The FCC
lawfully fined U.S. facilities-based wireless carriers nearly $200 million for selling
highly intrusive location data about subscribers without their “opt-in” consent. See https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-fines-largest-wireless-carriers-sharing-location-data.
In Section
222 of the Communications Act, Congress comprehensively specified how the carriers
bore an affirmative duty of care not to disclose clearly defined Customer
Proprietary Information (“CPNI”). See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222.
The Act explicitly required the FCC, and no other agency, to protect telecommunications
consumers.
The
language in this section is quite unambiguous.
Congress surely answered the “major question” whether and how the FCC has
jurisdiction to protect telecommunications service subscribers from the
unconsented commercial exploitation of data about their immediate location.
There is no
basis for the carriers, or certain dissenting FCC Commissioners, to state that the
Federal Trade Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over any and all consumer
privacy issues. See https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-40A3.docx. Wireless carriers need subscriber location
information to route calls to consumers and to provide access to their networks. Privacy surely can be invaded by unlawful
disclosure, but the reason wireless carriers generate and process this
information is a fundamental technological element in how they provide service
to subscribers.
There is no
doubt that all the facilities-based carriers “monetized” this information, but
we will never know how many millions they received, because the carriers would
scream bloody murder that such information is “business confidential” and “proprietary.”
I’ll bet the carriers received far more than the $200 million they have to
forfeit.
If you
follow the logic for exonerating the wireless carriers, it is okay for the
carriers to provide nearly instantaneous location information for compensation,
because such disclosure does not constitute anything proprietary within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Communications Act. The exonerators dug themselves
an even deeper jurisprudential hole when they claim the FTC has exclusive
jurisdiction to decide whether and how to sanction CPNI disclosures.
Once upon a
time both Democratic and Republican FCC Commissioners acted in a nonpartisan,
unanimous manner to protect consumers. So did Congress when it enacted Section
222 and amended it on several occasions.
Now we have
apologists for truly egregious behavior by carriers who surely knew they were creating
a lucrative, but illegal, new profit center.
It does not help that they mended their ways a few years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment