British online betting exchanges Betfair and Sporting Options recently signed an agreement with the U.K. Jockey Club that would allow the Jockey Club to request and receive information about individual bettors in certain situations. The intent of the agreement is to insure fairness to bettors by eliminating inside betting by horse owners, jockeys and trainers.
The agreement mandates that requests can only be made if the Jockey Club has reasonable grounds to suspect such unfair betting.
Nevertheless, another online betting exchange, Betdaq, refused to sign it because of concerns over privacy. "It would appear Betfair is going to ask its customers to waive the rights they enjoy in every other sphere of life." Betdaq spokesman Rob Hartnett said of the agreement. "We believe this is wrong."
The intent of the agreement is to the preserve integrity of P2P betting, but has a line been crossed?
We asked experts:
Is the U.K. Jockey Club's agreement with Betfair and Sporting Options a cause for concern over privacy?
 |
Anita Allen-Castellitto:
"Information sharing is an impairment of privacy, but may be warranted as a way to introduce accountability and protect the integrity of the sport."
|
|
Anita Allen-Castellitto: There are many professionals and employees whose callings require them to give up forms of privacy others enjoy. A landscaper can freely discuss a conversation that he or she has had with a client about putting in a new rose bed; but a lawyer or physician or banker must, by law in the U.S. and many other countries, keep client matters confidential. In the U.S. and many other countries the managers of a corporation cannot trade stock or reveal to other potential traders non-public information concerning company plans that could be expected to affect stock prices. So-called "insider trading" gives corporate managers and those with whom they share non-public information in advance of general announcements to the public an unfair advantage. People who fly planes and drive trains are subject to random drug and alcohol tests. In the U.S., high school, college and Olympic athletes are subject to drug testing aimed at protecting the integrity of sport, even though the tests diminish privacy.
I know nothing about the racing world, but it does seem to me that the integrity of the sport might require organizers to undertake efforts to regulate wagering by jockeys, owners, trainers and or other individuals potentially able to influence the outcome of races. A complete ban of wagering by such individuals is one approach, but that seems like an excessive, counter-productive impairment of liberty. On the other hand, sharing information to reveal possible unethical or illegal acts, especially if limited to situations of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, seems defensible, assuming certain "fair information practices" are adopted. Information sharing is an impairment of privacy, but may be warranted as a way to introduce accountability and protect the integrity of the sport.
But, what privacy experts refer to as "fair information practice" standards are essential, in my view. The purpose and scope of data sharing must be publicly announced. Data collection should be limited in scope to what is essential. The data collected should not be shared unnecessarily with inessential employees, third parties, or the general public. The persons about whom information is collected should be afforded opportunities to verify the accuracy of the information collected. Stringent measures to protect the security, accuracy and continued relevancy of data should be implemented. Data of persons no longer affiliated with the sport should be expunged.
Anita L. Allen (a.k.a. Allen-Castellitto) is a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Professor Allen briefly practiced law at Cravath, Swaine and Moore before turning to an academic career. She is a member of the New York and Pennsylvania bars and is nationally known expert on the law and ethics of privacy. She is the author of books that include "Why Privacy Isn't Everything," "Privacy Law" (with R. Turkington) and "Uneasy Access: Privacy for Women in a Free Society." Her more than 70 articles include: "Gender and Privacy in Cyberspace," Stanford Law Review (2000); "Privacy as Data Control: Conceptual, Practical, and Moral Limits of the Paradigm," 32 Connecticut Law Review 861 (2000); "Privacy and the Public Official: Talking About Sex as a Problem for Democracy," 67 George Washington Law Review 1165 (1999); "Lying to Protect Privacy," 44 Villanova Law Review 161 (1999); and "Coercing Privacy," 40 William and Mary Law Review 723 (1999); "Genetic Privacy: Emerging Concepts and Values," in Mark Rothstein, ed. Genetic Secrets (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997); and "The Jurispolitics of Privacy," in Uma Narayan and Molly Shanley, eds. Reconstructing Political Theory (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1996). A prolific writer, she is also recognized for her scholarship in the areas of jurisprudence, legal philosophy, law and literature, women's rights and race relations.
|
Robert Ellis Smith:
"... You've got to look to the purpose that people gave their personal data for in the first place."
|
|
Robert Ellis Smith: The best way to test any exchange of information is to ask, first, "Is the information identifiable to a particular individual?" and second, "Is the proposed secondary use of the information compatible with the purpose for which the individual provided the information in the first place?"
This principle tracks the law on data protection in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe and Canada.
Betfair seems to be saying that it is disclosing only cumulative information that is not individually identifiable. If so, there's no privacy issue.
If Betfair is disclosing individually identifiable information, you've got to look to the purpose that people gave their personal data for in the first place. The purpose was to place bets and administer accounts, not to detect fraud or illicit gambling, unless Betfair articulated this in the first place. If Betfair originally articulated to its clients a wide purpose for gathering personal data, then it is authorized to use it for compatible secondary uses. If not, it should go back and get the consent of its clients for this exchange.
Robert Ellis Smith is a journalist who uses his training as an attorney to report on the individual's right to privacy. Since 1974, he has published Privacy Journal, a monthly newsletter on privacy in a computer age. Based in Providence, R.I., Smith is the author of Ben Franklin's Web Site: "Privacy and Curiosity from Plymouth Rock to the Internet" (Spring 2000), the first and only published history of privacy in the United States. He is also the author of "Our Vanishing Privacy" (1993), "The Law of Privacy Explained" (1993), "Privacy: How to Protect What's Left of It"; "Workrights," a book describing individual rights in the work place; and "The Big Brother Book of Lists." Privacy Journal also publishes "Compilation of State and Federal Privacy Laws," "Celebrities and Privacy," and "War Stories," a collection of anecdotes on privacy invasions. Smith has been asked to write the definitive statement on privacy in the last two editions of The World Book Encyclopedia. He has appeared on all three network morning news programs, as well as "Face the Nation," "Nightline," and "All Things Considered." He has been a regular commentator on "Marketplace" on American Public Radio.