The Montana TikTok ban is now facing a lawsuit from parent company ByteDance, on the basis of violation of Constitutional rights and assorted federal laws. The ban is not slated to take effect until January 2024, and legal challenges were expected in the interim.
Data Privacy
Technological development has always outpaced privacy concerns, but never more so than in the past decade. Collection and centralization of personally identifiable information (PII), tracking of movements and digital surveillance are all at unprecedented levels. Regulations and laws are only just beginning to catch up to the ability of both governments and private entities to deploy these capabilities.
What exactly is there to worry about? The mass collection and centralization of data by giant multinationals such as Facebook and Google is as good of a place to start as any. Two decades of vacuuming up the personal data of users of various online services has created the most impressive marketing capabilities in history, but these profiles have astounding potential for damage when they are used the wrong way or fall into the wrong hands.
Unauthorized information that is captured in data breaches tends to find its way to massive “combo lists” that are sold and traded on the dark web. Social security numbers are added from this breach, home addresses and phone numbers from that one, personal health information from yet another. Soon, a frighteningly complete profile of millions of individuals is available to anyone willing to pay the asking price.
These are just the established data privacy issues. The emerging ones are even worse. High-quality facial recognition technology is just beginning to roll out across the public places of some countries. Artificial intelligence is not only making mass facial recognition possible, but magnifies the power and reach of any application that involves capturing and sorting information: scanning pictures, analyzing speech, sifting through text and location data. This threatens to not only shatter anonymity and privacy, but allow for highly advanced impersonation and take the concept of “identity theft” to new levels.
Some businesses chafe at the trouble and added expense of new and emerging data privacy regulations, but they are vital to both protecting rights and privacy and instilling confidence in end users. Customers want to be able to submit their payment information without worry about data breaches and identity theft, use services without wondering what is being done with their personal information and use devices without fear of surveillance or having location data tracked. The need for meaningful safeguards only grows greater as technological capabilities increase.
A change to California's state privacy law is the first regulation to directly take on dark patterns, threatening civil penalties brought under the state's existing unfair competition laws.
In a new California lawsuit, Facebook is accused of failing to adequately comply with information and subpoena requests related to the company’s privacy practices.
Several of the California AI safety law's terms are even more stringent than comparable rules put into play in the European Union. But despite seemingly broad support there is still criticism of its expected negative impact on innovation, and from the privacy and security side some note that key regulations have yet to be placed on AI developers.
India’s DoT now requires outsourcing providers in India to capture and store certain call records and system logs at their Indian delivery centers. Outsourcing customers should evaluate their agreements to ensure their information and that of their customers is safeguarded while complying with obligations under the Guidelines.
After nearly two months of non-stop controversy and scandal over its improper use of Facebook data, Cambridge Analytica finally announced that it was ceasing operations, effective immediately. In doing so, Cambridge Analytica has become the new poster child to highlight the perils of data security breaches.
Up to 87 million Facebook accounts had user data inappropriately accessed during the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which a weakness in the platform's API was used to harvest protected profile and activity information.
It's not quite the world of George Orwell's 1984, but employers and employees are still searching for a meeting of minds when it comes to privacy. Can a balance be struck between business imperatives and employee privacy? In part one of a two-part article we examine just how technology is contributing to a steady erosion of employee privacy and how both employer and employee must each bear some of the burden when it comes to privacy issues.
In the first part we examined whether a balance can be struck between business imperatives and employee privacy. In this second and final part of the article we delve into just how privacy issues have been treated under the law and delve further into the rights and responsibilities of both employer and employee.
Restoration of simple EU-US data transfers hinges on assurances from the US that these communications will not be subject to government surveillance. A new research paper looks to untangle this problem and provide some sort of a path forward.










