SOMI contends that Palantir could be participating in both knowing and unknowing privacy violations based on its involvement with "predictive policing" technologies.
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.
Schrems has filed a case against Apple in the EU, alleging that the company's unique device tracking ID is in and of itself a breach of privacy law regardless of how it is used.
You can build privacy training that meets every one of the compliance requirements out there and doesn’t force you to constantly shift your program to meet changes.
While Apple’s new iOS 14 privacy feature is a step in the right direction. What users truly need is a solution to take back control over their data and manage it independently on an ongoing basis.
The unexpected Schrems II ruling effectively invalidated the legal status of international data transfers. Some illumination has finally arrived in the form of detailed guidance from the EDPB.
Consent is unmanageable at today’s scale. New proposed privacy regulations seek to establish a set of data rights that cannot be signed away.
Privacy coins such as Monero will soon be unavailable in South Korea, with the government citing crypto AML measures as the reason for the ban.
Though it was unsuccessful in defeating Prop 24, questions have been raised about the tech giant's use of its own search algorithm to put a thumb on the scale.
Contextual marketing will supplement whichever user-based ID solutions arise victorious from the Cookiepocalypse — creating a new, transparent way to reach key audiences in the cookieless future.
Recent Senate hearing on the Section 230 publishing protections that Big Tech platforms enjoy did not produce much in the way of productive results, but did formally open a federal-level dialogue.









