It is sad to say goodbye to Concurring Opinions, a law professor blog I co-founded in 2005. The blog began when a group of us (Dave Hoffman, Kaimi Wenger, Nate Oman, and me) who were blogging at PrawfsBlawg decided we wanted more autonomy in blog governance, so we founded Concurring Opinions. Over the years, we added many great permabloggers: Danielle Citron, Deven Desai, Frank Pasquale, Gerard Magliocca, Ronald K.L. Collins, Larry Cunningham, Naomi Cahn, Sarah Waldeck, Solangel Maldonado, Corey Yung, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, and others.
All posts tagged Privacy
On December 4, 2018, New York Attorney General Barbara D. Underwood announced a $4.95 million settlement with Oath, Inc. (formerly known as AOL), for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). This is the largest penalty in a COPPA enforcement case in U.S. history.
Happy Halloween! I hope you enjoy this privacy cartoon about Halloween and Big Data.
One of the biggest challenges for organizations is locating all the personal data they have. This task must be done, however, to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other privacy laws. Moreover, the GDPR and the new California Consumer Privacy Act provide that individuals have rights regarding their data. These rights often require that organizations must keep records of individual privacy preferences regarding their data.
I had the opportunity to interview Dimitri Sirota about these issues. Dimitri is the CEO and co-founder of one of the first enterprise privacy management platforms, BigID, and a privacy and identity expert.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been notoriously slow to tackle new technology. In 2002, Blackberry launched its first smart phone. On June 29, 2007, Steve Jobs announced the launch of the original Apple iPhone. But it took the Supreme Court until 2014 to decide a case involving the Fourth Amendment and smart phones – Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014). This past summer, the Supreme Court issued another opinion involving smart phones – Carpenter vs. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018).
I am thrilled to have had the opportunity to interview Bart Huffman, a partner in Reed Smith’s global IP, Tech & Data Group, about the Supreme Court’s recent foray into smart phones.
In recent years, there have been tremendous advances in artificial intelligence (AI). These rapid technological advances are raising a myriad of ethical issues, and much work remains to be done in thinking through all of these ethical issues.
I am delighted to be interviewing Kurt Long about the topic of AI. Long is the creator and CEO of FairWarning, a cloud-based security provider that provides data protection and governance for electronic health records, Salesforce, Office 365, and many other cloud applications. Long has extensive experience with AI and has thought a lot about its ethical ramifications.
Steve was previously at Oracle and Novell, then was President of Solera Networks before founding Anonyome. Steve speaks and writes extensively on identity management, cybersecurity, privacy, and Big Data.
This cartoon is about consent under the GDPR. Under the GDPR Article 6, consent is one of the six lawful bases to process personal data. Article 7 provides further guidance about consent, including the data subject’s right to withdraw consent. The meaning of what “consent” requires is most thoroughly stated in Recital 32:
Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her, such as by a written statement, including by electronic means, or an oral statement. This could include ticking a box when visiting an internet website, choosing technical settings for information society services or another statement or conduct which clearly indicates in this context the data subject’s acceptance of the proposed processing of his or her personal data. Silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity should not therefore constitute consent. Consent should cover all processing activities carried out for the same purpose or purposes. When the processing has multiple purposes, consent should be given for all of them. If the data subject’s consent is to be given following a request by electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided.
Privacy by design — or “Data Protection by Design” as it is referred to in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) — is essential to meaningful privacy protection. Yet, it is often quite thin and incomplete. As I wrote a few years ago about privacy by design, “The ‘privacy’ the designers have in mind might be so focused on one particular dimension of privacy that it might overlook many other dimensions.”
The privacy world has been abuzz with the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. In June 2018, within just a week, California passed this strict new privacy law. Some commentators have compared it to the GDPR, but it is a much more narrow law and is a far cry from the GDPR. Nevertheless, it is a significant entry in California’s considerable canon of privacy laws.
For more on California privacy laws, see this collection compiled by the California Attorney General.