The main theme of the Biden op-ed was the setting aside of partisan differences to curb the power of big tech, primarily by limiting the ways in which these firms collect and use personal data.
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.
Privacy engineering has become a top architecture challenge. Compliance with local, regional, and international data privacy laws is now a vital business concern, and there’s immense pressure on R&D to effectively implement privacy engineering in ways that bake in compliance.
privacy lawsuit claims to have tested what Apple apps "phone home" with and found that it seemingly makes no difference what the user chooses in terms of analytics data permissions.
Meta is framing the lawsuit as an opening volley in a war against data scraping and invasive surveillance by law enforcement partners. The surveillance company has clearly gone farther than is usual given the creation of some 38,000 fake accounts.
It’s time to consciously Shift Left. Privacy teams must be involved with product development from the earliest stages. It’s the difference-maker between reacting to a privacy misstep after the fact and preventing the misstep in the first place.
The use of AI in HR is becoming increasingly popular as organizations look for ways to streamline and automate their HR processes. What are some of the risks related to privacy, bias, and employment law? Here's some best practice advice on how organizations can use AI in HR in a responsible and ethical manner.
Chick-fil-A Hit With Privacy Lawsuit Over Data Collection Embedded in Viral Video Marketing Campaign
Privacy lawsuit alleges that by embedding the Meta pixel on pages hosting its videos, Chick-fil-A violated the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) which applies only to data collection of personally identifiable information when viewing videos.
We should strive for a human-centric, value-driven, yet flexible and business friendly standards backed by laws and regulatory enforcement. Yet abandoning the old ways of relying on privacy notices and consent forms will remain contentious, controversial and, if it happens, still take a lot of time.
New research provides evidence we’re entering the Great Privacy Awakening. In the absence of a federal law, consumers are taking action: From using ad-blockers, and deleting their browser history to using their privacy rights and requesting their data be deleted.
Even if Meta were using a data clean room for marketing and advertising purposes, it would not be adequate for GDPR compliance. And without GDPR compliance, Meta can’t claim legitimate interest as a legal basis for lawful secondary data processing.










