Consumers in the United States are the least represented interest group. Despite consumerism being a universal characteristic, only recently have governmental agencies began addressing the needs of the people. While agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and various state offices of the Attorney General have made significant strides, our bureaucratic process of policy has failed to address the exponential growth of data and internet- based businesses. As the recent Senate hearing of Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg indicate, the U.S. government is failing to adequately protect American consumers and meet the demands of contemporary markets, notably with data privacy.
Currently, large technology conglomerates have near autonomy over private consumer data, which most Americans unknowingly yield through convoluted contracts. As the average person could attest, most mandatory agreements required to download applications are agreed to by users that neglected to examine terms and conditions. Thus, firms are granted legal ownership of private consumer data, which is frequently sold to third parties without the user’s consent. In the case of Facebook, CEO Mark Zuckerberg was forced to testify before Congress after a third-party consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica Ltd., was able to effectively mine, broker, and analyze user data. Facebook and Cambridge Analytica had access to this information because of the current systematic flaw that requires consumers to agree to a myriad of conditions before using online systems crucial to daily life. With more Americans using Facebook than visiting the library, it is imperative this unregulated transaction stop.
In the presence of insufficient supervision of online security, there exists a precedent of high standards for a variant of private information: medical data. An individual must consent directly to any firm or person that wishes to share their medical data due to the gravity of the information. Oblivious to lawmakers, however, is the near-identical severity of both medical and online data. In Louisiana, for example, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency effectively utilized data provided by Amazon to conduct the largest deportation raid in American history. Had the undocumented immigrants been aware of the precise nature of their data transaction, many would have reconsidered their use of the technology conglomerate that facilitated their forced removal. Yet, because of the existing guideline, consumer data went unfiltered by users, resulting in Amazon and third parties having discretion in the use of private information.
Consequently, policies must be codified to address the exploitative data transaction that allocates the ownership of user data to private firms. The process of yielding information should not be encrypted into convoluted contracts, but rather be specified into numerous sections consumers must individually agree to during the sharing of data. With a heightened emphasis on categories such as identification, location, health, and ownership, firms should be required to provide understandable prompts a consumer can void either during the initial downloading agreement or as the firm would like to access the information. Further, consumers must regain the right to determine with whom their information is provided, as the result can be life-altering.
Learn More