Posted in Big Data

Context

Making the Case for Surprise Minimization

By Jedidiah Bracy, CIPP/US, CIPP/E

Facebook made headlines this week—for a positive reason, this time—by announcing a new set of privacy controls to help users understand with whom they are communicating. Last month, at the IAPP Global Privacy Summit, Facebook CPO Erin Egan foreshadowed this roll out by exclaiming, “If people are surprised, that’s not good for me.”

What did she mean, exactly?

More from Jedidiah Bracy

Opinion

Privacy Is Not Dead ... It’s Aliiiiive!

By Ruby A. Zefo, CIPP/US, CIPM

Like many of you, I have been told repeatedly that “privacy is dead.” Most recently, I was walking down the hall in my office building, carrying my Ultrabook with the Future of Privacy Forum’s “I © privacy” sticker on it, and minding my own business. A marketing colleague stopped me and abruptly advised me that “the thing you love is dead.”

Good heavens. For a minute I panicked. What thing? Cuban sandwiches? My cat? Cowboy boots? What? He pointed to my sticker and said, “Privacy is dead!”

Oh, that. No sir, it is not dead.

More from Ruby A. Zefo

Opinion

Putting Privacy Concerns about the Internet of Things in Perspective

I’ve written here and elsewhere about the growing privacy and security concerns surrounding the rise of the “Internet of Things” (IoT) era. Many privacy advocates are already decrying the potential for massive security threats and privacy violations in a world of always-on, always-sensing devices. I’ve admitted that there are some valid reasons for concern, even though I’ve also argued that most of us will likely quickly adapt to this new era and we will also find practical solutions to many of the problems that arise.

But it may be the case that some of the problems we fear today never come about.

More from Adam Thierer

Big Data

How To Solve the President’s Big Data Challenge

In his recent remarks on the NSA and surveillance, President Barack Obama grabbed the Big Data bull by the horns. We commend the president’s decision to task the Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) to reach out to privacy experts, technologists and business leaders to examine the challenges inherent in Big Data. Government surveillance raises distinct civil liberties concerns that commercial and scientific use of Big Data does not; still, it is appropriate to address the profound impact of new technologies on Big Data business opportunities.

Big Data was all the rage in privacy circles in 2013, and now it is achieving appropriate broad policy attention. It implicates modern day dilemmas, which transcend privacy and impact a variety of delicate balancing acts at the core of free market democracy. The examination requires engagement not only by privacy professionals but also by ethicists, scientists and philosophers to address what may very well be the biggest public policy challenge of our time.

More from Jules Polonetsky

Trending

Was This a Week of “Tangible” Privacy Harm?

By Jedidiah Bracy, CIPP/US, CIPP/E
Photo taken from Ukranian protests in Kiev

Two events this week got me thinking of privacy harms. Now, I know the mere mention of “privacy harms” brings with it a lot of baggage and a ton of research, legal uncertainty, opinion and, well…ambiguity. I couldn’t possibly link to all the countless scholars, lawyers and activists who have tackled the question of what does, or does not, count as a harm, but I couldn’t help think that we may have seen some tangible harms we can all agree on this week.

More from Jedidiah Bracy

Opinion

Old School Privacy is Dead, But Don’t Go Privacy Crazy

By Stanley W. Crosley, CIPP/US, CIPM
Image from “Redneck Crazy” video by Tyler Farr

When I have the occasion to drive the kids to school, our music selections range almost as widely as our breakfast choices—some Christian, some country and some 80s, to which I alone know the lyrics. Recently, a particularly funny, somewhat concerning country song, “Redneck Crazy” by Tyler Farr, caught my attention. The song includes the following line, “You done broke the wrong heart baby ... drove me redneck crazy.”

More from Stanley W. Crosley

Point-Counterpoint

So Glad You Didn’t Say That! A Response to Viktor Mayer-Schönberger

In response to my comments on an IAPP story, “Forget Notice and Choice, Let’s Regulate Use,” Viktor Mayer-Schönberger distances himself from views attributed to him by the IAPP, and positions taken in an earlier whitepaper.

My first thought when reading Mayer-Schönberger’s response was, “I’m so glad he didn’t mean that!” In sum, Mayer-Schönberger assures me that our views are aligned as follows: The belief that individuals have an interest in privacy protection; privacy should be anchored in the OECD Fair Information Practice Principles; the public should have control over their personal information, and privacy does not impede innovation. Allow me to assure all of you that in addition to the IAPP story, I have indeed viewed the video of Mayer-Schönberger’s Brussels keynote and have read the two papers he referenced.

More from Ann Cavoukian

Point-Counterpoint

“I Never Said That”—A Response to Cavoukian et al.

In a recent blog post, Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian et al. offer a response to my keynote address at the IAPP Europe Data Protection Congress in December 2013 and also announce an upcoming whitepaper.

They do so, acknowledging that neither of them had actually listened to what I said at my keynote. Hence, their blog post is based on certain assumptions of what I said. Regrettably, those assumptions are not borne out in fact.

I very much appreciate a robust debate about the future of how we best protect information privacy. It is far too important a value to not do so. But without knowing exactly what I said, the whitepaper may respond to a straw man’s argument and thus offer much reduced value. In the spirit of giving Cavoukian et al.—and the general audience—the opportunity to appreciate what I actually said, here are the facts.