Comment by jkelleyrtp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jkelleyrtp | Hacker News Reader

From the one dissenting statement by the FTC board:

--

> The 6(b) orders are rife with broad (and sometimes vague) specifications that burden analysis and oversight could have helped reduce.

   "all Documents Relating to the Company’s or any other Person’s strategies or plans, Including, but not limited to: a) business strategies or plans; b) short-term and long-range strategies and objectives; c) expansion or retrenchment strategies or plans; d) research and development efforts; e) sales and marketing strategies or plans, Including, but not limited to, strategies or plans to expand the Company’s customer base or increase sales and marketing to particular customer segments (e.g., a user demographic); f) strategies or plans to reduce costs, improve products or services (e.g., expanding features or functionality), or otherwise become more competitive;"

> Such a request would be suited to an antitrust investigation. But as part of an inquiry ostensibly aimed at consumer privacy practices, it amounts to invasive government overreach.16 And that is just one of the order’s 50-plus specifications.

> The biggest problem is that today’s 6(b) orders simply cover too many topics to make them likely to result in the production of comparable, usable information.

> Such a request would be suited to an antitrust investigation. But as part of an inquiry ostensibly aimed at consumer privacy practices, it amounts to invasive government overreach.

Rather ironic to consider this "invasive government overreach" but not to levy the same accusations towards the perpetrators of surveillance capitalism.

I'd love to see the law that allows the FTC to demand broad sets of documents like this without a warrant or even a purported crime.

Unfortunately, I'd imagine it exists, but that it basically says "the FTC can do whatever it wants if it thinks a company is being 'abusive' or 'misleading consumers'" with some vague definition of what that means.

Yet another example of Congress legislating away their ability to legislate and/or the courts' ability to judge.

> without a warrant

6(b) orders are essentially warrants under the FTC Act:

"Section 6 of the FTC Act provides another investigative tool. Section 6(b) empowers the Commission to require an entity to file “annual or special . . . reports or answers in writing to specific questions” to provide information about the entity’s “organization, business, conduct, practices, management, and relation to other corporations, partnerships, and individuals.” 15 U.S.C. Sec. 46(b). As with subpoenas and CIDs, the recipient of a 6(b) order may file a petition to limit or quash, and the Commission may seek a court order requiring compliance. If a party fails to comply with a 6(b) order after receiving a notice of default from the Commission, the Commission may commence suit in federal court under Section 10 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 50. After expiration of a thirty-day grace period, a defaulting party is liable for a penalty for each day of noncompliance. Id.; Commission Rule 1.98(f), 16 C.F.R. Sec. 1.98(f)."

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do/enforcement-authori...

Key phrases being "broad sets of documents" from the comment you're responding to and "reports or answers in writing to specific questions" in the FTC's blurb.

"Specific" doesn't mean "narrow." "What were the ingredients from every meal you've had in your life?" or "What is the current address of every person with the first name 'John'?" is a specific question.

All it means (in English) is that it's clear which information should be included in the reply, not a limitation on the range of information that can be asked for.

> Unfortunately, I'd imagine it exists, but that it basically says "the FTC can do whatever it wants if it thinks a company is being 'abusive' or 'misleading consumers'" with some vague definition of what that means.

Again, this is rather ironic given the nature of what Facebook et al are doing. Vague clauses in unreadable Privacy Policies don't really constitue an adequate defence in the mass harvesting of personal data, yet here we are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com