This cartoon is about algorithmic transparency. Today, more and more decisions are being made by algorithms. The logic and functioning of these algorithms is increasingly complex and opaque to people. Today, the new buzzwords are “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning.” AI and machine learning represent a number of different but related things, but what they generally share in common are algorithms. As algorithms become more complex and rely on being fed massive quantities of data, it becomes harder and harder to explain their reasoning. This is a big problem because algorithms play a significant role in our lives by making some very important decisions.
Cartoon: Multi-Jurisdictional Privacy Law Compliance
This cartoon depicts the challenges of multi-jurisdictional privacy law compliance. In 2018, organizations scrambled to comply with the GDPR. In 2019, businesses are scrambling to comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). And, there will be a new referendum on privacy law in California next year — CCPA 2.0. There’s a flurry of legislative activity in the states on privacy — IAPP has a great chart tracking what is going on. And, each year, more and more countries are passing new comprehensive privacy laws.
We are witnessing the growing pains of privacy law. Privacy wasn’t adequately regulated for too long, and now the concerns are festering, sparking a rush to action. In the US, state legislation on privacy will continue until the concerns are allayed. A thoughtful and powerful federal law could weaken the enthusiasm for states to jump into the fray, but this is a challenge with Congress as polarized as it is.
For more on the issue, I recently interviewed K Royal on this topic – see here for the interview.
Developing a Multi-Jurisdictional Approach to Privacy Laws — An Interview with K Royal
I’m thrilled to interview K Royal, Senior Director, Western Region, Privacy, at TrustArc. K has had a long career in privacy law, having served as privacy counsel for several companies. She’s also an adjunct professor at Arizona State University.
Prof Solove: What is the need for a multi-jurisdictional approach to privacy laws?
K Royal: With the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and other laws such as the Brazilian General Data Protection Law (“Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados” or “LGPD”), businesses must be prepared to comply with a variety of laws around the world.
Privacy is a complex, multi-level, comprehensive concept which is now being regulated in more than 130 countries with more than 500 privacy laws. To be successful in complying with so many laws, businesses must develop a multi-jurisdictional approach to privacy laws that is consistent and predictable yet also not one-size-fits-all.
Prof Solove: Can a company just set one high bar and just treat all personal data the same?
Cartoon: Cookies and the GDPR
This cartoon depicts how, after the GDPR, countless websites have cookie notices and require agreeing to accept cookies. I find these cookie notices to be form over substance. These notices are virtually meaningless and don’t help consumers. They are a nuisance. They give privacy a bad name because people start to think that privacy is just about a bunch of silly notices and needless extra clicks.
Because cookies are so ubiquitous and commonly-known, being notified about them isn’t very informative. At this point, a notice that says “this site uses cookies” is akin to a notice that says “this computer uses electricity.” What matters is how personal information is being used, not whether there are cookies. Additionally, there are no meaningful choices for consumers. Often, there’s no choice but to accept the cookies. Even when there is a choice, consumers aren’t informed enough about the benefits and costs to make a meaningful decision.
Formalistic “protections” of privacy such as these cookie notices are a big fail. These cookie notices create the illusion of doing something about privacy, but nothing really meaningful is happening here.
Entering the New Age of Privacy in the US: Learning from GDPR — An Interview with Daniel Barber
I had the chance to interview Daniel Barber, CEO and Co-founder of DataGrail. DataGrail is a purpose-built privacy management platform that ensures sustained compliance with the GDPR, CCPA, and forthcoming regulations. Their customers span a variety of industries and include Databricks, Plexus Worldwide, TRI Pointe Homes, Outreach, Intercom, and SaaStr. Daniel and I spoke about the lessons we’ve learned one year on from GDPR and how companies can apply those lessons as they think about CCPA and laws like Nevada’s SB 220.
ALI Data Privacy: Overview and Black Letter Text — Available for Download
Professor Paul Schwartz and I have posted the black letter text of the American Law Institute (ALI), Principles of the Law, Data Privacy. Professor Paul Schwartz and I were co-reporters on the project. Earlier this year, I wrote a post about our completion of the project. According to the ALI press release: “The Principles seek to provide a set of best practices for entities that collect and control data concerning individuals and guidance for a variety of parties at the federal, state, and local levels, including legislators, attorneys general, and administrative agency officials.”
The project is an attempt to create a comprehensive approach to data privacy for the United States. The project was 7 years in the making, and we’re thrilled finally to share the text. We also wrote a short introduction to explain what various provisions are attempting to accomplish. You can download it from SSRN for free. Our piece is called ALI Data Privacy: Overview and Black Letter Text.
Here’s the abstract.
In this Essay, the Reporters for the American Law Institute Principles of Law, Data Privacy provide an overview of the project as well as the text of its black letter. The Principles aim to provide a blueprint for policymakers to regulate privacy comprehensively and effectively.
The United States has long remained an outlier in privacy law. While numerous nations have enacted comprehensive privacy laws, the U.S. has clung stubbornly to a fragmented, inconsistent patchwork of laws. Moreover, there long has been a vast divide between the approaches of the U.S. and European Union (EU) to regulating privacy – a divide that many consider to be unbridgeable.
The Principles propose comprehensive privacy principles for legislation that are consistent with certain key foundations in the U.S. approach to privacy, yet that also align the U.S. with the EU. Additionally, the Principles attempt to breathe new life into the moribund and oft-criticized U.S. notice-and-choice approach, which has remained firmly rooted in U.S. law. Drawing from a vast array of privacy laws and frameworks, and with a balance of innovation, practicality, and compromise, the Principles aim to guide policymakers in advancing U.S. privacy law.
The essay above consists of our short introduction and the black letter text. The full document is 100+ pages long and is available at the ALI. Right now, final proofreading and formatting are being done on the document, but you can obtain from ALI the near-final version.
Establishing a Robust Law School Educational Program for Privacy Law
Recently, the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) released a ranking of law schools based on their educational programs in privacy law. Although I applaud the effort to focus more attention on the issue of teaching privacy law in law schools, there are many aspects of the project that I would do differently. In this post, I will discuss the elements of what I believe would constitute a robust privacy law educational program at law schools.
First, a bit of background about IAPP’s rankings. IAPP ranks schools into three tiers. Tier 1 is for schools offering a “certification or formal concentration in privacy law.” Tier 2 is for schools that “offer at least one three-credit course in privacy annually.” Tier 3 is for schools that “have a privacy offering, such as a one-credit seminar” rather than a three-credit offering or that have offered privacy courses but not on a “consistent basis.”
Unfortunately, the data that IAPP has assembled thus far is incomplete and needs quite a number of corrections. For example, many schools listed in Tier 3 have a 3-credit annual offering.
Additionally, I don’t agree with the set of criteria used to rank the schools. Having a certificate doesn’t put a school’s program in the top tier. There are many other factors to consider. Presenting the data in a rankings format is counterproductive because the data needs a lot of correcting plus the criteria are incomplete and not properly weighted. I think a more useful endeavor would be to improve the data, gather data on some other criteria, and just present the data rather than try to rank. IAPP’s project is just a starting point, and I hope that my suggestions here are constructive and will help shape the project.
First OCR Enforcement of HIPAA’s Right of Access
Days after my recent blog post on the HIPAA Right of Access, the OCR released details of their first enforcement action for violation of the Right of Access.
The complaint, received in August 2018, involved a mother who waited over 9 months to receive prenatal records from Bayfront Health in St. Petersburg. She requested the records of her unborn child in October 2017 and after receiving incomplete records in March 2018, she did not receive the complete records until August 2018 (via her lawyers). It was not until after the OCR’s investigation in February 2019 that she received the complete records directly. HIPAA requires medical records to be provided within 30 days of the request.
The OCR concluded that Bayfront violated 45 C.F.R. § 164.524 by failing to provide access to PHI. Bayfront has paid $85,000 and agreed to a corrective action plan. The corrective actions include written policies and procedures around access rights, increased training and incident reporting among others.
I applaud the OCR bringing this case, but it is quite shocking that this is the first enforcement action with a fine for a violation of the right to access in HIPAA’s history. More than 15 years went by before this single action. A lot more enforcement must start happening.
The Failure of HIPAA’s Right of Access
One of the biggest sore spots in HIPAA compliance has been providing individuals with their right to access their medical records. In addition to the countless anecdotal accounts about the painful process of getting medical records, a recent study demonstrated just how far there is to go for providers to be in compliance. More than half of medical providers included in the recent medRxiv study did not meet the basic requirements in HIPAA for providing medical records. A further 20% of the providers would not provide records until requests were escalated to supervisors. Which means that more than 70% of the subjects studied would not have been in compliance had the supervisors not been involved.
HIPAA provides that “an individual has a right of access to inspect and obtain a copy of protected health information about the individual in a designated record set, for as long as the protected health information is maintained in the designated record set.” 45 CFR §164.524
I have written on numerous occasions about patient control of their own records and reforms needed to support this right. Getting access to medical records doesn’t seem to have improved very much. Despite HIPAA’s right of access, it doesn’t seem to be taken very seriously by providers.
HIPAA Cartoon: HIPAA as an Excuse
This cartoon depicts something that happens far too often with HIPAA — HIPAA is used as an excuse not to do something (such as make disclosures or provide access to records in ways that patients request) even though HIPAA doesn’t have such a restriction. This is often done out of a lack of knowledge about HIPAA. Healthcare providers frequently have mistaken notions of HIPAA being far more restrictive than it actually is. For example, last year, I wrote a post about how numerous healthcare providers wrongly use HIPAA as an excuse to refuse to email medical records to patients. Ironically, instead of forbidding it, HIPAA actually requires that medical records be emailed to patients if patients so request.