Christopher Wolf,
a litigation partner in the Washington office of the Proskauer Rose law
firm and the chair of its Privacy & Data Security Practice Group,
recognizes the irony -- and also the extremist nature of the proposal.
Here's what he wrote in Business Week: "This
would take privacy law to a new level, where protection is given not
only to private data (names, addresses, account numbers, etc.) but also
to anonymous data (e.g., data collected through cookie technology),
which would be legally regulated. The complexity and enforcement
problems with a 'do not track' law are enormous. Advocates liken it to
the 'do not call' rules that pertain to telemarketers, but only the
names are similar. Compiling and applying a list of those who do not
want tailored advertising will be a technological nightmare.
Compliance, to the extent it can occur at all, will be costly.
Ultimately, consumers will suffer through increased costs passed on to
them, and opportunities for more useful consumer information will be
diminished."
You have to hand it to the extremist groups. By
co-opting the tenor and feel of the telemarketing "do not call"
concept, they have made a complex, radical idea -- one that would
dramatically curtail marketers' and media's current ability to engage
in advertising, marketing research, and information and entertainment
delivery -- seem simple and benign. Fortunately, the FTC seemed to
recognize this at the Town Hall: Commissioners repeatedly queried the
anti-consumerist advocates, "Where's the harm?," and were met not with
current information, but hypotheses about the future.
The real
harm, as Mr. Wolf shows, will be if access to information is shut down.
Prices will rise, and consumer choice will diminish.