In a blow to personal privacy, New Jersey's highest court has ruled that people do not have a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to give phone passcodes to police.
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.
UK ICO is investigating claims of employee surveillance that include using tracking software to determine when and for how long employees were away from their desks.
A new study of privacy concerns upends the notion that traditional "reasonable expectation of privacy" models also apply to digital tracking and data collection.
It's fair to say that TikTok is having an even rougher 2020 than most companies with French privacy regulator CNIL opening a probe into parent company ByteDance's operations.
Illinois has made news recently for its strong legislation governing facial recognition technology. A proposed federal bill would apply similar regulation across the country.
Companies who conduct web scraping or do business with data harvesters need to understand the nuanced legality of web scraping so they can better navigate the risks associated with the practice and protect themselves from liability.
The Trump administration set the internet ablaze when it issued an executive order that sets a firm date for a TikTok ban. That Tencent-owned WeChat would also be included was something of a surprise.
People are increasingly aware of consumer privacy issues, but also overwhelmingly feel that they do not have the tools to protect themselves and look to government to intervene.
PrivacyOps is an emerging framework that reimagines how to efficiently implement and operationalize privacy management throughout an organization in an agile manner.
Big Tech companies answered to the House Judiciary Committee's antitrust subcommittee in Wednesday's hearing, which surprised observers with the intensity of its questioning.










