Why the Location Privacy Protection Act is a commonsense consumer protection

chisbealsBy Christopher Beal, Public Policy Intern

With the seemingly ceaseless increase in the number of mobile internet devices finding their way into the hands (and pockets) of consumers, geolocation data (broadly, any information that can be used to identify the location of a person using a device) is becoming ever easier to collect and transmit without consumer awareness or consent. As such, a cohesive set of protections affording consumers with control and knowledge as to the collection and sharing of their sensitive private data is long overdue. The Location Privacy Protection Act of 2014 (“LPPA”) promises to do just that. Accordingly, NCL is pleased to offer its support for this legislation.

It doesn’t take much of a search to uncover that industry standards and established governmental protections are ineffective or easily circumvented. Many of the currently applicable laws were drafted in a time prior to the prevalence of internet-enabled cellphones and other mobile devices and, as such, don’t speak to the practice of sharing (or selling) geolocation data with commercial entities. As a result, companies can collect information which in any other context would be deemed irrefutably private (for example, visiting a therapist or going to a church) and share or sell that information to other companies (including advertisers). And beyond that, recent history shows that some companies participate in practices like this despite their privacy policy stating otherwise (for example, in May 2014 the FTC settled an enforcement action with Snapchat over their collecting geolocation data in contradiction of their privacy policy).

The LPPA requires that companies alert consumers to the act of geolocation collection and sharing, and to require individual consent before either may occur (with reasonable exceptions for emergencies, parental supervision of children, and the like). It also requires that companies in the practice of collecting geolocation data must disclose the kinds of data collected, the ways in which it is shared and used, and companies must tell consumers how they can stop this collection or sharing. The LPPA also has provisions targeting the practice of GPS stalking and of the collection of geolocation data without a user’s knowledge.

NCL — along with many other privacy and consumer groups and the FTC — supports a comprehensive privacy protection law that encompasses all consumer data. Absent such a law, consumers deserve to at least have their most sensitive data, such as location information — protected. On Wednesday, June 4, NCL Executive Director Sally Greenberg will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law in support of the LPPA. To watch the hearing live, click here.

 

Political battles have no place in our schools’ cafeterias

kelseyBy Kelsey Albright, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow

When you think of controversial policies, school lunch isn’t the first thing that comes to mind.  As a nation fighting an obesity epidemic greatly impacting youth, school lunches play an important role in getting the nation back on track.  Schools provide one, sometimes two, of the three meals kids eat each day.  These meals pack the biggest punch for kids who live in food insecure households and depend on school provided meals for nourishment.  How can we justify serving anything but wholesome, nutritious food when that is the case?

The House Appropriations Committee begs to differ.  Tomorrow they are expected to approve a 2015 spending bill for the Agriculture Department granting a waiver from nutrition standards required by the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.  The requirements set limits on sodium and substitute whole grain foods for those that are not.  The Senate Appropriation Committee’s bill does not include the waiver setting this up to be a drawn out fight.

Tuesday, Michelle Obama came out strongly opposing the House Republican led attempts to scale back healthier school lunch standards saying we can’t afford to play politics with nutrition standards. Prior to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, there were no standards for what could be served in schools. Hiring criteria for food service personnel and annual nutrition education training as well as grants for upgrading kitchen equipment and providing farm to school education to students are a few of the major proponents of the original bill.

The School Nutrition Association, an industry backed trade association representing cafeteria administrators, argues the new requirements are unduly expensive and lead to food being wasted by students.  Since issuing their statement in opposition of the regulations, nineteen former presidents of the School Nutrition Association have publicly opposed the group’s platform and urged Congress to keep the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act regulations intact. As Michelle Obama said, “ the last think we can afford to do right now is play politics with our kids’ health.”

 

Summer grill season is here, think American union-made

By Michell K. McIntyre, Outreach Director, Labor and Worker Rights

With the unofficial start of summer right around the corner, it’s time to start thinking about firing up the grill and looking forward to our favorite summer foods. This summer, make your grocery shopping mean more than just great food and support good paying American jobs.

As a consumer, you can support the actions of thousands of hard working Americans by buying American-made products and union-made products.  Check out the list below and try to serve some union-made treats this Memorial Day weekend and all summer.

Untitled

Text MADE to 235246 for more union-made-in-America product lists.
Our list comes courtesy of Union Plus, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers (BCTGM), the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor’s website Labor 411.

Raw milk is a raw deal for consumers

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

NCL has recently signed onto a consumer group letter opposing two shocking federal bills introduced to weaken restrictions on the sale of raw milk. Raw milk – which by definition is milk that hasn’t been pasteurized to kill dangerous bacteria – can kill you. NCL’s first leader, Florence Kelley, watched children get sick and die from raw milk. She was disconsolate that states were slow to require pasteurization – Louis Pasteur’s great discovery that heating milk kills pathogens. (Pasteur also developed the rabies vaccine.)  Heating milk to 161 degrees for 15 seconds, known as flash pasteurization, is all it takes to make milk safe.

The ignorance of those who champion the so-called benefits of raw milk is astounding. Its one thing if an adult wants to consume raw milk, but parents feed raw milk to their children putting their kids’ lives at risk.  The CDC reported in 2012 that unpasteurized products are 150 times more likely to cause food borne illnesses than pasteurized versions.

One of the federal bills would end the interstate ban on raw milk sales and the second would allow interstate transport between states where raw milk is legally sold. There are 40 bills to allow raw milk sales at the state level.

Bill Marler is a food lawyer in Seattle who has handled two-dozen cases involving illnesses from raw milk consumption in children or the elderly.  “It’s a high risk product and in most cases, I’m representing the most vulnerable in society,” Marler said.

In November, five-year-old Maddie Powell was one of nine children in her family, all younger than seven, who were sickened by E. coli from raw milk. Maddie, along with two of the other children, developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a potentially fatal kidney disease that is known to coincide with E. coli infections. After this frightening and costly experience, Maddie’s mother said they would not return to drinking raw milk.

Why in the world would any parent knowingly subject their child to such a dangerous product to begin with? Because raw milk advocates are peddling a message that their product has health benefits superior to pasteurized milk. Nothing could be more misguided. We hope these federal bills will generate an informed discussion that will demonstrate the folly of consuming raw milk.

When it comes to GMOs how much do we really know?

kelseyBy Kelsey Albright, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow

Just last week Vermont took the initiative and passed a state bill requiring GMO labeling.  While Connecticut and Maine have both passed GMO labeling acts, that legislation will only go into effect when a certain number of other states have passed similar GMO labeling requirements. Vermont’s law won’t go into effect for two years, that is if a lawsuit doesn’t knock it down first.  State legislators expect push back from major genetically engineered seed producers, like Monsanto. An extra $1.5 million legal fund was added into the legislation to help cover any costs a lawsuit may incur in court.

gmoThe recent GMO labeling buzz has got me thinking. What do we, as a nation, really know about GMOs? Turns out we know surprisingly little. Only 26 percent of consumers believe that they have eaten genetically modified foods and 60 percent believe they haven’t. For anyone who has taken the time to research this issue, they would know that it is incredibly unlikely that someone has never eaten genetically modified foods. Ten years ago in 2004, 85 percent of soybeans and 45 percent of corn grown in the U.S. were genetically modified. It is very likely that these numbers have only grown since then. What I find most disturbing is that among consumers who claimed to know the most about GM foods, 43 percent still thought that they had never eaten any GMOs.

If we as a nation are so uneducated about how much of our food is genetically modified then it is a good idea that GM foods be labeled as such. The sheer volume of GM foods in this country might disturb some consumers and lead to self-education about GMOs. Some consumers might conclude that they aren’t as detrimental as some anti-GMO activists make them out to be. Many argue these modified foods have the capacity to feed the ever-growing, ever-hungry population of this planet.

What’s more, I doubt that consumer habits will greatly change based on GMO labeling.  The people who are passionately anti-GMO likely know which foods contain GMOs already and avoid them. The people who don’t care, well they might not even notice the labels, and those that are curious might read up on genetic modification and learn more about what genetically modified really means. It is important that food producers include robust labels on their products so consumers know exactly what they are eating. For this reason, labeling food that contains GMOs is the right decision for consumers.

Announcing the #DataInsecurity Project

By John Breyault, Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud

Last December, millions of consumers busily rang up more than $600 billion in holiday purchases. Unfortunately, hackers were also having a field day — at consumers’ expense. We learned that lax security procedures combined with an insecure payment mechanism resulted in as many as 110 million shoppers at retail giant Target having their personal information compromised.

Security researcher Brian Krebs, who first broke the story of the Target breach, recently published a startling set of numbers that demonstrates the impact of this one incident. They include:

  • $200 million – The cost to credit unions and community banks for reissuing 21.8 million credit and debit cards;
  • $18-35.70 – The media price range per card stolen from Target and resold on the black market in the months after the breach;
  • 1-3 million – The estimated number of cards stolen in the Target breach that were sold on the black market and successfully used to commit fraud;
  • $53.7 million – The estimated income that hackers generated from the sale of 2 million cards stolen from Target (at a median price of $18-35.70); and
  • $55 million – The size of outgoing Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel’s golden parachute.

Sobering as these numbers are, they represent the fallout from a single data breach, albeit a massive one. In 2013, the Verizon RISK team reported more than 1,300 data breaches. The non-profit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, which tracks data breaches, reported that more than 257 million records were compromised last year as well. A recent study by the Ponemon Institute found that the average total cost of a data breach in the U.S. is $5.85 million per incident. The probability that a U.S.-based organization will experience a breach of at least 10,000 records in the next 2 years is 18.7 percent, according to the Ponemon study.

By 2020, annual global data production is expected to hit 35 zettabytes, (or 35 trillion gigabytes). This data explosion will power unfathomable changes to consumers’ daily lives. However, the existence of that much data – much of it personal and very valuable to malicious actors – demands stronger security practices. Federal agencies like the FTC are doing yeoman’s work to hold companies to account for lax data security. But the FTC’s authority in this area is in question in the courts, and case-by-case adjudication is unlikely to sufficiently address the larger problem. Organizations like the National Institutes of Standards and Technology have developed voluntary frameworks for cybersecurity, but companies and other entities are not compelled by law to adopt it. Standards bodies like the PCI Security Standards Council have industry backing, but they are sector-specific.

While no one can wave a magic wand and solve the problem of data security, more can and should be done in Congress to give enforcement agencies the tools they need to protect consumer data and prod industry to make data security a top priority.

That is why we are announcing today the launch of the NCL #DataInsecurity Project. We are calling on policymakers in Congress, federal agencies and the states to be champions for data security. For too long, policy inertia has prevented meaningful reform on Capitol Hill and elsewhere that would better protect consumers’ data. There are a number of promising bills currently pending in Congress, but more can and must be done. Pro-consumer steps to enhance data security include:

  • Creating a national data breach notification standard, modeled on strong state protections such as California’s;
  • Requiring businesses that maintain consumers’ personal data to protect that information via specific data security requirements;
  • Giving the Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General civil penalty authority to enforce violations of data security requirements;
  • Increasing civil and criminal penalties for malicious hacking;
  • Increasing efforts to enhance cooperation with international partners to bring overseas hackers to justice;
  • Requiring retailers and banks to implement the highest level of security available to protect consumers’ payment data

In an era when vast amounts of data are being collected about them, consumers must have confidence that their information is safe. The Target breach was a wake-up call. We can no longer sit idly by while sophisticated hackers steal with impunity and businesses accept the status quo as just another cost of doing business. The time for reform is now.

Women CAN have it all!

By Sally Greenberg, NCL Executive Director

I finally got around to reading Sheryl Sandberg’s book, Lean In. I confess that from the reviews, I wasn’t sure if I’d like or hate the book.  I liked it a lot, but even more, I think it’s an important book. It’s a feminist manifesto for the current generation of working women.  Sandberg counsels her peers not to drop out of the workforce because someone convinced you that “you can’t have it all.” I’ve always disliked that phrase.  It’s self defeating and ultimately meaningless.  She tells women to use their brains, their education, their families, spouses and moxie to figure out a work-life balance. Having children and working full time is do-able with the right support systems in place. She acknowledges that not every woman has those support systems; but if you do, don’t shy away from a promotion, a new job, or new opportunity.

This is an inspiring book. It’s true that Sandberg’s led a charmed life –which is why I had my doubts about the advice she was dispensing – she’s has two degrees from Harvard – undergrad and the Business School (when I lived in Boston they called it Preparation H!) , she’s a protégé of former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and his chief of staff at Treasury, was recruited by Eric Schmidt to work at Google, then recruited to be CEO at LinkedIn and turned it down, and is now one of Mark Zuckerberg’s general’s at Facebook.  She’s also a Jewish girl who managed to find the ideal, supportive Jewish husband and have two perfect kids. Plus, she’s reported to be worth over a billion dollars. I’ll get to that point in a minute.

In spite of this gilded path, it’s hard not to like Sandberg:  she’s supportive of colleagues and friends, she’s funny and self deprecating, she acknowledges leading a privileged life, and notes that she learned  along the way – to her surprise – that she’s actually a feminist, a description she rejected in her younger years. Many in my generation of working women cheer when we hear that, since so many younger men and women have accepted the negativity foisted on the word “feminist” by a culture threatened by empowered women.

Sandberg’s had a few bumps in the road. She got divorced after a hasty marriage right out of college and experienced some old fashioned sexism while serving as a page to a New York Congressman. When she was introduced to House Speaker Tip O’Neill he commented “She’s pretty,” and turning to Sandberg asked her “Are you a Pom Pom girl.”  Every working woman has experienced that kind of sexism.

But her advice to working women is solid. History is replete with examples of women who did it all – raised families and had remarkable careers.  The women who first ran the National Consumers League are a case in point.  Florence Kelley had three children, fled an abusive husband to land at Hull House in Chicago, relied on friends to care for her small children while she pursued her remarkable career of exposing the evils of child labor, drafting the nation’s first minimum wage laws and getting the Supreme Court to hear the first maximum hours’ case laws. She traveled far and wide, speaking at women’s clubs and conferences. Frances Perkins served as Secretary of Labor all four of FDR’s terms and is largely responsible for lifeline programs like social security, workers compensation, and unemployment insurance. She lived in Washington, traveling to see her husband (who suffered from mental illness so she couldn’t depend on him to care for their daughter) and daughter on weekends. Neither of them was rich, nor did they have parents they could rely on for support. Both Kelley and Perkins felt guilty about being away from their families, but each had a calling and what an enormous debt we owe them for their impact on social reforms in America – and what a loss it would have been had they chosen not to work.

So thank you to Sheryl Sandberg advising working women to lean in and to stay in the workplace if they want to. Don’t believe that adage that you “can’t have it all.” What bunk!  Women in America today have far too much education, talent, and valuable skills to let themselves be talked out of a fulfilling career. I recommend Sheryl Sandberg’s book women of all generations.

That said, I also think Sandberg should put some of the cash – of which she has so much – toward bettering the lives of low income working women and families. Below are six organizations that I would put on my Hanukah giving list if I was worth what she’s worth (of course, the National Consumers League get my first $100 million!):

National Employment Law Project (NELP) – NELP works in partnership with national, state and local allies, promotes policies and programs that create good jobs, strengthen upward mobility, enforce hard-won worker rights, and help unemployed workers regain their economic footing through improved benefits and services.

National Partnership for Women and Families – Founded in 1971 as the Women’s Legal Defense Fund, the Partnership promotes  fairness in the workplace, reproductive health and rights, access to quality, affordable health care, and policies that help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family.

MomsRising - MomsRising combines the best of American innovation and ingenuity. They are a transformative on-the-ground and online multicultural organization of more than a million members and over a hundred aligned organizations working to increase family economic security, to end discrimination against women and mothers, and to build a nation where both businesses and families can thrive.

9to5 - 9to5 is one of the largest, most respected national membership organizations of working women in the U.S., dedicated to putting working women’s issues on the public agenda. Their mission is to build a movement for economic justice, by engaging directly affected women to improve working conditions.

Interfaith Worker Justice  – IWJ has many work and job sites around the country where workers, many of them low income women, can come for advice when they’ve been deprived of fair wages, are being discriminated against for being pregnant or are facing dangerous working conditions    http://www.iwj.org/

Economic Policy Institute – EPI was created as an economic think tank to address the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions. EPI believes every working person deserves a good job with fair pay, affordable health care, and retirement security.  To achieve this goal, EPI conducts research and analysis on the economic status of working America, with a focus on low and moderate income workers.