Sarit Mizrahi est étudiant dans le cadre du cours DRT6903.

On September 20, 2011 I wrote a blog about the various tools used by Facebook to track and target its users, ultimately violating their privacy. An article published on November 28, 2011, however, demonstrates the true extent to which Facebook violates its users’ privacy. This article essentially exposes Facebook’s practices whereby they “[use] sophisticated software [to harvest] information from people’s activities on the website, whatever their individual privacy settings, and [make] it available to advertisers”.

The European Commission, having caught wind of Facebook’s unauthorized use of personal information, stated that it plans on stopping “the social network “eavesdropping” on its users to gather information about their political opinions, sexuality, religious beliefs and even their whereabouts” which it then uses for targeted advertising purposes. The Commission intends on achieving this feat by introducing a directive that will prohibit the use of targeted advertising practices unless the user specifically permits it.

The European Commission is not the only entity who believes that this type of legislation will remedy the privacy issues presented by the practice of targeted advertising by allowing the consumer to be in control of whether or not this form of advertising is presented to him. In a journal article written by Heather Osborn Ng, the author outlines a very well supported opinion that the only manner in which consumers can be adequately protected from the practice of targeted advertising is through the creation of a program requiring a consumer to choose to participate in receiving targeted advertisements from a particular enterprise. She suggests that private enterprises administrate the program but that it be supervised by the Federal Trade Commission which would have the authority to impose significant fines in cases where the enterprises do not conform to this obligation. In addition, she suggests that, not only should consumers have the choice of whether or not to participate in targeted advertising programs, but they should also have the choice regarding the amount of information they are willing to share, while unequivocally prohibiting them from sharing any sensible personal information. Furthermore, the author suggests that enterprises should be obliged to provide consumers with sufficient notice prior to beginning the collection of their personal data. Finally, the author suggests that enterprises should only be permitted to use the information they collect for the precise purpose for which they collected it, while forcing them to delete all the personal data they amassed exactly one year after the collection of this data, ultimately rendering it impossible for enterprises to create extremely detailed consumer profiles.

Though the author of this journal article concentrates mainly on the United States, a similar solution could very well be viable within the confines of Canadian law as well. This type of solution essentially ensures that consumer privacy is protected as prescribed by Canadian privacy laws, namely the Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”). More specifically, this type of program, by its condition that a consumer must opt-in to the practice of targeted advertising, will serve to fulfill the requirement of the third principle of Schedule 1 of the PIPEDA which states that a consumer’s consent must be provided prior to the collection, use or disclosure of personal information. In addition, this type of program, by obliging enterprises to provide consumers with prior notice of their collection of personal data, will be fulfilling the obligation outlined in the second principle of Schedule 1 of the PIPEDA requiring that an organization divulge the purposes for which they are collecting an individual’s information prior to or at the time of collection. Finally, by requiring that the information collected should be used solely for the purposes for which they were amassed and by forcing enterprises to get rid of that information precisely one year after its collection, this program would also be fulfilling the obligation set out by the fifth principle of Schedule 1 of the PIPEDA requiring the limited use and retention of the information collected.

Presently, this solution to the practice of targeted advertising is the only one suggested that serves to respect privacy laws and adequately protect consumer interests online by empowering consumers to make their own decisions regarding whether or not they wish to be subjected to this practice and what personal information they are willing to share. As such, I firmly believe that the European Commission is taking the proper action to effectively guard its consumers’ personal data, and as a Canadian citizen, I am sincerely hoping that my government will take similar action to ensure that my privacy is properly protected against the threat of targeted advertising.