[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 43 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1686-S1687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CONSUMER PROTECTION

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, consumer protection has been a 
priority for me throughout my career, as I know it has been for the 
Presiding Officer. Both he and I served together as attorneys general, 
and now as Senators he and I have worked to give consumers a voice 
against companies that harm them through deceptive and dangerous or 
abusive practices.
  This month we recognize consumers in two ways. National Consumer 
Protection Week, recognized the week of March 4 through 10, is led by 
government and nonprofit groups and its focus is to encourage consumers 
to take full advantage of their consumer rights and make better 
informed decisions for themselves in the marketplace. This month we 
also recognize that many of the same consumer issues affecting 
Americans every day in their lives impact consumers in every corner of 
the world. So today we celebrate World Consumer Rights Day.
  Every day ought to be Consumer Rights Day because, as President 
Kennedy once said, we are all consumers and we are consumers every day 
of every year. Organizations here in America such as Consumers Union 
and other consumer groups around the world celebrate World Consumer 
Rights Day as members of Consumers International, the nonprofit 
organization representing over 220 consumer groups in 115 countries.
  Today also marks the 50th anniversary of a very special day in 
American history for American consumers. On March 15, 1962, President 
Kennedy sent a message to Congress calling for a national commitment to 
protecting consumer interests. Fifty years ago today, President Kennedy 
spoke about the consumer right to safety, to be informed, to choose, 
and to be heard. These rights are the foundation of what we now know as 
the Consumer Bill of Rights. The Consumer Bill of Rights has grown to 
include eight specific guarantees: the right to satisfaction of basic 
needs; the right to safety; the right to be informed; the right to 
choose; the right to be heard; the right to redress; the right to 
consumer education; and the right to a healthy environment.
  Today, I wish to propose another right, a ninth right: the right to 
privacy. There is a growing need to defend individual rights to privacy 
in a multitude of areas. This country was founded--its basic bedrock--
on a desire for personal privacy, on the right to be left alone. It is 
the reason people came to this country, avoiding unwanted and 
unwarranted intrusion on their personal space and on their rights and 
liberties. They came here out of a desire for religious freedom, 
economic liberty, and the security of their person and property against 
intrusion. It is a unique, bedrock American right--the right to 
privacy. Concerns about governmental invasion of personal privacy go 
back literally to the founding of our Republic and the protections 
guaranteed under the third amendment when the British lodged troops in 
our homes without permission, and the fourth amendment, when they 
searched our homes and seized goods and property from them.
  I have heard numerous complaints from Connecticut residents who are 
concerned about their privacy. They are concerned about Federal and 
State intrusion into women's health care decisions. They are concerned 
about government efforts to combat terrorism through tracking of 
individuals by a GPS or cell phone tower location. Those potential 
invasions of privacy are by the government, by official

[[Page S1687]]

forces. But people today are also understandably and rightly concerned 
about corporate intrusion into their privacy. They are concerned about 
companies crawling the Web to collect consumers' personal information 
and selling it to marketers. They are concerned that mobile device apps 
can access and acquire the device owner's photos and address book 
without his or her knowledge or consent. They are concerned that credit 
scores are being created from their use of medications, and that those 
scores are being used to set personal health insurance premiums. They 
are concerned about companies that are compiling dossiers on their use 
of social media sites and blogs and selling those reports to 
prospective employers. They are concerned because they are powerless to 
prevent the distribution of their contact information to marketers who 
then deluge them with advertisements in the mail and by e-mail, and 
they are concerned about companies who don't secure their personal data 
and the damages that result from improper breaches and disclosures with 
the risk of identity theft and worse.
  The Constitution was written to protect Americans from government 
intrusions into their privacy. I understand the difference between 
government intrusions and private sector invasions. But if the 
government were treating its citizens the way some companies are 
treating their customers, people would be outraged. They would be up in 
arms. They would be dumping tea in the Boston Harbor. The Supreme Court 
has just ruled that it is not OK for the government to track people via 
GPS in their car without a warrant, so why would it be OK for a company 
such as OnStar to track drivers who canceled their subscriptions and 
sell that information on their movements to marketers?
  Americans--many of us, and others--were questioning the PATRIOT Act 
and its provisions that allow government to access records of what 
books citizens borrowed from the library and what Web pages they 
visited while they were there. Yet, companies are tracking consumers' 
every movement on line, through dozens--even hundreds--of cookies that 
are secretly installed on consumers' computers whenever they visit a 
Web site. We would be horrified if the government as a routine matter 
monitored pictures people take and who they interact with. Yet, 
according to news reports, mobile devices and apps are doing exactly 
that.
  I believe it is time we protect Americans from intrusions into their 
personal privacy by companies or educational institutions or others who 
may not be part of the government. Big Brother or Big Sister no longer 
need wear a police uniform or a badge or a military uniform. It may 
well be under the guise of a corporate seal or insignia, and I believe 
it is time we protect against those intrusions, as well as others. In 
fact, it is a bipartisan concern. One of the few areas where there is 
agreement in Congress is the need for better protection of consumers 
for online privacy. We may differ on the substance; we may disagree as 
to what the contours and the specifics should be. I am concerned about 
this issue and I am encouraged by the bipartisan support for attention 
to it. I was heartened by the President's recent call for a consumer 
privacy bill of rights--a great beginning, a very positive step 
forward. I believe our approach to privacy must be comprehensive and 
robust.

  As a threshold matter, companies that collect or share information 
about consumers should be required to get consumers' affirmative opt-in 
consent for collecting or sharing that data. Not an opt-out but an opt-
in--specific, informed consent. That should apply online as well as 
offline. We have seen a lot of attention paid to Internet tracking and 
behavioral advertising. I think we ought to protect consumers from 
privacy invasions that come from the mail or over the phone. They 
particularly affect our seniors. If a company wants to collect, 
aggregate, share, sell, or by any other means, it should get consumers' 
permission; otherwise, it shouldn't be permitted.
  We also need to pay attention to the collection of information 
through consumers' use of mobile devices. As we have seen recently, 
some mobile apps or operating systems are capable of tracking not just 
consumers' Web browsing but also their text messages, what they 
photograph, who they contact. Mobile devices need a systemwide, do-not-
track option to allow consumers to control the distribution of their 
information.
  Finally, the consumers' right to privacy also must encompass the 
right to prevent unauthorized distribution of that information. To that 
end, we need to establish requirements for companies that possess 
consumers' personal information to ensure they have security features 
in place to prevent data breaches. Those protections must be 
accompanied by remedies, by fines and penalties that make those rights 
and protections real so that consumers have a private right of action 
as well.
  Congress is working on these issues. There have been numerous 
hearings and legislation has been proposed. Having the President add 
his voice to the call for privacy will only help. As with food safety, 
product safety, and Wall Street reform, companies themselves are 
demonstrating the need for legislation and some of them are joining in 
this effort very constructively.
  So as we mark the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's call to 
action, let us heed the importance of his message to Congress. He said: 
``As all of us are consumers, these actions and proposals in the 
interests of consumers are in the interests of us all.''
  We should be proud in this body of having continued the fight for 
consumer protection. It should be full-throated and full-hearted.
  Americans went West to the Presiding Officer's State and to other 
States seeking open spaces, economic opportunities, as well as personal 
opportunities, including the right to privacy and being alone. That 
American right--that American spirit--is very much with us today. It is 
50 years after President Kennedy first articulated it, but I believe it 
is as real and necessary today as ever.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________