Politech mailing list archives
FC: More on privacy-federalism and Kobayashi-Ribstein paper
From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 15:15:38 -0500
Yesterday I sent out a note about a privacy-federalism approach suggested by Bruce Kobayashi and Larry Ribstein:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-01687.htmlBelow is a critical response from Nicholas Spampata and a reply from Larry Ribstein.
-Declan ********* Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:22:44 -0800 (PST) From: "Nicholas R. Spampata" <nrspampata () yahoo com> Reply-To: nrs6 () cornell edu Subject: Re: FC: Foes of privacy bills in Congress try new approach: Federalism To: declan () well com Hi Declan,I have been observing your Politech list for about a month now. I don't know if you accept unsolicited comments on these stories, but I have a comment I'd like to share anyway.
There are two main problems with state-only regulation of consumer marketing information gathered over the internet that spring immediately to mind. The first is usually known as the "race to the bottom" effect. The idea is that states compete with each other to attract businesses. Any state that can offer businesses an advantage that other states cannot offer has a competitive advantage in attracting businesses (not to mention the competitive edge those businesses will have over businesses in other states). That means this more competitive state will attract more businesses, thus having a stronger economy, happier and wealthier citizens, etc. In the context of environmental regulation, the main reason why environmentalists opposed state regulation was this kind of problem. An individual state would have no incentive to pass environmental regulations, because all the businesses would just leave and go to a state that had no regulations.&n! bsp; In the context of consumer marketing information, states will have the same incentive (assuming that complying with privacy regulations is more costly than having no regulations, either in terms of outright expense or in the form of opportunity costs). The second problem is unique to the internet. How does a state regulate consumer marketing information gathering by an out-of-state company? A state cannot regulate a company's activities that take place outside the state's borders. Thus, it only takes one state to ruin it for everybody. That is, if one state has lax privacy regulations, all the marketing research firms would locate in that one state, and then they would be out of the reach of and able to circumvent the privacy regulations of the rest of the states. The only way to prevent this problem is to have the same privacy regulations apply across the country. Therefore, the business of gathering consumer ! information over the internet is especially suited to uniform, nationwide regulation.
Of course, even with national regulation, how would we stop foreign companies (or former U.S. companies who simply relocate over the border) from gathering otherwise protected private information?
Regards, Nicholas Spampata ********* From: lribstei () gmu edu Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:38:43 -0500 (EST) To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com> Cc: bkobayas () gmu edu, lribstei () gmu edu Firms stand to lose reputation and customers if the state law they choose is notoriously lax, as long as firms must clearly disclose their chosen law. The Internet market is notoriously sophisticated and able to disseminate information rapidly. One of the 51 U.S. jurisdictions would not long be able to hide its failure to regulate either from the market as a whole or from its own voters. Although firms may be able to fool some of the consumers some of the time, they must choose the applicable law in light of the impression they will make on their average informed and sophisticated customers. As for the problem of out- of-state companies, firms are subject to jurisdiction in states in which they do business. Should we worry about the firms that can keep their assets out of regulating states? In general, it seems more reasonable to worry about what some have referred to as a "race over the top" -- that is, states that regulate too much. We argue that this problem can be solved through contractual choice of law and jurisdiction. Larry Ribstein GMU Law School 3401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22201 lribstei () gmu edu http://mason.gmu.edu/~lribstei/index.htm*********
------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- FC: More on privacy-federalism and Kobayashi-Ribstein paper Declan McCullagh (Feb 02)