Big Data and Consumer Privacy in the Internet Economy, 32714-32716 [2014-13195]

Download as PDF 32714 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Notices Endangered Species Act NMFS (Permits and Conservation Division) has determined that an ESA section 7 consultation for the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity is not necessary for any ESA-listed marine mammal species under its jurisdiction, as the planned action will not affect ESA-listed species. National Environmental Policy Act Dated: May 30, 2014. Perry F. Gayaldo, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2014–13213 Filed 6–5–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket No. 140514424–4424–01] wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES To meet NMFS’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requirements for the issuance of an IHA to the City of San Diego, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 2013 for a similar activity titled ‘‘Environmental Assessment on the Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization to the City of San Diego to Take Marine Mammals by Harassment Incidental to Demolition and Construction Activities at the Children’s Pool Lifeguard Station in La Jolla, California’’ to comply with the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216–6. Based on the analysis in the EA and the underlying information in the record, including the IHA application, proposed IHA, and public comments, NMFS prepared and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) determining that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. The FONSI was signed on June 28, 2013 prior to the issuance of the IHA for the City of San Diego’s activities from June 2013 to June 2014. The currently planned construction activities that will be covered by the IHA from June 2014 to June 2015 are similar to the demolition and construction activities described in the 2013 EA. NMFS has reviewed CEQ’s regulations and has determined that it is not necessary to supplement the 2013 EA because the effects of this IHA fall within the scope of those documents and do not require further supplementation. Based on the public comments received in response to the publication in the Federal Register notice and proposed IHA, NMFS has reaffirmed its FONSI. Authorization NMFS has issued an IHA to the City of San Diego for conducting construction activities at the La Jolla Children’s Pool Lifeguard Station, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:59 Jun 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 RIN 0660–XC010 Big Data and Consumer Privacy in the Internet Economy National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Request for Public Comment. AGENCY: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (‘‘NTIA’’) is requesting comment on ‘‘big data’’ developments and how they impact the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. DATES: Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 5, 2014. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by email to privacyrfc2014@ ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted by email should be machine-searchable and should not be copy-protected. Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Attn: Privacy RFC 2014, Washington, DC 20230. Responders should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, as well as a page number, on each page of their submissions. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to https://www.ntia.doc.gov/ category/internet-policy-task-force without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NTIA will accept anonymous comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Morris, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1689; email jmorris@ntia.doc.gov. Please direct media inquiries to NTIA’s Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482–7002. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: In January 2014, President Obama asked Counselor to the President John Podesta to lead a team of advisors, including Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, and National Economic Council Director Jeffrey Zients, in conducting a 90-day study examining how ‘‘big data’’ will transform the way individuals live and work and impact the relationships among government, citizens, businesses, and consumers. On May 1, 2014, the working group published its findings and recommendations as Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values (the ‘‘Big Data Report’’).1 The Big Data Report notes that big data analysis can ‘‘become an historic driver of progress, helping our nation perpetuate the civic and economic dynamism that has long been its hallmark.’’ 2 At the same time, big data ‘‘raises considerable questions about how our framework for privacy protection applies in a big data ecosystem’’ and has the potential to ‘‘eclipse longstanding civil rights protections in how personal information is used in housing, credit, employment, health, education, and the marketplace.’’ 3 The Big Data Report specifically addresses privacy and the Administration’s Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.4 The Big Data Report notes that: As President Obama made clear in February 2012, the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights and the associated Blueprint for Consumer Privacy represent ‘‘a dynamic model of how to offer strong privacy protection and enable ongoing innovation in new information technologies.’’ The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is based on the Fair Information Practice Principles. 1 Executive Office of the President, Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values (the ‘‘Big Data Report’’) (May 2014), available at: https:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/big_ data_privacy_report_may_1_2014.pdf. 2 Big Data Report, Letter to the President from John Podesta, Counselor to the President; Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce; Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary of Energy; John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; and Jeffrey Zients, Director, National Economic Council (May 1, 2014). 3 Id. 4 In February 2012, the White House released Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy (the ‘‘Privacy Blueprint’’), available at: https:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacyfinal.pdf. The Privacy Blueprint includes the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, which applies seven Fair Information Practice Principles to contemporary commercial data practices. The Blueprint also calls for Congress to pass baseline consumer privacy legislation. E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Notices Some privacy experts believe nuanced articulations of these principles are flexible enough to address and support new and emerging uses of data, including big data. Others, especially technologists, are less sure, as it is undeniable that big data challenges several of the key assumptions that underpin current privacy frameworks, especially around collection and use. These big data developments warrant consideration in the context of how to viably ensure privacy protection and what practical limits exist to the practice of notice and consent.5 The Big Data Report then includes a specific recommendation: The Department of Commerce should promptly seek public comment on how the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights could support the innovations of big data while at the same time responding to its risks, and how a responsible use framework, as articulated in Chapter 5 [of the Big Data Report], could be embraced within the framework established by the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. Following the comment process, the Department of Commerce should work on draft legislative text for consideration by stakeholders and for submission by the President to Congress.6 Also, on May 1, 2014, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (‘‘PCAST’’) released Big Data and Privacy: A Technological Perspective (the ‘‘PCAST Report’’).7 The PCAST Report ‘‘was developed to complement and inform the analysis of [the Big Data Report] . . . examining the nature of current technologies for managing and analyzing big data and for preserving privacy, [and] considering how those technologies are evolving.’’ 8 Request for Comment: NTIA, the Department of Commerce agency principally responsible for advising the President on telecommunications and information policy issues, seeks comment on the questions set out below. NTIA and the Department invite public comment on these issues from all stakeholders, including the commercial, academic, and public interest sectors, legislators, and from governmental consumer protection and enforcement agencies. As part of this effort, NTIA and the Department will consider the submissions to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s March 4, 2014 Request for Information 5 Big Data Report at 61. regarding big data (the ‘‘Big Data RFI’’).9 There is no need for any individual or organization to resubmit points made in that process, but anyone who filed comments there is welcome to supplement their prior submission with responses to the questions below. The Big Data Report, the PCAST Report, the submissions responding to the Big Data RFI, and the three big data workshops conducted in coordination with the Big Data Working Group, taken together, produced a broad range of ideas about and possible approaches to big data, and NTIA and the Department seek comment about some of those ideas and proposals below.10 Broad Questions Raised by the Big Data Report and the PCAST Report 1. How can the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, which is based on the Fair Information Practice Principles, support the innovations of big data while at the same time responding to its risks? 2. Should any of the specific elements of the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights be clarified or modified to accommodate the benefits of big data? 11 Should any of those elements be clarified or modified to address the risks posed by big data? 3. Should a responsible use framework, as articulated in Chapter 5 of the Big Data Report, be used to address some of the challenges posed by big data? If so, how might that framework be embraced within the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights? Should it be? In what contexts would such a framework be most effective? Are there limits to the efficacy or appropriateness of a responsible use framework in some contexts? What added protections do usage limitations or rules against misuse provide to users? 4. What mechanisms should be used to address the practical limits to the ‘‘notice and consent’’ model noted in the Big Data Report? How can the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights’ ‘‘individual control’’ and ‘‘respect for context’’ principles be applied to big data? Should they be? How is the notice and consent model impacted by recent advances concerning ‘‘just in time’’ notices? 5. Is there existing research or other sources that quantify or otherwise wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 6 Id. 7 Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President, Big Data and Privacy: A Technological Perspective (the ‘‘PCAST Report’’) (May 1, 2014), available at: https:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ ostp/PCAST/pcast_big_data_and_privacy_-_may_ 2014.pdf. 8 PCAST Report, Letter to the President from John P. Holdren, Co-Chair, PCAST, and Eric S. Lander, Co-Chair, PCAST (May 1, 2014). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:10 Jun 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 9 The Big Data RFI is available at: https:// www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/03/04/2014– 04660/government-big-data-request-forinformation. Responses to the RFI are available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ microsites/ostp/PCAST/big_data_rfi_responses.pdf. 10 More information regarding the Big Data Privacy Workshops is available at: www.whitehouse.gov/issues/technology/big-datareview. 11 Big Data Report at 48, 61. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 32715 substantiate the privacy risks, and/or frequency of such risks, associated with big data? Do existing resources quantify or substantiate the privacy risks, and/or frequency of such risks, that arise in non-big data (‘‘small data’’) contexts? How might future research best quantify or substantiate these privacy risks? 6. The Privacy Blueprint stated: The Administration urges Congress to pass legislation adopting the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights . . . Congress should act to protect consumers from violations of the rights defined in the Administration’s proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. These rights provide clear protection for consumers and define rules of the road for the rapidly growing marketplace for personal data. The legislation should permit the FTC and State Attorneys General to enforce these rights directly . . . To provide greater legal certainty and to encourage the development and adoption of industry-specific codes of conduct, the Administration also supports legislation that authorizes the FTC to review codes of conduct and grant companies that commit to adhere—and do adhere—to such codes forbearance from enforcement of provisions of the legislation.12 How can potential legislation with respect to consumer privacy support the innovations of big data while responding to its risks? Specific Questions Raised by the Big Data Report and the PCAST Report 7. The PCAST Report states that in some cases ‘‘it is practically impossible’’ with any high degree of assurance for data holders to identify and delete ‘‘all the data about an individual’’ particularly in light of the distributed and redundant nature of data storage.13 Do such challenges pose privacy risks? How significant are the privacy risks, and how might such challenges be addressed? Are there particular policy or technical solutions that would be useful to consider? Would concepts of ‘‘reasonableness’’ be useful in addressing data deletion? 8. The Big Data Report notes that the data services sector is regulated with respect to certain uses of data, such that consumers receive notice of some decisions based on brokered data, access to the data, and the opportunity to correct or delete inaccurate data. The Big Data Report also notes that other uses of data by data brokers ‘‘could have significant ramifications for targeted 12 Privacy 13 PCAST E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM Blueprint at 35. Report at 39. 06JNN1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 32716 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 109 / Friday, June 6, 2014 / Notices individuals.’’ 14 How significant are such risks? How could they be addressed in the context of the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights? Should they be? Should potential privacy legislation impose similar obligations with respect to uses of data that are not currently regulated? 9. How significant are the privacy risks posed by unindexed data backups and other ‘‘latent information about individuals?’’ 15 Do standard methods exist for determining whether data is sufficiently obfuscated and/or unavailable as to be irretrievable as a practical matter? 10. The PCAST Report notes that ‘‘data fusion occurs when data from different sources are brought into contact and new, often unexpected, phenomena emerge;’’ this process ‘‘frequently results in the identification of individual people,’’ even when the underlying data sources were not linked to individuals’ identities.16 How significant are the privacy risks associated with this? How should entities performing big data analysis implement individuals’ requests to delete personal data when previously unassociated information becomes associated with an individual at a subsequent date? Do existing systems enable entities to log and act on deletion requests on an ongoing basis? 11. As the PCAST Report explains, ‘‘it is increasingly easy to defeat [deidentification of personal data] by the very techniques that are being developed for many legitimate applications of big data.’’ 17 However, de-identification may remain useful as an added safeguard in some contexts, particularly when employed in combination with policy safeguards.18 How significant are the privacy risks posed by re-identification of deidentified data? How can deidentification be used to mitigate privacy risks in light of the analytical capabilities of big data? Can particular policy safeguards bolster the effectiveness of de-identification? Does the relative efficacy of de-identification depend on whether it is applied to public or private data sets? Can differential privacy mitigate risks in some cases? What steps could the government or private sector take to expand the capabilities and practical application of these techniques? 12. The Big Data Report concludes that ‘‘big data technologies can cause Data Report at 45. Report at 39. 16 Id. at 21. 17 Id. at 38. 18 Id. at 39. societal harms beyond damages to privacy, such as discrimination against individuals and groups’’ and warns ‘‘big data could enable new forms of discrimination and predatory practices.’’ 19 The Report states that ‘‘it is the responsibility of government to ensure that transformative technologies are used fairly’’ and urges agencies to determine ‘‘how to protect citizens from new forms of discrimination that may be enabled by big data technologies.’’ 20 Should the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights address the risk of discriminatory effects resulting from automated decision processes using personal data, and if so, how? How could consumer privacy legislation (either alone or in combination with anti-discrimination laws) make a useful contribution to addressing this concern? Should big data analytics be accompanied by assessments of the potential discriminatory impacts on protected classes? Possible Approaches to Big Data Suggested by the Reports and the Big Data Workshops 13. Can accountability mechanisms play a useful role in promoting socially beneficial uses of big data while safeguarding privacy? Should ethics boards, privacy advisory committees, consumer advisory boards, or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) be consulted when practical limits frustrate transparency and individuals’ control over their personal information? How could such entities be structured? How might they be useful in the commercial context? Can privacy impact assessments and third-party audits complement the work of such entities? What kinds of parameters would be valuable for different kinds of big data analysts to consider, and what kinds of incentives might be most effective in promoting their consideration? 14. Would a system using ‘‘privacy preference profiles,’’ as discussed in Section 4.5.1 of the PCAST Report, mitigate privacy risks regarding big data analysis? 21 15. Related to the concept of ‘‘privacy preference profiles,’’ some have urged that privacy preferences could be attached to and travel with personal data (in the form of metadata), thereby enabling recipients of data to know how to handle the data.22 Could such an approach mitigate privacy risks regarding big data analysis? 14 Big 15 PCAST VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:59 Jun 05, 2014 19 Big Data Report at 51, 53. at 49. 21 PCAST Report at 40–41. 22 Id. at 41. 20 Id. Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 16. Would the development of a framework for privacy risk management be an effective mechanism for addressing challenges with big data? 23 17. Can emerging privacy enhancing technologies mitigate privacy risks to individuals while preserving the benefits of robust aggregate data sets? 18. How can the approaches and issues addressed in Questions 14–17 be accommodated within the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights? 19. What other approaches to big data could be considered to promote privacy? 20. What other questions should we be asking about big data and consumer privacy? Dated: June 3, 2014. Angela M. Simpson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information. [FR Doc. 2014–13195 Filed 6–5–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–60–P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Proposed Additions and Deletions Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List. AGENCY: The Committee is proposing to add products and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and a service previously furnished by such agencies. DATES: Comments must be received on or before: 7/7/2014. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia, 22202–4149. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. SUMMARY: 23 See National Institute of Standards and Technology, Privacy Engineering Workshop (Apr. 9–10, 2014), available at: https://www.nist.gov/itl/ csd/privacy-engineering-workshop.cfm. E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32714-32716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13195]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

[Docket No. 140514424-4424-01]
RIN 0660-XC010

Big Data and Consumer Privacy in the Internet Economy

AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Request for Public Comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(``NTIA'') is requesting comment on ``big data'' developments and how
they impact the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

DATES: Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 5,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by email to
privacyrfc2014@ntia.doc.gov. Comments submitted by email should be
machine-searchable and should not be copy-protected. Written comments
also may be submitted by mail to the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Attn: Privacy RFC 2014, Washington,
DC 20230. Responders should include the name of the person or
organization filing the comment, as well as a page number, on each page
of their submissions. All comments received are a part of the public
record and will generally be posted to https://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/internet-policy-task-force without change. All personal
identifying information (for example, name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit
Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected
information. NTIA will accept anonymous comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Morris, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC
20230; telephone (202) 482-1689; email jmorris@ntia.doc.gov. Please
direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-
7002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: In January 2014, President Obama asked Counselor to the
President John Podesta to lead a team of advisors, including Secretary
of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, Office of
Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, and National
Economic Council Director Jeffrey Zients, in conducting a 90-day study
examining how ``big data'' will transform the way individuals live and
work and impact the relationships among government, citizens,
businesses, and consumers.
On May 1, 2014, the working group published its findings and
recommendations as Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values
(the ``Big Data Report'').\1\ The Big Data Report notes that big data
analysis can ``become an historic driver of progress, helping our
nation perpetuate the civic and economic dynamism that has long been
its hallmark.'' \2\ At the same time, big data ``raises considerable
questions about how our framework for privacy protection applies in a
big data ecosystem'' and has the potential to ``eclipse longstanding
civil rights protections in how personal information is used in
housing, credit, employment, health, education, and the marketplace.''
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Executive Office of the President, Big Data: Seizing
Opportunities, Preserving Values (the ``Big Data Report'') (May
2014), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/big_data_privacy_report_may_1_2014.pdf.
\2\ Big Data Report, Letter to the President from John Podesta,
Counselor to the President; Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce;
Ernest J. Moniz, Secretary of Energy; John Holdren, Director, Office
of Science and Technology Policy; and Jeffrey Zients, Director,
National Economic Council (May 1, 2014).
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Big Data Report specifically addresses privacy and the
Administration's Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.\4\ The Big Data
Report notes that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ In February 2012, the White House released Consumer Data
Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and
Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy (the ``Privacy
Blueprint''), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf. The Privacy Blueprint includes the Consumer
Privacy Bill of Rights, which applies seven Fair Information
Practice Principles to contemporary commercial data practices. The
Blueprint also calls for Congress to pass baseline consumer privacy
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As President Obama made clear in February 2012, the Consumer
Privacy Bill of Rights and the associated Blueprint for Consumer
Privacy represent ``a dynamic model of how to offer strong privacy
protection and enable ongoing innovation in new information
technologies.'' The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is based on the
Fair Information Practice Principles.

[[Page 32715]]

Some privacy experts believe nuanced articulations of these
principles are flexible enough to address and support new and
emerging uses of data, including big data. Others, especially
technologists, are less sure, as it is undeniable that big data
challenges several of the key assumptions that underpin current
privacy frameworks, especially around collection and use. These big
data developments warrant consideration in the context of how to
viably ensure privacy protection and what practical limits exist to
the practice of notice and consent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Big Data Report at 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Big Data Report then includes a specific recommendation:
The Department of Commerce should promptly seek public comment
on how the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights could support the
innovations of big data while at the same time responding to its
risks, and how a responsible use framework, as articulated in
Chapter 5 [of the Big Data Report], could be embraced within the
framework established by the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.
Following the comment process, the Department of Commerce should
work on draft legislative text for consideration by stakeholders and
for submission by the President to Congress.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Id.

Also, on May 1, 2014, the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (``PCAST'') released Big Data and Privacy: A
Technological Perspective (the ``PCAST Report'').\7\ The PCAST Report
``was developed to complement and inform the analysis of [the Big Data
Report] . . . examining the nature of current technologies for managing
and analyzing big data and for preserving privacy, [and] considering
how those technologies are evolving.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Executive Office of the President, President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the President, Big
Data and Privacy: A Technological Perspective (the ``PCAST Report'')
(May 1, 2014), available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_big_data_and_privacy_
_-may_2014.pdf.
\8\ PCAST Report, Letter to the President from John P. Holdren,
Co-Chair, PCAST, and Eric S. Lander, Co-Chair, PCAST (May 1, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Comment: NTIA, the Department of Commerce agency
principally responsible for advising the President on
telecommunications and information policy issues, seeks comment on the
questions set out below. NTIA and the Department invite public comment
on these issues from all stakeholders, including the commercial,
academic, and public interest sectors, legislators, and from
governmental consumer protection and enforcement agencies. As part of
this effort, NTIA and the Department will consider the submissions to
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's March 4, 2014
Request for Information regarding big data (the ``Big Data RFI'').\9\
There is no need for any individual or organization to resubmit points
made in that process, but anyone who filed comments there is welcome to
supplement their prior submission with responses to the questions
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The Big Data RFI is available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/03/04/2014-04660/government-big-data-request-for-information. Responses to the RFI are available
at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/big_data_rfi_responses.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Big Data Report, the PCAST Report, the submissions responding
to the Big Data RFI, and the three big data workshops conducted in
coordination with the Big Data Working Group, taken together, produced
a broad range of ideas about and possible approaches to big data, and
NTIA and the Department seek comment about some of those ideas and
proposals below.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ More information regarding the Big Data Privacy Workshops
is available at: www.whitehouse.gov/issues/technology/big-data-review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Broad Questions Raised by the Big Data Report and the PCAST Report

1. How can the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, which is based on
the Fair Information Practice Principles, support the innovations of
big data while at the same time responding to its risks?
2. Should any of the specific elements of the Consumer Privacy Bill
of Rights be clarified or modified to accommodate the benefits of big
data? \11\ Should any of those elements be clarified or modified to
address the risks posed by big data?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Big Data Report at 48, 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Should a responsible use framework, as articulated in Chapter 5
of the Big Data Report, be used to address some of the challenges posed
by big data? If so, how might that framework be embraced within the
Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights? Should it be? In what contexts would
such a framework be most effective? Are there limits to the efficacy or
appropriateness of a responsible use framework in some contexts? What
added protections do usage limitations or rules against misuse provide
to users?
4. What mechanisms should be used to address the practical limits
to the ``notice and consent'' model noted in the Big Data Report? How
can the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights' ``individual control'' and
``respect for context'' principles be applied to big data? Should they
be? How is the notice and consent model impacted by recent advances
concerning ``just in time'' notices?
5. Is there existing research or other sources that quantify or
otherwise substantiate the privacy risks, and/or frequency of such
risks, associated with big data? Do existing resources quantify or
substantiate the privacy risks, and/or frequency of such risks, that
arise in non-big data (``small data'') contexts? How might future
research best quantify or substantiate these privacy risks?
6. The Privacy Blueprint stated:
The Administration urges Congress to pass legislation adopting the
Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights . . . Congress should act to protect
consumers from violations of the rights defined in the Administration's
proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. These rights provide clear
protection for consumers and define rules of the road for the rapidly
growing marketplace for personal data. The legislation should permit
the FTC and State Attorneys General to enforce these rights directly .
. . To provide greater legal certainty and to encourage the development
and adoption of industry-specific codes of conduct, the Administration
also supports legislation that authorizes the FTC to review codes of
conduct and grant companies that commit to adhere--and do adhere--to
such codes forbearance from enforcement of provisions of the
legislation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Privacy Blueprint at 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can potential legislation with respect to consumer privacy
support the innovations of big data while responding to its risks?

Specific Questions Raised by the Big Data Report and the PCAST Report

7. The PCAST Report states that in some cases ``it is practically
impossible'' with any high degree of assurance for data holders to
identify and delete ``all the data about an individual'' particularly
in light of the distributed and redundant nature of data storage.\13\
Do such challenges pose privacy risks? How significant are the privacy
risks, and how might such challenges be addressed? Are there particular
policy or technical solutions that would be useful to consider? Would
concepts of ``reasonableness'' be useful in addressing data deletion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ PCAST Report at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. The Big Data Report notes that the data services sector is
regulated with respect to certain uses of data, such that consumers
receive notice of some decisions based on brokered data, access to the
data, and the opportunity to correct or delete inaccurate data. The Big
Data Report also notes that other uses of data by data brokers ``could
have significant ramifications for targeted

[[Page 32716]]

individuals.'' \14\ How significant are such risks? How could they be
addressed in the context of the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights? Should
they be? Should potential privacy legislation impose similar
obligations with respect to uses of data that are not currently
regulated?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Big Data Report at 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. How significant are the privacy risks posed by unindexed data
backups and other ``latent information about individuals?'' \15\ Do
standard methods exist for determining whether data is sufficiently
obfuscated and/or unavailable as to be irretrievable as a practical
matter?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ PCAST Report at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. The PCAST Report notes that ``data fusion occurs when data from
different sources are brought into contact and new, often unexpected,
phenomena emerge;'' this process ``frequently results in the
identification of individual people,'' even when the underlying data
sources were not linked to individuals' identities.\16\ How significant
are the privacy risks associated with this? How should entities
performing big data analysis implement individuals' requests to delete
personal data when previously unassociated information becomes
associated with an individual at a subsequent date? Do existing systems
enable entities to log and act on deletion requests on an ongoing
basis?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. As the PCAST Report explains, ``it is increasingly easy to
defeat [de-identification of personal data] by the very techniques that
are being developed for many legitimate applications of big data.''
\17\ However, de-identification may remain useful as an added safeguard
in some contexts, particularly when employed in combination with policy
safeguards.\18\ How significant are the privacy risks posed by re-
identification of de-identified data? How can de-identification be used
to mitigate privacy risks in light of the analytical capabilities of
big data? Can particular policy safeguards bolster the effectiveness of
de-identification? Does the relative efficacy of de-identification
depend on whether it is applied to public or private data sets? Can
differential privacy mitigate risks in some cases? What steps could the
government or private sector take to expand the capabilities and
practical application of these techniques?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Id. at 38.
\18\ Id. at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. The Big Data Report concludes that ``big data technologies can
cause societal harms beyond damages to privacy, such as discrimination
against individuals and groups'' and warns ``big data could enable new
forms of discrimination and predatory practices.'' \19\ The Report
states that ``it is the responsibility of government to ensure that
transformative technologies are used fairly'' and urges agencies to
determine ``how to protect citizens from new forms of discrimination
that may be enabled by big data technologies.'' \20\ Should the
Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights address the risk of discriminatory
effects resulting from automated decision processes using personal
data, and if so, how? How could consumer privacy legislation (either
alone or in combination with anti-discrimination laws) make a useful
contribution to addressing this concern? Should big data analytics be
accompanied by assessments of the potential discriminatory impacts on
protected classes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Big Data Report at 51, 53.
\20\ Id. at 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Possible Approaches to Big Data Suggested by the Reports and the Big
Data Workshops

13. Can accountability mechanisms play a useful role in promoting
socially beneficial uses of big data while safeguarding privacy? Should
ethics boards, privacy advisory committees, consumer advisory boards,
or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) be consulted when practical
limits frustrate transparency and individuals' control over their
personal information? How could such entities be structured? How might
they be useful in the commercial context? Can privacy impact
assessments and third-party audits complement the work of such
entities? What kinds of parameters would be valuable for different
kinds of big data analysts to consider, and what kinds of incentives
might be most effective in promoting their consideration?
14. Would a system using ``privacy preference profiles,'' as
discussed in Section 4.5.1 of the PCAST Report, mitigate privacy risks
regarding big data analysis? \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ PCAST Report at 40-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Related to the concept of ``privacy preference profiles,'' some
have urged that privacy preferences could be attached to and travel
with personal data (in the form of metadata), thereby enabling
recipients of data to know how to handle the data.\22\ Could such an
approach mitigate privacy risks regarding big data analysis?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Id. at 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Would the development of a framework for privacy risk
management be an effective mechanism for addressing challenges with big
data? \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ See National Institute of Standards and Technology, Privacy
Engineering Workshop (Apr. 9-10, 2014), available at: https://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/privacy-engineering-workshop.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Can emerging privacy enhancing technologies mitigate privacy
risks to individuals while preserving the benefits of robust aggregate
data sets?
18. How can the approaches and issues addressed in Questions 14-17
be accommodated within the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights?
19. What other approaches to big data could be considered to
promote privacy?
20. What other questions should we be asking about big data and
consumer privacy?

Dated: June 3, 2014.
Angela M. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information.
[FR Doc. 2014-13195 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-60-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.