[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 23, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S713-S714]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            INTERNET PRIVACY

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, if Americans knew that every time they 
walked through their local shopping mall or wandered through the 
shopping district of their hometown their movements were being tracked, 
every purchase was being recorded, and every conversation was being 
monitored, they would be outraged. Americans would consider this level 
of surveillance a violation of their most basic constitutional right. 
Yet that very expectation of privacy we expect in our traditional 
shopping in the local mall, or our visiting with friends, or searching 
for information in our hometown is exactly what is not happening in the 
shopping center of the 21st century in cyberspace.
  Whenever a citizen ventures online to pay a bill, seeks medical 
advice, purchases a product, checks the latest news, or engages in a 
conversation on the Internet, there is a chance that someone is 
gathering information about us, recording their information, and then 
selling it, or giving it to others. It is a very disturbing new look at 
a very exciting new technology.
  Indeed, there are companies now being formed for the specific purpose 
of monitoring our travels through cyberspace and recording this very 
information.
  The situation, while unsettling, does not need to necessarily be 
menacing. Marketing both online and offline is very common in our daily 
lives. By collecting some of this information, businesses, indeed, can 
benefit, if they know the kind of products we want, what our tastes 
might be, our sizes, and our preferences in what we want to read and 
want to purchase. The question is whether consumers can control that 
information because, indeed, companies having access to this 
information can be more efficient and allow our time to be used more 
efficiently. I may want a retailer of clothing to know the kind of 
clothes I want to buy so that I receive the proper advertising. I may 
want a book company to know the things that I like to read and my areas 
of study so I can receive products more properly.
  That is having information used at its best. One can only imagine how 
it can be used at its worst.
  This information about what I want to read in the wrong hands can 
reveal my most private political thoughts that I would rather have 
others not know. It could reveal sexual orientation or party 
affiliation. Indeed, if I seek medical advice online for psychiatric 
care or for a disease for myself or a child or a mate, it very well 
probably would be information I wouldn't want generally available to 
other people for commercial purposes, political purposes, or worse.
  Too often web sites underinform or misinform the public about how 
they intend to use this information or have presented work to be used 
improperly or where it can be misused. The fact is that over 90 percent 
of our most popular web sites do not reveal that they gather and share 
consumer information with other businesses. And if the public knew that 
90 percent of these sites were sharing this information, we as 
consumers and citizens would be more careful about what we reveal or 
what we purchase.
  A 1999 Georgetown survey also concluded that only 36 percent of 
leading web sites that admit to gathering information fully explain how 
they intend to utilize it. So the consumer, the citizens, are not able 
to make an informed decision about what information they are providing 
and what risks they might be taking.
  Many consumers are now being informed through the popular media that 
without our consent or knowledge, programs known as ``cookies'' monitor 
and collect information regarding our web site browsing habits.
  Personal data is also routinely extracted directly by web sites 
whenever we transmit the information required to purchase a product or 
surf the net for a specific topic.
  In both cases, our actions are monitored and our information will be 
shared unless we specifically request that a company do not do so, a 
process known as opting out.
  Opting out requires that a user directly contact a site to decline 
disclosure. The problem with opting out is that the location on web 
sites where one clicks to opt out, to take your information out of 
circulation, is often not prominently displayed and therefore is not 
known by the consumer.
  One leading marketing company that tracks 80 million online consumer 
profiles has revealed it receives an average of only 12 opt out 
requests per day; 80 million customers, 12 opt out per day.
  It is unlikely that only 12 people are concerned about privacy of 
their purchases or other vital personal information. I suggest to the 
Senate it is much more likely that the opt out location

[[Page S714]]

on the web page is obscured or in some form inadequate.
  Privacy policies meant to inform users of both the scope and scale of 
this information are very often inaccessible. A recent California 
Healthcare survey of 21 popular health care sites reveals many sites 
have secretly shared personal health information with marketers despite 
the fact that privacy policies were posted. Often the opt out sites are 
not adequately displayed. They often are misleading. Sometimes, as this 
study by California Healthcare indicates, they are just plain 
dishonest.
  There are, however, solutions. I believe these solutions are 
important to protect privacy. I remind those who are now marketing on 
the Internet and share my enthusiasm for the potential of the Internet 
for economic purposes that we have a common interest. If consumers do 
not believe their interests are protected regarding safeguarding their 
most vital personal information, the Internet will never reach its true 
economic potential. This point bears repeating. This is vital for 
privacy in our society and personal confidence in the Internet, but it 
is equally vital for the Internet in meeting its economic potential.
  Great segments of this society are going to be reluctant to purchase 
books, health care products, seek information, and exchange ideas if 
they do not know whether the information is safeguarded. It is no 
different than citizens using the telephone to convey information, 
exchange political ideas, or purchase products, if citizens did not 
have some idea that their every phone conversation wasn't being 
monitored. It wouldn't be any different than citizens visiting the 
local shopping mall, meeting friends, engaging in conversations, going 
to restaurants, or purchasing products, if they knew that over their 
shoulder someone was recording everything they did and everywhere they 
went. This is vital economically as well for the privacy of our 
citizens if this new, wonderful technology is to meet its economic 
potential.
  To deal with this problem, I have introduced S. 2063, the Secure 
Online Communication Enforcement Act of 2000. This legislation is not a 
final product, I stress to privacy advocates and to the Internet 
industries and online companies. It is not a final product. It is 
establishing, I hope, a national dialog first to educate ourselves 
about the privacy problem in cyberspace. It is a beginning document to 
which I invite comment and amendment. Its purpose is simply to begin 
collecting ideas of how to enhance privacy. But it is built on the 
concept of opting in versus opting out; that is, that the consumer, the 
citizen, must make a choice about whether they want this information 
shared. So the consumer, the individual, holds the power.

  If I believe a company can better market to me--and, indeed, I 
believe a company can better market to me if they know my taste in 
music, my taste in reading, my taste in clothing or automobiles--I can 
decide that I want that information shared, given to other companies, 
and come back to me with good information. However, if I don't want 
something shared--perhaps I have gone online with a health care company 
and I prefer my health information not be shared--I do not opt in, I do 
not give anybody the right to give that information.
  A second vital part of this bill: I strongly believe government 
oversight and regulation of the Internet should be kept to a minimum. 
That is one reason I have opposed steadfastly a sales tax on Internet 
purchases. This is one area of American life where the government 
should keep its presence to an absolute minimum in taxation and 
regulation. For that reason, this legislation is self-enforcing. No 
government bureaucracy will be calling if there is a violation. If, 
indeed, a company violates a citizen's privacy, the right of action is 
with the citizen, not the government. There is a legal right of action 
when sharing my personal information which I have said will not be 
shared. If I did not give anyone that right, then I as a citizen will 
hold them liable for doing so.
  Those twin pillars are: As a citizen, I decide whether to share my 
private service; second pillar, as a citizen, I and not the government 
have the right of action to enforce it.
  I have introduced this new legislation to begin this dialog, S. 2063, 
the Secure Online Communication and Enforcement Act of 2000. I hope it 
is helpful to my colleagues. I hope a good and worthwhile debate 
proceeds in the Senate, in our country, and, mostly, within this vital 
industry. If we can get this right, we not only do service to our 
people by protecting their privacy, as is our cultural and 
constitutional tradition, we also do a great deal to reinforce public 
confidence in the Internet, cyberspace, as a new arena of economic 
commerce and competition. We can bring the Internet to reach its true 
economic potential.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the business 
before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, are there limitations on the amount of time 
Members are allowed to speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.

                          ____________________