Slashdot Mirror

USA Laws are limited by these 2 main laws that limit it by age (under 13) and healthcare respectively: COPPA https://www.ftc.gov/enforcemen... and HIPAA https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-...

And then it's not really limited anymore except by state. Which a summary exists here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The FTC has been 'woke' on this issue since 2014 when they released a pretty good report on the goings on in the data broker market:
https://www.ftc.gov/system/fil...

They requested information from 9 databrokers, and explained things most of society still doesn't grasp like:
- It's not about 'your data'. Your raw data is turned into scores, and those scores are what is being sold. This 'derived' or 'inferred' data is what we should be talking about.
- Most of the money made from profiling is not made from advertising, but from selling 'risk management' products. The hundreds of scores the databrokers developed are sold to banks, insurers, employers. Cambridge Analytica's psychological profiles were once example of this algorithmically derived data.
- Databrokers sell a lot of data to each other too. This means you get scores.. which are sold and then aggregated into new scores.. which are then aggregated into new scores. Basically, there is no end to how long you can store data on people as long as you keep regurgitating and transforming it. Think of it like data whitewashing.

Because databrokers sell the derived data, and not the original data, there is little keeping them from scooping up data from leaks and feeding that to the algorithm too.

What Cambridge Analytica was, was the first glimmer of awareness with the larger public that the narrative of 'we create profiles to show you more relevant adds' is a only half the story, and it's diverting from what's really going on.

This is only the tip of the ice berg.

Except that when people do not communicate with each other, I don't believe that it can be said to be colluding, by definition.

P

The federal government, specifically the FTC, disagrees with you. Collusion just requires that two companies agree to set prices, no communication is required. This agreement can be inferred from behavior. There are lots of examples from other posters (such as the airlines in the 1970's).

It makes sense that algorithms would collude... it's well known that algorithms can establish subtle communication with each other as they evolve, and collusion is the most efficient way to set prices.

Sprint Corp sued AT&T late on Thursday, saying it is misleading consumers into believing that they are using fifth generation wireless network, known as 5G, a technology that has not yet been widely deployed.

It's kind of annoying that the FTC (or whatever three letter agency with jurisdiction) isn't sitting on them hard about this fraud. Marketing spin is one thing but this is pretty deeply shady.

Don't y'all have truth in advertising laws over there?

Ford is free to TRY to force those things, and consumers are free to buy other brands of cars if and when they do. This is legal because they are not a monopoly.

Wrong, the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act prevents companies like Ford from forcing you to buy Ford oil changes or parts from them rather than aftermarket suppliers.

Likewise, Apple is not a monopoly either, with 43.5% of US smartphone owners running some form of iOS. This should have been thrown out on prima facie definitions.

Monopoly is not defined purely by marketshare but by market power. The most popular kind of smartphone in the world is the iPhone, fanboys of Apple love to crow that the entire Android industry copies whatever Apple does. It's quite a stretch to suggest that Apple doesn't have significant market power.
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power. Look at the US smartphone market, 43.5% of that market is controlled by Apple to the degree that you cannot even have an alternative web browser to Apple's own provided WebKit. Microsoft may well have had 90%+ of the PC market when they shipped IE with Windows but nothing ever stopped anybody from installing any other web browser, Apple's actions are far more harmful to the consumer.

I would also add that it is now completely free for everyone in the US to have your credit reports frozen.

I understand perfectly what a monopoly is. What I don't understand is why you think you should be entitled to interfere with them.

Because, young man, it's the law, and it's been the law of land since the 1890s, and Congress has made those laws even stronger since then. These are not regulations, they are actual US Code.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic...

Legally, no. https://www.ftc.gov/news-event...

Will apple claim it will? Probably.

Whatever happened to the Equifax breach, oh yea, nothing... basically all Americans and a credit bureau ... https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/b... . Looking into Google for a measly 500K, that most likely did not even get exposed to outsiders, deserves a look into, meanwhile one of the big three credit agencies can keep gathering more and more data and breaching...

Equifax: name, address(s), employment history, marital status, likely mother's maiden name, S.S.#, driver's license#, credit history, god knows wtf else.

Google+: User profile. Mine is quite empty, not even my last name. Not even sure when I last looked at it.

That's not to say whoever the douch(s) that decided to keep this quiet shouldn't be punished for stupidity. But damn, Equifax... no punishment that I can find.

The "feature" of changing the CallerID must become illegal. Telcos should have until Jan 1, 2019 to get this into play. After that, if it can be proven that the technology still exists, it is a $1,000 dollar fine per call.

And this DOES NOT have to be pushed through our inept congress. I won't live that long. However, the FTC can implement this overnight. As a citizen, I need to be protected from the unfair tactics of these scammers. CallerID spoofing is not a feature, it is a deceptive practice that harms people. It is a lie, plain and simple.

Here's where to let them know. www.ftc.gov Under the "Take Action" section, file a complaint.

No More CallerID spoofing.

It is amazing this article and summary spends so much time talking about what two Democrats said, as opposed to what's happened and what the Republicans have done, which is more than Warner or Warren ever did. It's almost like to Techcrunch, Republicans don't exist except as targets to attack.

Funny how this very topically relevant information didn't make the "article", but the current Congress passed and Trump signed a bill taking effect 9/21 which according to the FTC includes provides for:

Free credit freezes
What is it? A credit freeze restricts access to your credit file, making it harder for identity thieves to open new accounts in your name. Usually you get a PIN to use each time you want to freeze and unfreeze your account to apply for new credit.
What’s new? Currently, credit freezes may involve fees, based on state law. Starting this fall, it will be free to freeze and unfreeze your credit file throughout the country.

Free child credit freezes
What is it? A child credit freeze allows you to freeze a child’s credit file until the child is old enough to use credit.
What’s new? Currently, some state laws allow you to freeze a child’s credit file. Starting September 21st, no matter where you live, you’ll be able to get a free credit freeze for children under age 16.

Year-long fraud alerts
What is it? A fraud alert will tell any business that runs your credit that they should check with you before opening a new account.
What’s new? Currently, fraud alerts last 90 days. Starting this fall, an initial fraud alert will last for one year. It will still be free and identity theft victims can still get an extended fraud alert for seven years.

The article makes much about a letter Warren sent, but doesn't mention what the committee Chair, Hatch sent:

Provide the Committee a detailed timeline of the breach, including when it began, its discovery, the investigation of its scope and source, notification of authorities, efforts to notify customers and consumers, notification to the Equifax board of directors, and notification of Equifax senior executives – including, but not limited to, John Gamble Jr., Rodolfo Ploder, and Joseph Loughran.

Please describe Equifax’s efforts to identify the scope of affected consumers and breadth of information compromised.

What steps has Equifax taken to identify and limit potential consumer harm associated with this breach?

Does Equifax plan to provide notice to each affected consumer, or will it rely on the consumer-initiated checks found at “equifaxsecurity2017.com” to inform them?

Your firm set up a website, “equifaxsecurity2017.com,” in the wake of this announcement.

The premise of this story is nonsense.

1. And as opposed to "nothing", the current Congress did pass and Trump did sign a bill which takes effect in 15 days which according to the FTC includes:

Free credit freezes
        What is it? A credit freeze restricts access to your credit file, making it harder for identity thieves to open new accounts in your name. Usually you get a PIN to use each time you want to freeze and unfreeze your account to apply for new credit.
        What’s new? Currently, credit freezes may involve fees, based on state law. Starting this fall, it will be free to freeze and unfreeze your credit file throughout the country.

Free child credit freezes
        What is it? A child credit freeze allows you to freeze a child’s credit file until the child is old enough to use credit.
        What’s new? Currently, some state laws allow you to freeze a child’s credit file. Starting September 21st, no matter where you live, you’ll be able to get a free credit freeze for children under age 16.

Year-long fraud alerts
        What is it? A fraud alert will tell any business that runs your credit that they should check with you before opening a new account.
        What’s new? Currently, fraud alerts last 90 days. Starting this fall, an initial fraud alert will last for one year. It will still be free and identity theft victims can still get an extended fraud alert for seven years.

2. Equifax is still in court with the Feds, but they already "entered into a consent order with eight states that requires it to improve its data-protection practices in the wake of the huge data breach last year at the national credit-reporting agency."

“The conditions Equifax agreed to in the consent order require the company’s board to remediate the deficiencies and unsafe practices that contributed to the breach,” the Texas Department of Banking said in a statement.

The order covers everything from risk assessments and improved oversight of information security and technology by Equifax’s board of directors and its audit committee to vendor management and the patching of software systems. Equifax is required to submit to the states by July 31 a list of all remediation projects it has begun or planned since the breach, and to submit progress reports going forward. The states will conduct on-site reviews to assess compliance.

Even if the bank fails, depositors would be insured up to $250k if you chose an FDIC backed bank. If you chose a non-FDIC bank, well shame on you. Also, the FTC has liability protections: "If someone makes unauthorized transactions with your debit card number, but your card is not lost, you are not liable for those transactions if you report them within 60 days of your statement being sent to you." https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/a...

99.99999999% of the time, the yellow price tags had the same price as the white tags we removed from the shelf. They'd just raised the "regular" price in the computer so that they could put it "on sale" for the same price.

This practice is illegal.

See the link below for the issues.
Part of the legal issues is that agreement, the link below, requiring that facebook perform actions which is being investigated to see if they broke.
the issue with Cambridge Analytica is that they had access to people who had not given consent, so breaking the FTC agreement.
What Obama's 2012 team was allowed to do by facebook was take data only from people who had consented (you logged into obama's website using your facebook account). However they were given access to data that facebook never gives to anyone else and is listed as user data that will not be distributed and was not the list of information that would be shared, so consent for some data not given. In addtion obama's team was allowed to suck that data directly from the facebook databases and then keep the data indefinitely. All of that is in violation of the FTC agreement.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-event...

it's about the FCBA. These are high risk transactions. Exchanges can and will get hacked and well, it's an unregulated security. It's no surprise Wells Fargo wants to steer clear of that.

THIS. Simply go to the National Do Not Call Registry and put your number in. I did it years ago and get almost no spam calls. And you can sue them in small claims court if they do call you. I have never done it but I have a friends who has made thousands of dollars suing spammers.

THIS is bullshit. Robocallers don't give a flying fuck about laws, including that one. I've been on the registry for years, and it doesn't help.

THIS. Simply go to the National Do Not Call Registry and put your number in. I did it years ago and get almost no spam calls. And you can sue them in small claims court if they do call you. I have never done it but I have a friends who has made thousands of dollars suing spammers.

There's all sorts of laws

It's not illegal, the article is full of shit.
br/>And, the FTC didn't say it was illegal, they included it among "questionable practices".

What is illegal is basing warranty coverage on use of parts specified by trade name, unless replacement of those parts is free under the warranty. So, Ford can't say you have to use their oil and filters when changing oil (they can if they give free oil changes, though), and Hoover can't make you use their vacuum cleaner bags.

That really doesn't apply to a PS4 - the warranty covers everything that's inside. The sticker thing would be more for something like a computer - where they say you have to buy RAM upgrades from the manufacturer. But still, the manufacturer could say "no upgrades at all," and use a sticker to enforce it. But the sticker itself is just a red flag, it is not itself illegal.

People here are already apoplectic that some people are getting free shit and not everyone is getting free shit.

"Free"? In what universe is paying several hundred dollars more for a service you don't need free?

Not to mention that this is potentially a violation of anti trust bundling laws.

I agree with you. This should be an antitrust violation. Unfortunately, even the FTC says that is changing. From the page you linked to, last paragraph:

The law on tying is changing. Although the Supreme Court has treated some tie-ins as per se illegal in the past, lower courts have started to apply the more flexible "rule of reason" to assess the competitive effects of tied sales. Cases turn on particular factual settings, but the general rule is that tying products raises antitrust questions when it restricts competition without providing benefits to consumers.

So the general theory applies, that tying a general product to a monopoly product falls into antitrust, but "The law on tying is changing" and courts have started to apply the more flexible 'rule of reason' to assess the competitive effects of tied sales." With Trump as President, how long will consumer be protected?

People here are already apoplectic that some people are getting free shit and not everyone is getting free shit.

"Free"? In what universe is paying several hundred dollars more for a service you don't need free?

Not to mention that this is potentially a violation of anti trust bundling laws.

so now there may be no legal restrictions on robocall devices.

Sure there are. The FTC already regulates robocallers (and the Do Not Call list) separately from the FCC.

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/f...

As much as I don’t like Pai, this ruling, at least on its face, isn’t necessarily the horrible thing it’s being made out to be, since the FTC has been providing better regulation on this issue for far longer, and has been enlisting technology companies to provide solutions to the issue as well.

Mostly right, but in the US and the various States, there are laws that limit manufacturers' ability to having vertical pricing arrangements. Specifically, an agreement in restraint of trade is unlawful even though a unilateral (and universal) vertical pricing policy is lawful. Also lawful are manufacturer-imposed "territories", which is a bit confusing.

Here's some guidance from the Federal Trade Commission and a recent Supreme Court Ruling.

Fun question, without NN, what's to stop Verizon, Comcast, etc from saying as a group "You can serve your website to our customers, or to little startup ISPs, but not both"?

Antitrust law. Just as it has prevented companies from colluding to harm competition for over 125 years.

The FDA doesn't have legal authority to regulate or certify supplements

And the supplement industry spends lots of money to ensure it stays that way. I wonder why?

https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm153239.htm
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0261-dietary-supplements#supplementssafe?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dietary-supplements-a-37-billion-a-year-boondoggle-2016-01-22
https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/truth-behind-top-10-dietary-supplements#1

Now of course I'm not saying all dietary supplements are fraudulent. I'm just saying its not always easy to tell which ones are fraudulent and which ones are not since they aren't regulated by anything beyond the amount of dollars they can convince you to spend.

And of course that's not even considering that many of the not-technically-fraudulent ones may simply be doing little or nothing for you and are effectively just an expensive placebo.

And even then many of the ones that might be theoretically useful are only beneficial if you have a bad diet to start with and actually need to supplement whatever chemicals your body isn't getting enough of -- but you claim to be eating well so that also shouldn't apply to you. For example if you're getting sufficient vitamin C and you take a vitamin C tablet.. its basically just going to go straight from your mouth to your bladder and out again without doing you any good whatsoever (but also no real bad in that case.. too much of some vitamins and minerals are as bad or worse than not enough so even more things to be careful of!)

An ISP is a telecommunications service provider. Where is the argument that it isn't, outside of nutty libertarian blogs trying to torture language?

The law makes a distinction between the two. The argument comes from the law, court rulings on the law, and regulatory decisions based on the law. Yes, the FTC is a nutty libertarian blog that uses tortured language... -.-

FCC jurisdiction over broadband services arises under the Communications Act. Central to the broadband discussion is a distinction under that Act between “telecommunications services” and “information services.” The former, but not the latter, are subject to substantial mandatory common carrier regulations under Title II of the Communications Act. While not subject to the Title II common carrier regulations, information services are treated by the FCC as subject to its general, ancillary jurisdiction under Title I of the Communications Act.

As noted above, a series of regulatory and judicial decisions have helped to clarify both the distinction between information and telecommunications services and the status of broadband services as information services. That clarification is, to an extent, in tension with early regulatory and judicial attempts to grapple with the novel technologies that enabled the provision of Internet access. For example, in 1980, the FCC promulgated rules designed to address, among other things, the growing commerce in data-processing services available via telephone wires (the “Computer II Rules”). With reference to those rules, the FCC subsequently applied certain common carrier obligations, such as non-discrimination, to local telephone companies providing early DSL services. Further, as recently as 2000, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “the transmission of Internet service to subscribers over cable broadband facilities is a telecommunications service under the Communications Act.” Still, the FCC’s current view that broadband services are information services has its roots in earlier decisions by the FCC and the courts. The same Computer II Rules that grounded the early DSL determination distinguished between “basic” and “enhanced” services and did not subject the latter to Title II common carrier regulation.In the following decade, the FCC recognized that ISPs provide not just “a physical connection [to the Internet], but also . . . the ability to translate raw Internet data into information [consumers] may both view on their personal computers and transmit to other computers connected to the Internet.” Moreover, the 1998 Universal Service Report regarded “non-facilities-based” ISPs – those that do not own their own transmission facilities – solely as information service providers. Indeed, even the Ninth Circuit opinion that held that ISPs offering cable broadband were offering telecommunications services recognized that, under the Communications Act and FCC implementing regulations, a significant portion of those services were information services.... In Brand X, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s determination that cable broadband is an information service as a reasonable construction of the Communications Act, reversing a Ninth Circuit decision that had relied on City of Portland as precedent.

The FTC has a good understanding of the issues and concerns. Since they are now going to be the ones regulating the internet, their opinion is appropriate.

The old excuses about hampering innovation no longer apply

No they still apply because it is part of the law. " It shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public. Any person or party (other

Hold the phone. There is a difference in voicing your opinion about federal issues through arguments/votes and conflating a legally required open comments for a federal bureaucracy with "speak on our own behalf in large numbers, nobody is listening". The government and FCC/FTC ARE listening. If you don't believe that then you can tell me what the FTC got wrong in 2007. Seems to me they understand perfectly well the issues and what is at stake.

Go ahead and tell me why the FCC/FTC are wrong or that how you think such and such issue is important with what solution. If you convince me then I can use my vote in 3 elections to help that goal. It's slow and that is the point with federal governance. But do not expect me to follow along "nobody is listening to democracy!" bullshit. Because we are having this discussion and have been having it for decades precisely because the government is listening.

Do you see how misunderstanding and misrepresenting a legal requirement of a federal bureaucracy is not the same as voting or arguing to have your interests upheld by that bureaucracy?

It doesn't help that HOW things are done at the federal level matter. I can agree that net neutrality is important but the way it is done is MORE important.

They're ignoring the problems now, what makes you believe they won't ignore the problems to come?

Which "they"? Which problems? Every time I ask this, people finally end up admitting (grudgingly or not) that there are no actual problems right now. Will you be the first to buck the trend?

I mean, we only have history to look at to show what has actually happened in the recent past.

Who knows what specific events you're referring to, but here's the FTC's detailed analysis of the net neutrality debate and ways the FTC could protect consumers if the boogeyman ever actually makes it out from under the bed, including an extensive section on enforcement options under the antitrust law framework. If you have some specific reason you think that's inadequate, I'm happy to discuss details. If not, I would gently suggest you stop making such brash pronouncements about what is and is not going to work.

So yes, I really believe that, and yes, I think you're a fool for not believing it.

First, you've subtly changed what "it" is -- your original post bought into last night's nonsense that companies just have to say the functional equivalent of "you can't tag me -- I'm touching base" and then the FTC can't take action. I take it this means you don't really believe that.

Second, see above. Though I'm not going to stoop to calling you a fool, I do think you're severely overreacting based on a very myopic worldview. We'll see which one of us is right in a few years.

This is likely just to comply with the new Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) that all US websites now have to follow. If the user enters their birth date (most Facebook users do, for reminders) then the company knows the user is under 13 and must then comply with a long list of new regulations.

Do-not-call does seem to help, but the idiots who implemented that, it's expires after like what 6 months or a year, I dunno, but as soon as it expires, the calls skyrocket like the same day.

The FTC Do Not Call Registry does not expire. What you may get is idiot companies thinking it does, or spammer groups adding you to their list without checking the list. Report violations. The FTC really doesn't have any way to go after violators if they aren't reported. It's rather quick to do online, and in my experience it does help eventually. (I imagine with enough people reporting a certain robocaller, the FTC eventually tracks them down and fines their ass into oblivion.)

Pardon me a moment while I laugh hytserically. OK, all good. You really think Trump's FTC is going to give a flying F? They're probably working to dismantle the do-not-call list.

Do-not-call does seem to help, but the idiots who implemented that, it's expires after like what 6 months or a year, I dunno, but as soon as it expires, the calls skyrocket like the same day.

The FTC Do Not Call Registry does not expire. What you may get is idiot companies thinking it does, or spammer groups adding you to their list without checking the list. Report violations. The FTC really doesn't have any way to go after violators if they aren't reported. It's rather quick to do online, and in my experience it does help eventually. (I imagine with enough people reporting a certain robocaller, the FTC eventually tracks them down and fines their ass into oblivion.)

Non-sequitor. If you don't watch broadcast TV, then your "smart TV" isn't going to be hearing anything from broadcast TV and won't be able to collect data about what OTA TV you are watching. If you want the fact that you watch movies on your TV to be secret, don't tell us

Has already been demonstrated source of content is irrelevant.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-event...

The only point of relevance is whether TV can find a communication channel such as open WiFi, ISP hotspots, Bluetooth, Ethernet over HDMI or directly integrated LTE / DRC.

We have already seen television vendors behave unethically and unlawfully going through extraordinary technical lengths to spy on their customers. It is approaching impossible to purchase a TV without a WiFi transceiver built in.

In case this isn't an attempt to Gish gallop, I'll do my best to refute each:

Bag groceries

Despite cashiering and bagging groceries being permitted occupations, this is impractical for two reasons. As I understand it, retail grocery stores are reluctant to hire someone only to bag for an entire shift. Someone hired in part to bag is expected to fulfill duties elsewhere in the store when there is less demand for bagging staff. As I mentioned earlier, business insurers don't want 14 and 15 year olds handling cash, and retrieving goods from the warehouse is illegal. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Warehousing and storage is strictly prohibited for a 14 or 15 year old.

For this reason, in order to increase flexibility of the duties that each employee may perform during his or her shift, many employers set a blanket policy of not hiring anyone under 16.

mow lawns

Illegal. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Q: Are 14 and 15 year olds allowed to use a lawn mower or weed cutter?
A: No. Minors 14 and 15 years old are prohibited from operating most power-driven machinery, including lawn mowers, tractors or weed cutters, in conjunction with any business.

babysit

How does a child under 16 normally go about learning to babysit and finding babies to sit? Besides, what if the babysitter needs to reach something on a high shelf? He or she can't use a ladder. From Indiana Department of Labor: Child Labor FAQs:

Any duties that require the use of a ladder, scaffold or a substitute for such equipment is prohibited for 14 and 15 year olds.

stuff envelopes for business advertising

Google stuffing envelopes business turns up articles warning that this line of business is a scam. See warning on Single Moms Income and warning on FTC.

data entry

That tends to get outsourced offshore nowadays. Instead of being done in Indiana, it gets scanned here and sent to India.

little league ref

Requires an interest in baseball and local demand.

Here's just one example of a release from 1999 about the FTC's activity in protecting consumers online, showing that it was a concern of the FTC before.

This is a longstanding issue, so I've seen analyses in the past that detail the FCC's weaker protections than those of the FTC. It may even be a legal matter, that the FTC had more authority to go after companies misbehaving online, and when the FCC revoked their jurisdiction, the FCC just didn't have the same broad legal tools to replace those of the FTC.

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/defa...

No, it's the same.

There is such a thing as an implied warranty in the USA. Basically a contract between the buyer and the seller (not the manufacturer). This can be up to four years.

So year, Apple shouldn't be involved in providing a limited warranty past 1 year, unless of course they are the retailer in which case the implied warranty comes into play.

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/a...

For better or worse, it has long been established, that False Advertising is not protected by the Amendment.

Most social media companies promise — explicitly or implicitly — interaction with other people. Or, when it is with businesses or other organizations, the accounts are clearly marked as such — or are supposed to be under the terms and conditions of the usage. For example, this line from Facebook's Terms:

1. You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

implicitly promises, that the company will fight people/entities lying...

A company's failure to enforce such terms should be interpreted as a failure to deliver the service it promised its advertisers and other users. It can — and should — be punished for the breach. No special laws are necessary even — we already have them...

According to the FTC:

What is a credit freeze?
Also known as a security freeze, this tool lets you restrict access to your credit report...

I'm guessing a credit freeze is pretty useless now, since all the important data is out.

For those who might not be aware, you can direct the credit reporting companies to "freeze" your credit report. This will stop identity thieves from using your information to open new lines of credit under your name. (It also stops you from doing things that require a check of your credit score, like applying for a loan, etc.)

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/a...

Here is an article from the FTC on freezing your credit: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/a.... I also recommend doing it.

Even though some banks can't process your car loan, or other credit. Your goal in personal finance should be to not need credit and to pay cash for everything. If you don't have the cash then you can't afford that car.

Google is forbidden by FTC consent decree from doing this until 2031. They can't track a user across a login/logout action, and they can't track by IP address.

It doesn't apply to the rest of the industry. MediaMath runs overnight mapreduces that track households by IP address, even when their IP address changes. They build chains of probably-equivalent addresses into a virtual evercookie.

And, of course, on phones you can't log out, you can't share them, you can't clear cookies, and they contain multiple burned-in identifiers like phone number, MAC address, and home+work location, so "all too easy." All restrictions on tracking will be moot by 2031 because of consumers' negligence to demand that privacy be built into the platforms they choose to use.

And the decree doesn't apply to Facebook. They operate under a different consent decree that forbids changes to privacy setting ACL logic and UIs that unintentionally widen sharing, but says nothing about "shadow profiles" a.k.a. logged-out users.

but back to OP's thesis, seems (1) you can build a huge business without this kind of egregious cowboy tracking, (2) a simple FTC consent decree is enough to eliminate it (though Google is a large company, with a lot to lose, full of sincere people, so an easy target for regulation that doesn't show much about the power of regulation at the long tail).

I don't have to prove I was damaged. The FTC will do it for me.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/protecting-consumer-privacy/enforcing-privacy-promises

LOL! I just sneezed a mouthful of Pepsi out of my mouth onto the monitor.

Awesome laugh, thanks man.

I don't have to prove I was damaged. The FTC will do it for me.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/protecting-consumer-privacy/enforcing-privacy-promises

https://www.ftc.gov/news-event...

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/05/ftc-fines-google-19-million-for-kids-app-misuse
And that's not all of it.

There was that $586 million settlement and the FTC adding prohibitions against telemarketers using those services.

But they... that was Obama era stuff. I'm sure it'll be rolled back as quickly as possible in the name of helping "small businesses"

There was that $586 million settlement and the FTC adding prohibitions against telemarketers using those services.

But they... that was Obama era stuff. I'm sure it'll be rolled back as quickly as possible in the name of helping "small businesses"

It's adorable that you think a complaint to Trump's FCC is going to have any effect.

You should at least leave a ringerless voice mail to their cell phone and to their office phone. Automating it and doing it once a month should do the trick (after all, you don't want to be accused of doing a denial of service attack). Plus, you should do the same for all your local legislators.

And since it's a political message, you can let the phone ring if you want, it doesn't matter. Political messages are exempt from robocalls and telemarketing regulations. Just make sure to call between 8 AM and 9 PM for the politician you're calling and double-check with any local political campaign laws (so you don't accidentally run afoul of them).

Should be? How about is be?

No. According to the FTC: "Exclusive dealing or requirements contracts between manufacturers and retailers are common and are generally lawful." The FTC also says: "Most exclusive dealing contracts are beneficial because they encourage marketing support for the manufacturer's brand.", which is, of course, total bullcrap.

Under current law, exclusivity agreements are only illegal in very narrow circumstances, and it falls on their competitor (Sanofi in this case) to sue for relief at their own expense.