/PRNewswire/ -- Google Inc. has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers when it launched its social network, Google Buzz, in 2010. The agency alleges the practices violate the FTC Act. The proposed settlement bars the company from future privacy misrepresentations, requires it to implement a comprehensive privacy program, and calls for regular, independent privacy audits for the next 20 years. This is the first time an FTC settlement order has required a company to implement a comprehensive privacy program to protect the privacy of consumers' information. In addition, this is the first time the FTC has alleged violations of the substantive privacy requirements of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, which provides a method for U.S. companies to transfer personal data lawfully from the European Union to the United States.
"When companies make privacy pledges, they need to honor them," said Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC. "This is a tough settlement that ensures that Google will honor its commitments to consumers and build strong privacy protections into all of its operations."
According to the FTC complaint, Google launched its Buzz social network through its Gmail web-based email product. Although Google led Gmail users to believe that they could choose whether or not they wanted to join the network, the options for declining or leaving the social network were ineffective. For users who joined the Buzz network, the controls for limiting the sharing of their personal information were confusing and difficult to find, the agency alleged.
On the day Buzz was launched, Gmail users got a message announcing the new service and were given two options: "Sweet! Check out Buzz," and "Nah, go to my inbox." However, the FTC complaint alleged that some Gmail users who clicked on "Nah..." were nonetheless enrolled in certain features of the Google Buzz social network. For those Gmail users who clicked on "Sweet!," the FTC alleges that they were not adequately informed that the identity of individuals they emailed most frequently would be made public by default. Google also offered a "Turn Off Buzz" option that did not fully remove the user from the social network.
In response to the Buzz launch, Google received thousands of complaints from consumers who were concerned about public disclosure of their email contacts which included, in some cases, ex-spouses, patients, students, employers, or competitors. According to the FTC complaint, Google made certain changes to the Buzz product in response to those complaints.
When Google launched Buzz, its privacy policy stated that "When you sign up for a particular service that requires registration, we ask you to provide personal information. If we use this information in a manner different than the purpose for which it was collected, then we will ask for your consent prior to such use." The FTC complaint charges that Google violated its privacy policies by using information provided for Gmail for another purpose - social networking - without obtaining consumers' permission in advance.
The agency also alleges that by offering options like "Nah, go to my inbox," and "Turn Off Buzz," Google misrepresented that consumers who clicked on these options would not be enrolled in Buzz. In fact, they were enrolled in certain features of Buzz.
The complaint further alleges that a screen that asked consumers enrolling in Buzz, "How do you want to appear to others?" indicated that consumers could exercise control over what personal information would be made public. The FTC charged that Google failed to disclose adequately that consumers' frequent email contacts would become public by default.
Finally, the agency alleges that Google misrepresented that it was treating personal information from the European Union in accordance with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor privacy framework. The framework is a voluntary program administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the European Commission. To participate, a company must self-certify annually to the Department of Commerce that it complies with a defined set of privacy principles. The complaint alleges that Google's assertion that it adhered to the Safe Harbor principles was false because the company failed to give consumers notice and choice before using their information for a purpose different from that for which it was collected.
The proposed settlement bars Google from misrepresenting the privacy or confidentiality of individuals' information or misrepresenting compliance with the U.S.-E.U Safe Harbor or other privacy, security, or compliance programs. The settlement requires the company to obtain users' consent before sharing their information with third parties if Google changes its products or services in a way that results in information sharing that is contrary to any privacy promises made when the user's information was collected. The settlement further requires Google to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program, and it requires that for the next 20 years, the company have audits conducted by independent third parties every two years to assess its privacy and data protection practices.
Google's data practices in connection with its launch of Google Buzz were the subject of a complaint filed with the FTC by the Electronic Privacy Information Center shortly after the service was launched.
The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 5-0, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch issuing a separate concurring statement. Commissioner Rosch concurs with accepting, subject to final approval, the consent order for the purpose of public comment. The reasons for his concurrence are described in the attached separate statement.
The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through May 1, 2011, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the "Invitation To Comment" part of the "Supplementary Information" section.
Comments in electronic form should be submitted using the following web link: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/googlebuzz and following the instructions on the web-based form. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.
NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has actually violated the law. A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label ftc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ftc. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Fraud Advisory for Consumers: Involvement in Criminal Activity through Work from Home Scams
Consumers continue to lose money from work-from-home scams that assist cyber criminals move stolen funds. Worse yet, due to their deliberate or unknowing participation in the scams, these individuals may face criminal charges.
Work-from-home scam victims are often recruited by organized cyber criminals through newspaper ads, online employment services, unsolicited emails or “spam”,¹ and social networking sites advertising work-from-home opportunities. Once recruited, however, rather than becoming an employee of a legitimate business, the consumer is actually a “mule” for cyber criminals who use the consumer’s or other victim's accounts to steal and launder money. In addition, the consumer’s own identity or account may be compromised by the cyber criminals.
Example of a Work-From-Home Scheme:
• An individual applies for a position as a rebate or payments processor² through an online job site or through an unsolicited email.
• As a new employee, the individual is asked to provide his/her bank account information to his/her employer or to establish a new account using information provided by the employer.
• Funds are deposited into the account that the employee is instructed to wire to a third (often
international) account. The employee is instructed to deduct a percentage of the wired
amount as their commission.
• However, rather than processing rebates or processing payments, the individual is actually
participating in a criminal activity by laundering stolen funds through his/her own account or a newly established account.
In February 2010, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) coordinated with state law enforcement officials and other federal agencies to announce a sweeping crack down on job and work-from-home fraud schemes fueled by the economic downturn. Individuals who are knowing or unknowing participants in this type of scheme could be prosecuted.
Protect Yourself:
• Be wary of work-from-home opportunities. Research the legitimacy of the company through the Better Business Bureau³ (for US-based companies) or WHOIS/Domain Tools⁴ (for international companies) before providing personal or account information and/or agreeing to work for them. In addition, TrustedSource.org can help you identify companies that may be maliciously sending spam based on the volume of email sent from their Internet Protocol (IP)⁵ addresses. See also the FTC’s recommendations⁶.
• Be cautious about any opportunities offering the chance to work from home with very little work or prior experience. Remember: if it looks too good to be true, it usually is.
• Never pay for the privilege of working for an employer. Be suspicious of opportunities that require you to pay for things up front, such as supplies and other materials.
• Never give your bank account details to anyone unless you know and trust them.
• If you think you may be a victim of one of these scams, contact your financial institution
immediately. Report any suspicious work-from-home offers or activities to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)⁷ at http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx.
For more information, visit:
• PhishBucket.org, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting job seekers fromfraudulent job offers.
• OnGuardOnline.org. Sponsored by the FTC, this site provides practical tips from the
federal government and the technology industry to help you be on guard against Internet
fraud, secure your computer, and protect your personal information.
• Better Business Bureau, http://www.bbb.org/us/article/work-at-home-schemes-408.
¹ Cyber criminals may also spoof a legitimate business to entice you into opening the email, which may contain a fraudulent application for information or malware.
² Other common job titles for these schemes include trading partner or currency trader.
³ http://www.bbb.org/
⁴http://www.domaintools.com/
⁵An IP address identifies the company’s website host or network interface and location.
⁶http://www.onguardonline.gov/topics/email-scams.aspx#3
⁷The IC3 is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C), and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Work-from-home scam victims are often recruited by organized cyber criminals through newspaper ads, online employment services, unsolicited emails or “spam”,¹ and social networking sites advertising work-from-home opportunities. Once recruited, however, rather than becoming an employee of a legitimate business, the consumer is actually a “mule” for cyber criminals who use the consumer’s or other victim's accounts to steal and launder money. In addition, the consumer’s own identity or account may be compromised by the cyber criminals.
Example of a Work-From-Home Scheme:
• An individual applies for a position as a rebate or payments processor² through an online job site or through an unsolicited email.
• As a new employee, the individual is asked to provide his/her bank account information to his/her employer or to establish a new account using information provided by the employer.
• Funds are deposited into the account that the employee is instructed to wire to a third (often
international) account. The employee is instructed to deduct a percentage of the wired
amount as their commission.
• However, rather than processing rebates or processing payments, the individual is actually
participating in a criminal activity by laundering stolen funds through his/her own account or a newly established account.
In February 2010, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) coordinated with state law enforcement officials and other federal agencies to announce a sweeping crack down on job and work-from-home fraud schemes fueled by the economic downturn. Individuals who are knowing or unknowing participants in this type of scheme could be prosecuted.
Protect Yourself:
• Be wary of work-from-home opportunities. Research the legitimacy of the company through the Better Business Bureau³ (for US-based companies) or WHOIS/Domain Tools⁴ (for international companies) before providing personal or account information and/or agreeing to work for them. In addition, TrustedSource.org can help you identify companies that may be maliciously sending spam based on the volume of email sent from their Internet Protocol (IP)⁵ addresses. See also the FTC’s recommendations⁶.
• Be cautious about any opportunities offering the chance to work from home with very little work or prior experience. Remember: if it looks too good to be true, it usually is.
• Never pay for the privilege of working for an employer. Be suspicious of opportunities that require you to pay for things up front, such as supplies and other materials.
• Never give your bank account details to anyone unless you know and trust them.
• If you think you may be a victim of one of these scams, contact your financial institution
immediately. Report any suspicious work-from-home offers or activities to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)⁷ at http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx.
For more information, visit:
• PhishBucket.org, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting job seekers fromfraudulent job offers.
• OnGuardOnline.org. Sponsored by the FTC, this site provides practical tips from the
federal government and the technology industry to help you be on guard against Internet
fraud, secure your computer, and protect your personal information.
• Better Business Bureau, http://www.bbb.org/us/article/work-at-home-schemes-408.
¹ Cyber criminals may also spoof a legitimate business to entice you into opening the email, which may contain a fraudulent application for information or malware.
² Other common job titles for these schemes include trading partner or currency trader.
³ http://www.bbb.org/
⁴http://www.domaintools.com/
⁵An IP address identifies the company’s website host or network interface and location.
⁶http://www.onguardonline.gov/topics/email-scams.aspx#3
⁷The IC3 is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C), and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
FTC Settles Charges of Anticompetitive Conduct Against Intel
/PRNewswire/ -- The Federal Trade Commission approved a settlement with Intel Corp. that resolves charges the company illegally stifled competition in the market for computer chips. Intel has agreed to provisions that will open the door to renewed competition and prevent Intel from suppressing competition in the future.
The settlement goes beyond the terms applied to Intel in previous actions against the company and will help restore competition that was lost as a result of Intel's alleged past anticompetitive tactics. At the same time, the settlement will leave the company room to innovate and offer competitive pricing.
"This case demonstrates that the FTC is willing to challenge anticompetitive conduct by even the most powerful companies in the fastest-moving industries," said Chairman Jon Leibowitz. "By accepting this settlement, we open the door to competition today and address Intel's anticompetitive conduct in a way that may not have been available in a final judgment years from now. Everyone, including Intel, gets a greater degree of certainty about the rules of the road going forward, which allows all the companies in this dynamic industry to move ahead and build better, more innovative products."
The FTC settlement applies to Central Processing Units, Graphics Processing Units and chipsets and prohibits Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to exclude or hamper competition or otherwise unreasonably inhibit the sale of competitive CPUs or GPUs. The settlement also prohibits Intel from deceiving computer manufacturers about the performance of non-Intel CPUs or GPUs.
The FTC settlement goes beyond those reached in previous antitrust cases against Intel in a number of ways. For example, the FTC settlement order protects competition and not any single competitor in the CPU, graphics, and chipset markets. It also addresses Intel's disclosures related to its compiler - a product that plays an important role in CPU performance. The settlement order also ensures that manufacturers of complementary products such as discrete GPUs will be assured access to Intel's CPU for the next six years.
The FTC sued Intel in December 2009 alleging that the company used anticompetitive tactics to cut off rivals' access to the marketplace and deprive consumers of choice and innovation in the microchips that comprise computers' central processing unit, or CPU. These chips are critical components that often are referred to as the "brains" of a computer. The action also challenged Intel's conduct in markets for graphics processing units and other chips.
The FTC alleged that Intel's anticompetitive practices violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is broader than the antitrust laws and prohibits unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. Unlike an antitrust violation, a violation of Section 5 cannot be used to establish liability for plaintiffs to seek triple damages in private litigation against the same defendant.
Under the settlement, Intel will be prohibited from:
-- conditioning benefits to computer makers in exchange for their promise
to buy chips from Intel exclusively or to refuse to buy chips from
others; and
-- retaliating against computer makers if they do business with non-Intel
suppliers by withholding benefits from them.
In addition, the FTC settlement order will require Intel to:
-- modify its intellectual property agreements with AMD, Nvidia, and Via
so that those companies have more freedom to consider mergers or joint
ventures with other companies, without the threat of being sued by
Intel for patent infringement;
-- offer to extend Via's x86 licensing agreement for five years beyond
the current agreement, which expires in 2013;
-- maintain a key interface, known as the PCI Express Bus, for at least
six years in a way that will not limit the performance of graphics
processing chips. These assurances will provide incentives to
manufacturers of complementary, and potentially competitive, products
to Intel's CPUs to continue to innovate; and
-- disclose to software developers that Intel computer compilers
discriminate between Intel chips and non-Intel chips, and that they
may not register all the features of non-Intel chips. Intel also will
have to reimburse all software vendors who want to recompile their
software using a non-Intel compiler.
The FTC vote approving the proposed settlement order was 4-0, with Commissioner William E. Kovacic recused. The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until September 7, 2010, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To submit a comment electronically, please click on: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/intel/.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
The settlement goes beyond the terms applied to Intel in previous actions against the company and will help restore competition that was lost as a result of Intel's alleged past anticompetitive tactics. At the same time, the settlement will leave the company room to innovate and offer competitive pricing.
"This case demonstrates that the FTC is willing to challenge anticompetitive conduct by even the most powerful companies in the fastest-moving industries," said Chairman Jon Leibowitz. "By accepting this settlement, we open the door to competition today and address Intel's anticompetitive conduct in a way that may not have been available in a final judgment years from now. Everyone, including Intel, gets a greater degree of certainty about the rules of the road going forward, which allows all the companies in this dynamic industry to move ahead and build better, more innovative products."
The FTC settlement applies to Central Processing Units, Graphics Processing Units and chipsets and prohibits Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to exclude or hamper competition or otherwise unreasonably inhibit the sale of competitive CPUs or GPUs. The settlement also prohibits Intel from deceiving computer manufacturers about the performance of non-Intel CPUs or GPUs.
The FTC settlement goes beyond those reached in previous antitrust cases against Intel in a number of ways. For example, the FTC settlement order protects competition and not any single competitor in the CPU, graphics, and chipset markets. It also addresses Intel's disclosures related to its compiler - a product that plays an important role in CPU performance. The settlement order also ensures that manufacturers of complementary products such as discrete GPUs will be assured access to Intel's CPU for the next six years.
The FTC sued Intel in December 2009 alleging that the company used anticompetitive tactics to cut off rivals' access to the marketplace and deprive consumers of choice and innovation in the microchips that comprise computers' central processing unit, or CPU. These chips are critical components that often are referred to as the "brains" of a computer. The action also challenged Intel's conduct in markets for graphics processing units and other chips.
The FTC alleged that Intel's anticompetitive practices violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is broader than the antitrust laws and prohibits unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. Unlike an antitrust violation, a violation of Section 5 cannot be used to establish liability for plaintiffs to seek triple damages in private litigation against the same defendant.
Under the settlement, Intel will be prohibited from:
-- conditioning benefits to computer makers in exchange for their promise
to buy chips from Intel exclusively or to refuse to buy chips from
others; and
-- retaliating against computer makers if they do business with non-Intel
suppliers by withholding benefits from them.
In addition, the FTC settlement order will require Intel to:
-- modify its intellectual property agreements with AMD, Nvidia, and Via
so that those companies have more freedom to consider mergers or joint
ventures with other companies, without the threat of being sued by
Intel for patent infringement;
-- offer to extend Via's x86 licensing agreement for five years beyond
the current agreement, which expires in 2013;
-- maintain a key interface, known as the PCI Express Bus, for at least
six years in a way that will not limit the performance of graphics
processing chips. These assurances will provide incentives to
manufacturers of complementary, and potentially competitive, products
to Intel's CPUs to continue to innovate; and
-- disclose to software developers that Intel computer compilers
discriminate between Intel chips and non-Intel chips, and that they
may not register all the features of non-Intel chips. Intel also will
have to reimburse all software vendors who want to recompile their
software using a non-Intel compiler.
The FTC vote approving the proposed settlement order was 4-0, with Commissioner William E. Kovacic recused. The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until September 7, 2010, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To submit a comment electronically, please click on: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/intel/.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
