how common are purpose specification clauses in 
commercial privacy policies?
    (15) Do industry best practices concerning purpose specification 
and use limitations exist? If not, how could their development be 
encouraged?

[[Page 80044]]

    (16) What incentives could be provided to encourage companies to 
state clear, specific purposes for using personal information?
    (17) How should purpose specifications be implemented and enforced?
    (18) How can purpose specifications and use limitations be changed 
to meet changing circumstances?
    (19) Who should be responsible for demonstrating that a private 
sector organization's data use is consistent with its obligations? What 
steps should be taken if inconsistencies are found?
    (20) Are technologies available to allow consumers to verify that 
their personal information is used in ways that are consistent with 
their expectations?
    (21) Are technologies available to help companies monitor their 
data use, to support internal accountability mechanisms?
    (22) How should performance against stated policies and practices 
be assessed?
    (23) What incentives could be provided to encourage companies to 
adopt technologies that would facilitate audits of information use 
against the company's stated purposes and use limitations?
    (24) Should the FTC be given rulemaking authority triggered by 
failure of a multi-stakeholder process to produce a voluntary 
enforceable code within a specified time period?
    (25) How can the Commerce Department best encourage the discussion 
and development of technologies such as ``Do Not Track''?
    (26) Under what circumstances should the PPO recommend to the 
Administration that new policies are needed to address failure by a 
multi-stakeholder process to produce an approved code of conduct?
    (27) How can cooperation be fostered between the National 
Association of Attorneys General, or similar entities, and the PPO?
    (28) Do FIPPs require further regulatory elaboration to enforce, or 
are they sufficient on their own?
    (29) What should be the scope of FTC rulemaking authority?
    (30) Should FIPPs be considered an independent basis for FTC 
enforcement, or should FTC privacy investigations still be conducted 
under Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5 ``unfair and deceptive'' 
jurisdiction, buttressed by the explicit articulation of the FIPPs?
    (31) Should non-governmental entities supplement FTC enforcement of 
voluntary codes?
    (32) At what point in the development and of a voluntary, 
enforceable code of conduct should the FTC review it for approval? 
Potential options include providing an ex ante ``seal of approval,'' 
delaying approval until the code is in use for a specific amount of 
time, and delaying approval until enforcement action is taken against 
the code.
    (33) What steps or conditions are necessary to make a company's 
commitment to follow a code of conduct enforceable?
    (34) What factors should breach notification be predicated upon 
(e.g., a risk assessment of the potential harm from the breach, a 
specific threshold such as number of records, etc.)?
    (35) Are there lessons from sector-specific privacy laws--their 
development, their contents, or their enforcement--that could inform 
U.S. commercial data privacy policy?
    (36) Should a preemption provision of national FIPPs-based 
commercial data privacy policy be narrowly tailored to apply to 
specific practices or subject matter, leaving states free to regulate 
emerging technologies? Or should national policy, in the case of 
legislation, contain a broad preemption provision?
    (37) How could a preemption provision ensure that federal law is no 
less protective than any existing state laws? What are useful criteria 
for comparatively assessing how protective different laws are?
    (38) To what extent should state Attorneys General be empowered to 
enforce national commercial data privacy legislation?
    (39) Should national FIPPs-based commercial data privacy 
legislation preempt state unfair and deceptive trade practices laws?
    (40) The Task Force seeks case studies and statistics that provide 
evidence of concern--or comments explaining why concerns are 
unwarranted--about cloud computing data privacy and security in the 
commercial context. We also seek data that links any such concerns to 
decisions to adopt, or refrain from adopting, cloud computing services.
    (41) The Task Force also seeks input on whether the current legal 
protections for transactional information and location information 
raise questions about what commercial data privacy expectations are 
reasonable and whether additional protections should be mandated by 
law. The Task Force also invites comments that discuss whether privacy 
protections for access to location information need clarification in 
order to facilitate the development, deployment and widespread adoption 
of new location-based services.
    (42) The Task Force seeks information from the law enforcement 
community regarding the use of ECPA today and how investigations might 
be affected by proposed amendments to ECPA's provisions.

    Dated: December 16, 2010.
Gary Locke,
Secretary of Commerce.

Lawrence E. Strickling,
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information.

Francisco J. S[aacute]nchez,
Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade.

Patrick Gallagher,
Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010-31971 Filed 12-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-60-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>