Consumers Raise Privacy Concerns Over FCC's Proposed Know-Your-Customer Rules
With initial comments due June 25, the FCC is hearing lots of concerns about know-your-customer (KYC) rules proposed in an NPRM that was approved at the commission's April meeting and is part of its push to clamp down on illegal robocalls (see 2604300052 and 2605040023). The agency received more than 100 comments just this week in docket 17-59.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The NPRM, released May 1, raises privacy issues regarding the collection of data as part of KYC requirements. “What privacy concerns may arise from … a collection of personally identifiable information and how can we mitigate them?” it asks. “Are there privacy, cost, or operational concerns that we should consider when determining which verification resources are appropriate?”
Commissioner Anna Gomez noted the privacy concerns last month, when the FCC approved another NPRM asking about improvements to know-your-upstream-provider rules (see 2605200047). Gomez said she noticed “growing bipartisan concern online about what these new vetting requirements would mean for the privacy of everyday consumers” after the FCC approved the KYC notice.
People want to know “whether buying a prepaid phone or activating a prepaid line would require, for the first time, government-issued ID,” Gomez said. “That concern is understandable, and it deserves a clear answer.”
The comments filed so far are short and come from consumers who didn't offer other identifying information.
Bradley Davis said he opposes “any FCC rule that would require ordinary phone users, including prepaid users, to provide government-issued identification numbers, identity documents, physical addresses, alternate phone numbers, or similar personal information as a condition of obtaining or renewing phone service.”
Lydia Klunk said she found it “alarming that there is a desire to link all our technological communications to a government ID," adding that forcing consumers “to link their phone usage to government identification is not only unnecessary but a dangerous infringement" on freedom of speech and the right to privacy. The new requirements would also make it more difficult for consumers to “acquire new devices without linking them to their old ones,” she said.
Emily Carresse said that neither the government nor companies can be trusted to protect people's data. “It's been proven time and again that corporations and the government are terrible at keeping our private information out of the hands of criminals as evidenced by the numerous data breaches that have exposed our private information.”