Fox in the Henhouse: The Delegation of Regulatory and Privacy Enforcement to Big Tech

W. Bendix, J. Mackay
{"title":"Fox in the Henhouse: The Delegation of Regulatory and Privacy Enforcement to Big Tech","authors":"W. Bendix, J. Mackay","doi":"10.24251/hicss.2022.320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires tech giants to identify and remove apps from their platforms that use deceitful sales tactics or violate user privacy. Tech giants have often resisted FTC orders because policing diminishes their profits. But while some firms have eventually complied with FTC demands, other firms have continued to shirk enforcement at the risk of escalating fines. What accounts for these different responses? Examining Apple, Google and Facebook, we find that tech giants willingly police consumer fraud but not consumer privacy violations. Failures to police fraud have led to public complaints and negative press attention, while failures to police data breaches often go undetected by users, the media and thus the FTC. We conclude that tech giants can act as effective regulatory agents on the government's behalf, but only when they police activities they cannot conceal.","PeriodicalId":74512,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences","volume":"42 1","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2022.320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires tech giants to identify and remove apps from their platforms that use deceitful sales tactics or violate user privacy. Tech giants have often resisted FTC orders because policing diminishes their profits. But while some firms have eventually complied with FTC demands, other firms have continued to shirk enforcement at the risk of escalating fines. What accounts for these different responses? Examining Apple, Google and Facebook, we find that tech giants willingly police consumer fraud but not consumer privacy violations. Failures to police fraud have led to public complaints and negative press attention, while failures to police data breaches often go undetected by users, the media and thus the FTC. We conclude that tech giants can act as effective regulatory agents on the government's behalf, but only when they police activities they cannot conceal.
鸡窝里的狐狸:监管和隐私执法向大型科技公司的授权
美国联邦贸易委员会(FTC)要求科技巨头识别并从其平台上删除使用欺骗性销售策略或侵犯用户隐私的应用程序。科技巨头经常抵制联邦贸易委员会的命令,因为监管会减少他们的利润。但是,虽然一些公司最终遵守了联邦贸易委员会的要求,但其他公司仍在冒着罚款不断增加的风险逃避执法。是什么导致了这些不同的反应?通过对苹果(Apple)、谷歌(Google)和Facebook的研究,我们发现科技巨头愿意监管消费者欺诈行为,但不愿意监管侵犯消费者隐私的行为。对欺诈行为的监管不力导致了公众的抱怨和媒体的负面关注,而对数据泄露的监管不力往往不会被用户、媒体和联邦贸易委员会发现。我们得出的结论是,科技巨头可以代表政府充当有效的监管机构,但前提是它们对自己无法隐瞒的活动进行监管。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信