Among the 116 proposals in the Privacy Act review are calls for safeguards similar to those provided by the EU's GDPR. Small businesses will likely be upset at seeing previously proposed exemptions wiped away, however.
Data Protection
Certain types of personal data are very valuable to criminals, and can be very damaging to an individual or business if it falls into the wrong hands. As the world becomes more digital and more connected, more of this sort of data is generated and passed between various sources on a regular basis.
Government regulations and supervisory authorities aren’t just about keeping irresponsible parties in line. They also provide vital security guidance to every type of organization that handles sensitive personal, business or government information.
Data protection regulations also ensure that the end user has a transparent view of and a say in the processing of personal data. These safeguards play a significant role in everything from the preservation of civil rights to ensuring that democratic institutions function properly.
Some types of personal data are clear candidates for regulation: medical records, banking information, national ID numbers and so on. But some of these regulations also cover items that might seem relatively innocuous at first glance: home addresses, email addresses, website profile information and so on. For example, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has stipulations about anything that is unique to an individual to include phone numbers and social media accounts. People have varying levels of privacy preference with these items, but they are often protected by regulation because they can be used for targeted scams and attempts at identity theft.
Given that regulations often take the size and customer count of businesses into consideration in terms of penalties and the scope of protection of personal data, compliance is particularly important for enterprise-scale organizations. You do not necessarily have to have an active business presence in a country or region; simply storing data on or moving it through servers there may subject you to their data protection rules.
Popular "fast fashion" app Shein has landed in some regulatory trouble in the EU, as France's data regulator CNIL has issued a €150 million GDPR fine due to failure to obtain cookie consent.
Financial market regulators from outside the EU are now seeking GDPR exemptions for the purpose of "public interest", for example cracking down on securities fraud, including the SEC in the U.S. as well as regulators in Japan and Hong Kong.
With CPRA, also known as CCPA 2.0, potentially heading to California’s November 2020 ballot, what are the steps that businesses need to take to be ready for the law?
New law has passed in Washington state which will limit the use of facial recognition technology but some are concerned that it does not offer enough protections against marginalized groups.
The IAB TCF was one of the first ad tracking standards to ensure compliance with GDPR terms. There's just one small problem; it may not actually comport with the relevant data protection rules.
DoorDash has settled an ongoing investigation by the California Department of Justice after Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the company had committed privacy violations under the terms of the CCPA. In addition to paying a $375,000 civil fine, the food delivery giant will be subject to additional CCPA enforcement terms going forward.
Italy was one of the first EU nations to take OpenAI and ChatGPT to task over data privacy violations, even banning the app from the country briefly, and it has now issued the bloc's first GDPR fine of this nature to the company.
Out of all six legal bases for processing offered by the GDPR, consent and legitimate interests are the legal bases most likely to be relied upon to justify direct marketing. Where the direct marketing involves electronic communications, however, is where things get muddy.
The case began with a probe opened by an assortment of state attorneys general in 2018 in response to consumer complaints. The investigation found that Google had been misleading about its use of location tracking dating back to at least 2014.








