Statement of Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA)
Ranking Democrat, House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee

Electronic Privacy and Children's Privacy
Federal Trade Commission

June 5, 1996

Good Morning.  Thank you very much for inviting me to be with 
you here today.  The issue of privacy in the information age and 
in particular, children's privacy protection is quite timely as the 
nation becomes ever more linked by the Internet.  It is important 
that we tackle these issues now before we travel down the 
information superhighway too far and realize perhaps we've 
made a wrong turn.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of addressing a conference at MIT 
on how the Internet and other telecommunications technologies 
can enhance the educational experience for millions of 
schoolkids.

Yet the "wire" -- and I use the term "wire" as shorthand for any 
telecommunications infrastructure such as phone, cable, 
computer or wireless networks -- the wondrous wire that brings 
new services to homes, businesses and schools will have a 
certain Dickensian quality to it:  it will be the best of wires and the 
worst of wires.  It can uplift society as well as debase it.  It can 
allow people to telecommute to work and obtain distance 
learning classes.  New digital technologies and other innovations 
allow corporations to become more efficient, workers more 
productive, and businesses to conduct commerce almost 
effortlessly in digital dollars.

This same technology however, will avail Corporate America of 
the opportunity to track the clickstream of a citizen of the Net, to 
sneak corporate hands into a personal information "cookie jar" 
and use this database to compile sophisticated, highly personal 
consumer profiles of people's hobbies, buying habits, financial 
information, health information, who they contact or converse 
with, when and for how long.  In short, that wondrous wire may 
also allow digital desperadoes to roam the electronic frontier 
unchecked by any high tech sheriff or adherence  to any code of 
electornic ethics.

It is this issue of personal information hijacking that we are 
concerned about and we are obviously concerned when kids are 
the target. 

As many of you may know, I have long battled to establish 
privacy protections in the telecommunications area.  I fought 
successfully to include privacy provisions in the recently-signed 
Telecommunications Act that were based upon legislation that I 
previously passed through the House of Representatives in 1994.  
In fact, in the Telecommunications Act, I was able to convince 
my colleagues to greatly expand the privacy protections 
traditionally accorded consumers of telephone services.

In short, the Telecommunications Act recognizes that many 
additional players in the telecommunications industry will now 
be privy to personal information similar to what telephone 
companies can obtain.  for this reason, the Act extends privacy 
protections to residential consumers and ensures that all 
"telecommunications carriers" -- rather than simply local phone 
companies -- are prohibited from utilizing personal consumer 
information except in narrowly tailored circumstances -- such as 
to render and bill service -- or with the approval of the user.

It is becoming increasingly apparent, however, that the existing 
privacy protections granted to consumers with respect to 
information gathered by telecommunications carriers are not 
alone sufficient to protect consumer privacy rights.  Further 
protections are needed to ensure the privacy rights are retained 
and respected in cyberspace by other entities doing business there 
as well.

In addition to my work on telecommunications privacy, I also 
have spent considerable time fighting to maximize the benefits of 
the information revolution for children.  Last week, I sent a letter 
to the FCC with the signatures of 220 Members of the House of 
Representatives -- a majority of the House -- requesting that that 
agency adopt a minimum standard as part of the Children's 
Television Act.  This minimum standard would require 
America's television broadcasters to air at least 3 hours per week 
of educational and information programming designed for 
children.

In addition, I have advocated establishing "learning links" to 
schools and libraries.  I believe that the very telecommunications 
companies to whom so much opportunity has been given in the 
Telecommunications Act have an obligation to harness a small 
portion of their economic activity to do something noble and 
necessary to prepare the next generation of Americans for the 
fiercely competitive global economy of the future.

Thirdly, I fought over a number of years to get the TV industry to 
adopt the V-chip and finally won its approval as part of the 
Telecommunications Act.  The V-chip will allow parents -- in a 
1st Amendment-friendly way -- to exercise the marketplace 
option of turning off TV content that they believe is 
inappropriate for their young daughter or son.

Yet, the V-chip will only work because the television industry 
decided earlier this year that, rather than further opposing the 
concept and litigating it, they would work with parents to give 
them the information and tools they needed to make informed 
decisions.  I think that model is quite instructive in this situation.

The issue of children's privacy, and indeed, adult privacy in an 
electronic environment, must find its ultimate solution in 
technology, industry action, government oversight or regulation.  
Or, some combination of any or all of the above.

Without question, the issues posed here today are tremendously 
complex.  The ever-evolving nature of the Internet does not lend 
itself to easy solutions.  My colleague, Congressman Bob Franks, 
has recently introduced legislation to help protect kids from 
harm and deceptive marketing practices.  I want to commend and 
congratulate him for his work and I agree 100 percent with the 
goals of his bill.  It's application, however, to the Internet -- as 
distinct from other electronic media -- is problematic.

Being able to distinguish, for instance, a child from an adult in an 
online environment is quite difficult.  Determining the age of the 
user behind the modem is tough to do as well.  Imposing 
criminal penalties for the distribution or receipt of personal 
information where the recipient of that information has "reason 
to believe" that it will be used to abuse a child is a commendable 
sentiment.  I would note, however, that it is hard to enforce 
because no standard exists in the bill to ascertain the level of 
knowledge necessary to meet this requirement.

This leaves the citizenry of the Net not knowing their 
obligations.  Many World Wide Web sites collect information for 
distributing content electronically and often exchange such "e-
mailing lists."  Do they have "reason to believe" when they 
exchange such lists that this data may end up in the hands of 
unscrupulous people?

Again, how best to protect kids is a complex issue.  How to put 
teeth into privacy protections is also important to figure out.  
What may have worked for privacy protection or parental 
empowerment in the phone or cable or TV industry may not 
adequately serve as a model when these technologies converge.  
Therefore I believe we must pursue other alternatives.

I suggest we step back from all the complexity for a moment and 
focus instead on the core principles we want to advance.

We must recognize that children's privacy is a subset of a 
parent's privacy rights.  I believe that regardless of the technology 
that consumers use, their privacy rights and expectations remain 
a constant.  Whether they are using a phone, a TV clicker, a 
satellite dish, or modem, every consumer should enjoy a Privacy 
Bill of Rights for the information age.  These core rights are 
embodied in a proposal I have advocated for many years and I 
call it "Knowledge, Notice and No."

In short, irrespective of the telecommunications medium 
consumers use, they should get the following 3 basic rights:

1) KNOWLEDGE that information is being collected about them.  
This is very important because digital technologies increasingly 
allow people to electronically glean personal information about 
users surreptitiously.

2)  Adequate and conspicuous NOTICE that any personal 
information collected is intended by the recipient for reuse for 
sale.

And, 3)  the right of a consumer to say "NO" and to curtail or 
prohibit such reuse or sale of their personal information.

I will introduce legislation before the end of next week that will 
canvass privacy policies governing the telecommunications 
universe -- from NYNEX to NETSCAPE -- to figure out whether 
consumers are able to obtain and exercise these rights.  And 
secondly, in the case of children, to see whether these rights can 
be exercised adequately by their parents.

We should see if there are technological tools that can empower 
consumers.  Where they don't exist, or where a particular 
industry refuses to embrace this code of electronic ethics in a way 
that solves the problem, then the government is obliged to step 
in and do something.

Pilfering personal information from kids online, under the guise 
of giving them prizes or letting them play a game, is wrong, just 
plain wrong.  We must say it is wrong and the industry itself 
should condemn such practices.  The telecommunications 
industry is full of talented individuals and they can clearly help 
to find solutions and thereby limit the need for government 
action.  For instance, in my congressional district in 
Massachusetts a company called Microsystems has developed 
CyberPatrol to help parents better supervise their kids' activities 
online.  Software that helps establish privacy preferences on the 
Internet that adequately gives consumers the tools they need to 
prevent the unwanted dissemination of their personal data is 
clearly needed.

I implore the industry to act swiftly because the current situation 
is utterly unacceptable.  At risk is consumer confidence in the 
medium.  When consumer confidence plummets so will 
economic activity on the Internet.

My legislation will establish "Knowledge, Notice, and No" as the 
goal and will require government action where the technology of 
the industry fails to protect consumers and kids.

I look forward to working with the Commission on finding a 
solution.  I welcome consumer as well as industry input 
in further developing my legislative proposal.  And I want to 
work with my colleagues in Congress to ensure that we work 
together in a way that respects the 1st Amendment and the new 
issues raised by the Internet.
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to come 
here today to speak today.