Cybersecurity

5G et santé : le lobbying à travers les fake news

Veiller à la sécurité de tous, c’est bien… mais empêcher le progrès en se basant sur de fausses informations, cela nuit à tout le monde.

Chaque technologie engendre un certain degré de scepticisme. Que ce soit la découverte de l’électricité, l’invention du train, ou l’arrivée du micro-ondes dans notre équipement de cuisine, des voix critiques posent des questions importantes sur la sécurité.

Le réseau 5G n’y fait pas exception. Cependant, à un certain moment, il faut accepter les résultats scientifiques.

En tapant « 5G » et « santé » sur les moteurs de recherches, vous trouverez plusieurs articles qui ne pourront pas vous donner des réponses exactes sur les implications de santé du réseau, mais qui vous suggèrent plusieurs scénarios fatalistes.

En voici quelques exemples :

Déploiement de la 5G : les risques pour la santé sous-estimés ?

5G, risques pour la santé… et la météo

L’arrivée du 5G comporte d’importants risques pour la santé

La menace que la 5G pose à la santé humaine

Et si la 5G était nocive pour la santé?

UE : La course vers la 5G risque de laisser de côté le principe de précaution au détriment de la santé

Réseau 5G : la course au haut débit au détriment de notre santé ?

Téléphonie mobile : les vrais dangers de la 5G

Que faut-il savoir sur le rayonnement de type 5G ?

Le type de rayonnement impliqué dans les communications sans fil se situe dans la gamme des ondes radio, et ces ondes transportent beaucoup moins d’énergie que les rayonnements ionisants, comme les rayons X et les rayons cosmiques, qui peuvent briser les liaisons chimiques dans l’ADN et mener au cancer.

Aux Etats-Unis, la Commission fédérale des communications (FCC) réglemente le nombre d’ondes qu’on peut émettre. Le seul effet biologique connu qui existe concernant les radiofréquences est l’échauffement : la température de votre corps peut augmenter dans ces conditions.

En revanche, les limites existantes sont de telle nature qu’elles permettent d’éviter ce risque d’échauffement. Si l’on respecte les limites fixées par les réglementations actuelles, il n’y a aucune conséquence biologique.

Il faut également ajouter que les fréquences 5G sont différentes de ce qui est supposé dans les médias.

Les opposants à la technologie 5G affirment que les hautes fréquences de la technologie rendront les nouveaux téléphones et les tours de téléphonie cellulaire extraordinairement dangereux.

La vérité est exactement le contraire, comme l’expliquent les scientifiques. Plus la fréquence radio est élevée, moins elle pénètre la peau humaine, ce qui réduit l’exposition des organes internes du corps, y compris le cerveau.

A quoi bon les mythes contre la 5G, alors ?

D’un côté, nous avons le scepticisme général et régulier des écologistes anti-progrès et des conspirationnistes anti-corporatistes. Une telle opposition ne pourra jamais être réfutée au moyen de preuves scientifiques.

D’un autre côté, nous assistons au scepticisme de la population générale, organisé par des médiums différents, dont le site Russia Today (RT). Aux Etats-Unis, le New York Times explique que RT America inonde les réseaux sociaux de messages anti-5G. L’idée serait d’arrêter les progrès des Etats-Unis, au profit de la Russie.

Bien plus simplement, les désinformations sont souvent au profit de certaines entreprises en concurrence.

Nous l’avons bien vu dans la discussion sur la connectivité des automobiles – 5G contre wi-fi : les constructeurs faisaient assaut de lobbying à Bruxelles pour convaincre l’Union européenne de soutenir l’une ou l’autre.

En juillet, le gouvernement allemand a ainsi publié sa position sur la question de ces technologies futures. Il se prépare à soutenir l’utilisation de la technologie wi-fi pour relier les voitures connectées, arguant que la technologie 5G n’est pas encore assez mature pour livrer des résultats.

Le document publié par le gouvernement allemand affirme que « l’industrie doit se concentrer sur la technologie qui utilise des signaux à courte portée, à base de wi-fi ».

En réponse, certains constructeurs automobiles se sont prononcés en faveur de la position prise par le gouvernement allemand tandis que d’autres ont estimé que Berlin devrait plutôt soutenir la technologie 5G.

La bataille du lobbying se livre à travers des organes de communication classiques. A ce niveau, il faut tout d’abord établir une base de faits vérifiables, afin de discuter sur une base de connaissances égales.

Dans le cas de la 5G, ce débat sera crucial pour le futur technologique de l’Europe.


Publié à l’origine ici.

Taiwan’s quest to become a “blockchain island”

It has been over ten years since the world first heard of Bitcoin, but blockchain’s applications are still in their infancy. One legislator in Taiwan wants to change that. Nicknamed “Crypto Congressman” by Vitalik Buterin, Jason Hsu worked as a tech entrepreneur before getting involved in politics in 2016. Today, he’s on a mission to turn Taiwan into the world’s next blockchain island and crypto nation. 

Hsu believes that one of the main challenges for global policy making is bridging the gap between society and technology. He’s bringing his open-minded perspective to Taiwan’s parliament in an effort to promote a more tech-driven future for the country. A future in which blockchain plays a key role. 

Taiwan’s tech-forward governance

 “In September 2017 when China banned ICOs, I realized that Taiwan could capitalize on this opportunity,” explained Hsu in an interview. That’s when his quest to introduce blockchain-friendly legislation in the country began.

What followed was the launch of a fintech sandbox in Taiwan. The idea was two-fold: to attract more foreign investment and to encourage more homegrown tech startups in the financial sector. Favorable regulations coupled with a big pool of local engineering talent are hoped to put Taiwan on the map of world-class fintech hubs. 

But Hsu’s aspiration reaches far beyond the sandbox. He envisions applying blockchain to various aspects of governance: from the Department of Health, through Education, to Justice. The Crypto Congressman is currently involved in 25 different projects that aim to increase efficiency and improve people’s lives with blockchain. He also promised to develop an entire blockchain district in Taipei with a special community coin that would be issued to entrepreneurs. 

What can blockchain do for the people? 

Blockchain has gotten a lot of bad reputation in the last few years. When the Bitcoin bubble burst, skeptics were quick to proclaim blockchain a fad. Others, on the other hand, pointed out that the internet started with a speculative bubble, too. It was only after the dot-com crisis that the World Wide Web reached its maturity. Is blockchain’s real potential still largely unexplored? 

According to Hsu and other visionary legislators, the answer is yes. They see the crypto speculation as a distraction from far greater tasks ahead: improving public services and increasing trust in governments. 

The most important thing you need to know about blockchain is that it consists of a chain of immutable blocks, or pieces of information if you will. Every single transaction is recorded and the records stay in the system forever. You can’t delete, change or hide the data. 

For governments, this could be a real deal-breaker. All the mundane transactions between the citizens and the government bodies would be revolutionized. Birth and death certificates, academic degrees, deeds, proof of identity and any other paperwork could all exist in the decentralized system. This would prevent fraud and make safe online transactions a lot easier, including e-voting or online property exchange. 

The distributed ledger system can also be used to hold governments accountable and fight corruption. Blockchain could provide a permanent record of all public funds and spendings. In a utopian scenario, each citizen would be able to track where every penny of their taxes goes. 

Blockchain adoption worldwide

Taiwan is not the only country to experiment with blockchain. The small nation of the Marshall Islands is set to become the world’s first state to adopt a digital legal tender. Sovereign, or SOV, will supplement the US dollar, which is currently the official currency of the Marshall Islands. Following the launch of the national cryptocurrency, the country will transition to a new model of governance, based on blockchain. 

Another country incorporating blockchain for governance is Estonia. The Baltic state uses Ethereum to manage its e-residency program. Under the first-of-its-kind scheme, anyone can apply online to become an e-citizen in Estonia and legally start a business there. With cutting-edge initiatives like this one, it’s no surprise that the Estonian government was quick to embrace blockchain. However, the plans to roll out a national cryptocurrency, Estcoin, were paused indefinitely. 

And finally, there is a contestant for the “blockchain island” title eyed by Taiwan. Malta is known as one of the most blockchain-friendly countries in the world, thanks to a very favorable regulatory framework passed in 2018. The island country already managed to attract many large cryptocurrency exchanges: OKEx and Binance, for example, have established their headquarters there. 

Technology is the only way forward

More and more governments around the world are realizing what Jason Hsu already knows: that “blockchain is here to stay.” Implementation of blockchain-powered technologies is no longer an “if” but a “when”. In a fast-paced digital environment, legislators have a choice to move forward with the tech developments or become obsolete. The entrepreneurial spirit of “moving fast and breaking stuff” that Hsu brings to Taiwanese parliament might be just what contemporary policymakers need. 


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

Consumer privacy must be priority

Nearly every day we hear of more major cases of identity theft, financial crime and other forms of attacks or malicious interference on the internet. Breaches become commonplace and lax standards leave consumers worried about how their information is safeguarded.

The colossal breaches at British Airways and Marriott and Starwood in 2018 compromised the private data of hundreds of millions customers, and dozens more cases have surfaced since.

Such incidents are evidence that consumer data security, and also consumer privacy, are not being taken seriously. The adoption of Internet of Things solutions and the highly anticipated rollout of very fast 5G networks will make consumers’ privacy even more vulnerable in the next few years.

President Trump’s executive order to prevent companies from buying hardware and software from telecommunications firms deemed a national security risk is at least one good step in protecting privacy, but it’s sad to see it had to come to that.

Trump is likely influenced by statements of FCC chairman Ajit Pai, who has warned against using telecom equipment vendors from China on the basis of both national security and concerns for privacy.

In one case last fall, it was reported that Chinese officials put immense pressure on specific private firms to include so-called backdoors in their software or devices, which may be exploited either by government agents alone or with a manufacturer’s help. That only provokes more questions as to the influence of the Chinese Community Party on the Chinese firms that sell abroad.

With that in mind, for the ordinary consumer looking to buy their next smartphone, laptop or WiFi router, how can they rest assured their privacy will be secured?

As a response to threats like this, Australia banned the Chinese network equipment manufacturer Huawei from its 5G network. The United States has effectively done the same. But blanket bans aren’t a silver bullet solution for safeguarding privacy and data security. A mix of solutions is needed.

What we need is a smart policy response that would induce companies to give sufficient weight to consumer data security, all the while achieving that goal without undue market distortions, wholesale bans of certain firms and the limiting of consumer choice.

Healthy competition between private enterprises is the best mechanism for the discovery of the right tools and applications for new tech gear. Keeping new regulation technology-neutral, and thus not deciding by law which technological solution is best, is a very good framework for consumer privacy.

The rules should be focused on outcomes and be as general as possible while still providing sufficient guidance. That means not just the biggest companies who can afford to comply will also have a chance.

At the same time, some kind of certification scheme, or even open source standard,  should be adopted to minimize the risk of any backdoors or other vulnerabilities. That said, perfect security cannot be guaranteed. But ensuring companies use encryption and secure methods of authentication should be on the table.

Ideally, there would also be more supply chain liability for telecommunications operators and infrastructure wholesalers. This would push companies to take consumer privacy and security more into account when making procurement decisions.

Outright bans motivated by security concerns have the same effects as trade restrictions in the context of a trade war. The first victim of any trade war are the consumers of the nation imposing tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade. Unless there is no other workable solution and unless the evidence of a serious security risk is clear, we shouldn’t resort to bans.

The debate around 5G reminds us how vulnerable consumers are in a technologically and politically complex world.

Therefore, smart regulation is needed in order to protect consumers from data breaches and to prevent autocratic governments from spying on them.

By strengthening liability of companies for technological vulnerabilities and by creating good standards, both consumer choice and privacy can be ensured.

Blunt instruments like total bans based on country of origin or regulators picking the technological champions should be seen as measures of the last resort.

Read more here

Consumer privacy must be priority

Nearly every day we hear of more major cases of identity theft, financial crime and other forms of attacks or malicious interference on the internet. Breaches become commonplace and lax standards leave consumers worried about how their information is safeguarded.

The colossal breaches at British Airways and Marriott and Starwood in 2018 compromised the private data of hundreds of millions customers, and dozens more cases have surfaced since.

Such incidents are evidence that consumer data security, and also consumer privacy, are not being taken seriously. The adoption of Internet of Things solutions and the highly anticipated rollout of very fast 5G networks will make consumers’ privacy even more vulnerable in the next few years.

President Trump’s executive order to prevent companies from buying hardware and software from telecommunications firms deemed a national security risk is at least one good step in protecting privacy, but it’s sad to see it had to come to that.

Trump is likely influenced by statements of FCC chairman Ajit Pai, who has warned against using telecom equipment vendors from China on the basis of both national security and concerns for privacy.

In one case last fall, it was reported that Chinese officials put immense pressure on specific private firms to include so-called backdoors in their software or devices, which may be exploited either by government agents alone or with a manufacturer’s help. That only provokes more questions as to the influence of the Chinese Community Party on the Chinese firms that sell abroad.

With that in mind, for the ordinary consumer looking to buy their next smartphone, laptop or WiFi router, how can they rest assured their privacy will be secured?

As a response to threats like this, Australia banned the Chinese network equipment manufacturer Huawei from its 5G network. The United States has effectively done the same. But blanket bans aren’t a silver bullet solution for safeguarding privacy and data security. A mix of solutions is needed.

What we need is a smart policy response that would induce companies to give sufficient weight to consumer data security, all the while achieving that goal without undue market distortions, wholesale bans of certain firms and the limiting of consumer choice.

Healthy competition between private enterprises is the best mechanism for the discovery of the right tools and applications for new tech gear. Keeping new regulation technology-neutral, and thus not deciding by law which technological solution is best, is a very good framework for consumer privacy.

The rules should be focused on outcomes and be as general as possible while still providing sufficient guidance. That means not just the biggest companies who can afford to comply will also have a chance.

At the same time, some kind of certification scheme, or even open source standard,  should be adopted to minimize the risk of any backdoors or other vulnerabilities. That said, perfect security cannot be guaranteed. But ensuring companies use encryption and secure methods of authentication should be on the table.

Ideally, there would also be more supply chain liability for telecommunications operators and infrastructure wholesalers. This would push companies to take consumer privacy and security more into account when making procurement decisions.

Outright bans motivated by security concerns have the same effects as trade restrictions in the context of a trade war. The first victim of any trade war are the consumers of the nation imposing tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade. Unless there is no other workable solution and unless the evidence of a serious security risk is clear, we shouldn’t resort to bans.

The debate around 5G reminds us how vulnerable consumers are in a technologically and politically complex world.

Therefore, smart regulation is needed in order to protect consumers from data breaches and to prevent autocratic governments from spying on them.

By strengthening liability of companies for technological vulnerabilities and by creating good standards, both consumer choice and privacy can be ensured.

Blunt instruments like total bans based on country of origin or regulators picking the technological champions should be seen as measures of the last resort.

Read more here

We Must Make Consumer Privacy a Priority

Nearly every day we hear of more major cases of identity theft, financial crime and other forms of attacks or malicious interference on the internet. Breaches become commonplace and lax standards leave consumers worried about how their information is safeguarded.

The colossal breaches at British Airways and Marriott and Starwood in 2018 compromised the private data of hundreds of millions customers, and dozens more cases have surfaced since.

Such incidents are evidence that consumer data security, and also consumer privacy, are not being taken seriously. The adoption of Internet of Things solutions and the highly anticipated rollout of very fast 5G networks will make consumers’ privacy even more vulnerable in the next few years.

President Trump’s executive order to prevent companies from buying hardware and software from telecommunications firms deemed a national security risk is at least one good step in protecting privacy, but it’s sad to see it had to come to that.

Trump is likely influenced by statements of FCC chairman Ajit Pai, who has warned against using telecom equipment vendors from China on the basis of both national security and concerns for privacy.

In one case last fall, it was reported that Chinese officials put immense pressure on specific private firms to include so-called backdoors in their software or devices, which may be exploited either by government agents alone or with a manufacturer’s help. That only provokes more questions as to the influence of the Chinese Community Party on the Chinese firms that sell abroad.

With that in mind, for the ordinary consumer looking to buy their next smartphone, laptop or WiFi router, how can they rest assured their privacy will be secured?

As a response to threats like this, Australia banned the Chinese network equipment manufacturer Huawei from its 5G network. The United States has effectively done the same. But blanket bans aren’t a silver bullet solution for safeguarding privacy and data security. A mix of solutions is needed.

What we need is a smart policy response that would induce companies to give sufficient weight to consumer data security, all the while achieving that goal without undue market distortions, wholesale bans of certain firms and the limiting of consumer choice.

Healthy competition between private enterprises is the best mechanism for the discovery of the right tools and applications for new tech gear. Keeping new regulation technology-neutral, and thus not deciding by law which technological solution is best, is a very good framework for consumer privacy.

The rules should be focused on outcomes and be as general as possible while still providing sufficient guidance. That means not just the biggest companies who can afford to comply will also have a chance.

At the same time, some kind of certification scheme, or even open source standard,  should be adopted to minimize the risk of any backdoors or other vulnerabilities. That said, perfect security cannot be guaranteed. But ensuring companies use encryption and secure methods of authentication should be on the table.

Ideally, there would also be more supply chain liability for telecommunications operators and infrastructure wholesalers. This would push companies to take consumer privacy and security more into account when making procurement decisions.

Outright bans motivated by security concerns have the same effects as trade restrictions in the context of a trade war. The first victim of any trade war are the consumers of the nation imposing tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade. Unless there is no other workable solution and unless the evidence of a serious security risk is clear, we shouldn’t resort to bans.

The debate around 5G reminds us how vulnerable consumers are in a technologically and politically complex world.

Therefore, smart regulation is needed in order to protect consumers from data breaches and to prevent autocratic governments from spying on them.

By strengthening liability of companies for technological vulnerabilities and by creating good standards, both consumer choice and privacy can be ensured.

Blunt instruments like total bans based on country of origin or regulators picking the technological champions should be seen as measures of the last resort.

Read more here

Google & US chipmakers pull the plug on Huawei’s Android phones after Trump blacklist

“Outright bans by country of origin should only be the last resort for policy makers. Bans risk getting the global economy deeper into costly trade wars,” said Fred Roeder, managing director of the Consumer Choice Center.

The non-governmental organisation campaigns against restricting consumer choices by prohibitive laws and protectionist measures among others.

“Closed systems have a much higher likelihood of hiding vulnerabilities. Hence more open systems and open source approaches can really help consumers, and governments, trust the security promises of 5G providers,” he added.

Read more here

Google cuts off Huawei from Android ecosystem

Fred Roeder, managing director of the Consumer Choice Centre, a consumer activism group based in Arlington, Virginia, said that outright bans on technology equipment based on country of origin should only be a last resort for governments, and suggested open source might actually be a good route forward. “Bans risk getting the global economy deeper into costly trade wars. Consumers benefit from competition and the fast rollout of new technologies such as 5G networks,” he said.

“At the same time, we are worried about vulnerabilities and potential backdoors in equipment and software. Closed systems have a much higher likelihood of hiding vulnerabilities. Hence more open systems and open source approaches can really help consumers, and governments, trust the security promises of 5G providers,” added Roeder.

Read more here

5G and #Huawei – Trade wars can be prevented by using Open Source

While US President Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday afternoon (15 May) effectively banning the use of Huawei’s products in 5G networks in the United States, the Consumer Choice Center (CCC) hopes for an alternative solution to improve consumer privacy in Europe.

Consumer Choice Center Managing Director Fred Roeder stressed that more openness and transparency of telephone and radio networks could lead to more trust in the soft- and hardware of infrastructure providers: “Outright bans by country of origin should only be the last resort for policy makers. Bans risk getting the global economy deeper into costly trade wars. Consumers benefit from competition and the fast rollout of new technologies such as 5G networks. At the same time, we are worried about vulnerabilities and potential backdoors in equipment and software. Closed systems have a much higher likelihood of hiding vulnerabilities. Hence more open systems and open source approaches can really help consumers, and governments, trust the security promises of 5G providers,” said Roeder.

“Private efforts such as the Open Radio Access Network Alliance show that open source systems are an option for telecommunication infrastructure. It would be a win-win situation for consumers and industry if more companies would embrace open standards. An open source approach in telecommunications could revolutionize market access and rollout pace of new standards in the era of 5G, in the same way as blockchain does in the financial services and payment industry. Manufacturers that commit to open source systems show that they don’t have any vulnerabilities to hide, and at the same time have a compelling case not to be excluded on the basis of their country of origin,” he added.

The Consumer Choice Center published a policy note on Consumer Privacy in the Age of 5G that can be found here.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more here.

Read more here

The Huawei Case: Backdoors, Telnet und ein Rauswurf

Anfang der Woche nährte eine Meldung der Nachrichtenagentur Bloomberg erneut Zweifel hinsichtlich der “Zuverlässigkeit” des chinesischen Netzwerkausrüsters Huawei. So hatte der Mobilfunkbetreiber Vodafone gegenüber der Nachrichtenagentur Bloomberg bestätigt, dass man in Italien bei Huawei-Technologie verdächtige Schwachstellen – sogenannte Backdoors – gefunden habe, die Unbefugten einen Zugang zum Festnetz des Carriers in Italien hätten ermöglichen können.

Diagnosefunktion nach der Entwicklung der Systeme nicht entfernt?

Diese “Schwachstellen” seien laut Vodafone bereits 2011 entdeckt worden. Nun rudert der Telekom-Konzern zurück und bemüht sich um eine technische Klarstellung. So handele es sich bei der Hintertür, auf die sich Bloomberg beziehe, um das Telnet-Protokoll, das von vielen Anbietern in der Industrie zur Durchführung von Diagnosefunktionen verwendet werde. Dieses wäre aber nicht über das Internet zugänglich gewesen, so Vodafone.

Einschätzungen der in USA beheimateten Lobbyorganisation Consumer Choice Center zufolge belegt der jüngste Vorfall Risiken für mögliche Verletzungen des Verbraucherschutzes und mache zugleich deutlich, dass die derzeitigen gesetzlichen Vorschriften zum Schutz der Privatsphäre der Verbraucher im Zeitalter der 5G-Technologien unzureichend sind.

Luca Bertoletti, European Affairs Manager des Consumer Choice Center, sagte dazu: “Wir glauben nicht, dass das Verbot von Huawei-Technologie und der Beginn eines Handelskrieges mit China der richtige Weg ist. Vielmehr fordern wir, dass alle Gesetzgeber und Strafverfolgungsbehörden Maßnahmen ergreifen und Normen schaffen, die sich an der Sicherheitszertifizierung von Software und Geräten orientieren sollten (wie im “Cybersecurity Act” der EU vorgeschlagen). Wir sind der Meinung, dass eine starke Verschlüsselung und sichere Authentifizierungsmethoden ein wesentlicher Bestandteil der Bemühungen zum Schutz der Privatsphäre der Verbraucher sein sollten.”

Continue Reading

Huawei Vodafone backdoor renews demand for better privacy rules

CONTACT:
Luca Bertoletti
European Affairs Manager
Consumer Choice Center
[email protected]
39 3451694519

Huawei Vodafone backdoor renews demand for better privacy rules

ROME – Today it was revealed that hidden backdoors were discovered in Huawei Equipment by the mobile provider Vodafone back in 2011. 

Vodafone identified hidden backdoors in the software that could have given Huawei unauthorized access to the carrier’s fixed-line network in Italy, reports Bloomberg.

The Consumer Choice Center says this intrusion highlights the risks for consumer privacy violations and demonstrates how current legal rules are insufficient in protecting consumers’ privacy in the age of 5G technologies. 

Luca Bertoletti, European Affairs Manager at the Consumer Choice Center, reacted to the news.

“This incident should signal to Italian law enforcement agencies the importance of Italian privacy rights and the seriousness of privacy intrusions from third parties. We invite legislators from all of Europe to press telco operators to take new steps to protect consumer privacy and take fast actions to prevent future breaches of internet networks.”

“We don’t believe that banning Huawei, and starting a trade war with China, is the right way to go. Rather, we demand that all legislative bodies and law enforcement actors take action and create standards that should be guided by security certification of software and devices (like proposed in the EU’s “Cybersecurity Act”). We believe that strong encryption and secure methods of authentication should be a significant part of the effort to safeguard consumer privacy,” concluded Bertoletti.

This particular topic ties into the CCC’s Consumer Privacy note, which was released this month.

***CCC European Affairs Manager Luca Bertoletti is available to speak with accredited media on consumer regulations and consumer choice issues. Please send media inquiries HERE.***

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

Scroll to top