If you thought all the action in privacy regulation centered around the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission would like you to think again. Yesterday, April 28, the FCC held a 3-plus hour workshop that started the regulatory “conversation” on the manner in which the FCC can or should regulate consumer broadband privacy.
Chairman Wheeler kicked off the event with opening remarks that included this unequivocal statement: “Privacy is unassailable.” He also said that “changes in technology do not affect our values.” From these words and the text of the FCC’s “Open Internet” order released earlier this year, not to mention the FCC’s recent $25 million data breach consent decree with AT&T, it is clear the FCC intends to be involved in regulating consumer privacy.
Yesterday’s workshop follows the recent Open Internet order in which the agency determined it would apply certain aspects of its Title II authority to the Internet (namely, certain “common carrier” provisions of the Communications Act). The order has broad impact on issues like consumer access to broadband content that have been widely written about. But what the order means for privacy is that the FCC’s rules on “customer proprietary network information” or CPNI, which have historically applied to traditional telephone companies and interconnected VoIP providers, may apply more broadly in some form or fashion to others in the broadband ecosystem—particularly, broadband Internet access providers.
By way of background, CPNI (defined in Section 222(h)(1) of the Communications Act) is information collected by telecommunications carriers about their customers. CPNI includes things like “quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a telecommunications service” that a customer subscribes to and billing information. It is a fairly specific definition, and it doesn’t include personal information like name, phone number, address, etc.
Section 222(a) of the Communications Act requires telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of customer information, and Section 222(c) restricts the ability of telecommunication carriers to use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable CPNI without the customer’s approval or as required by law.
The Open Internet order makes plain that the FCC intends to apply these CPNI confidentiality provisions (or some form of them) to broadband and broadband Internet access providers. But the FCC will need to adopt new rules to apply the CPNI provisions of the statute in this way.
Yesterday’s workshop started that process with a discussion among stakeholders, though no formal rulemaking has been launched. Panelists discussed the privacy implications of broadband Internet access (for example, the kind of data broadband providers have access to) as well as specific concerns with applying Section 222 to broadband Internet access services. One common theme was the potentially overlapping jurisdiction of the FTC and the FCC in the area of privacy. But, significantly, one thing the FCC brings to the table in this area is general rulemaking authority, which the FTC lacks.
We’ll have to watch and wait to see if a notice of inquiry, notice of proposed rulemaking, or other agency guidance will come.
The FCC typically uploads events like this to its archive, so check here or here in a few days if you would like to view the full event.
Add a comment
Archives
- January 2022
- June 2021
- March 2020
- August 2019
- March 2019
- October 2018
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- March 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2006
- February 2006
Recent Posts
- Rethinking Your Cyber Insurance Needs as Your Workplace Evolves
- Data Breach Defense for Educational Institutions
- COVID-19 and the Increased Cybersecurity Risk in a Work-From-Home World
- Like Incorporating Facebook into your Website? EU Decision Raises New Issues
- Lessons Learned: Key Takeaways for Every Business from the Capital One Data Breach
- Will Quick Talks to WRAL About Privacy Issues Related to Doorbell Cameras
- About Us
- Not in My House - California to Regulate IoT Device Security
- Ninth Circuit Says You’re Going to Jail for Visiting That Website without Permission
- Ninth Circuit Interprets “Without Authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Topics
- Data Security
- Data Breach
- Privacy
- Cyberattack
- Defamation
- Public Records
- FCC Matters
- Reporters Privilege
- Digital Media and Data Privacy Law
- Political Advertising
- Newsroom Subpoenas
- Shield Laws
- Internet
- Miscellaneous
- Indecency
- First Amendment
- Anti-SLAPP Statutes
- Fair Report Privilege
- Education
- Prior Restraints
- Wiretapping
- Access to Courtrooms
- FOIA
- Privacy Policies
- HIPAA
- Drone Law
- Access to Search Warrants
- Access to Court Dockets
- Intrusion
- First Amendment Retaliation
- Mobile Privacy
- Newsroom Search Warrants
- About This Blog
- Disclaimer
- Services