When online ad executives talk about the prospect of regulating behavioral targeting, one of the first things they argue is that Washington shouldn't get involved without proof of harm. And in the past, the Federal Trade Commission has largely focused attention on business practices that resulted in some sort of tangible harm.
But these days, the position that behavioral targeting can pose a threat regardless of whether it causes a concrete, quantifiable harm seems to be gaining favor in Washington.
"Privacy is an important value in and of itself," FTC consumer protection chief David Vladeck said today at a privacy workshop at NYU Law School. He said focusing solely on tangible harm is too limited, given the vast array of non-economic harms that can result from online targeting. Such as? He listed the possibilities: reputational harm, the fear that private information will be exposed, and the prospect that personal data will be used in unexpected ways, among others.
While Vladeck said he believes behavioral advertising offers benefits in the form o
But these days, the position that behavioral targeting can pose a threat regardless of whether it causes a concrete, quantifiable harm seems to be gaining favor in Washington.
"Privacy is an important value in and of itself," FTC consumer protection chief David Vladeck said today at a privacy workshop at NYU Law School. He said focusing solely on tangible harm is too limited, given the vast array of non-economic harms that can result from online targeting. Such as? He listed the possibilities: reputational harm, the fear that private information will be exposed, and the prospect that personal data will be used in unexpected ways, among others.