Posted in Privacy by Design

Opinion

More Privacy Paternalism: “We Know What’s Best for You”

Note from the Editor:

Re: "The Evolving Pursuit of Privacy," by Scott Charney, included in this week's Daily Dashboard.

Scott Charney failed to mention that many of his arguments, which would result in weakening privacy protections, have already been addressed and do not enjoy widespread support. While he indicates that his suggestions will “enhance” data protection for consumers, the opposite will most likely occur. They reflect a paternalistic approach to data protection that, if implemented, will weaken rather than strengthen privacy in the 21st century. The notion that privacy can only pose a negative challenge to new technological trends reflects a dated, zero-sum perspective that has been proven wrong on countless occasions.

More from Ann Cavoukian

Privacy Dispatches

How Do You Engineer Privacy? NIST Seeks Answers

Last week, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) hosted a workshop to discuss and develop the concept of privacy engineering. Although a great deal was covered, three topics recurred throughout the workshop and appeared to be of special interest to NIST, most notably the lack of technical standards concerning privacy,the role engineers can play in protecting privacy and the role NIST should play in the privacy field going forward.

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

Opinion

Innovate Privacy for the Future, But Don’t Get ‘Privacy Twisted’

It’s time to let go of zero-sum thinking about Internet privacy. Privacy is not dead or dying because of the advances in new technologies. The future of privacy may well be in danger, however, if well-regarded privacy professionals continue to suggest that “privacy is dead.” For example, in his opinion piece, “Old School Privacy is Dead, But Don’t Go Privacy Crazy,” Stanley Crosley, CIPP/US, CIPM, argues that people who go “privacy crazy” as a result of unauthorized collection and use of their data should simply accept that privacy is dead, and instead, appreciate innovations like television on-demand and other new technologies that might be prevented by the consent-to-use model; i.e., “Old School Privacy.”

More from Drummond Reed

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.

Trending

The Supreme Court Is Scared of Technology. This Is How Privacy Pros Can Help

By Jedidiah Bracy, CIPP/US, CIPP/E

This was a big week for emerging technology—particularly the Internet of Things (IoT)—as was showcased during the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, NV. Cisco’s CEO made headlines after saying the IoT has the potential to become a $19 trillion market and much of mainstream media reported on all the emerging technology: smart cars, wearable sensors and digestible computers—stuff we’ve been reporting on pretty regularly in the past year.

So it seemed fitting—and concerning—that the Associated Press reported on the wariness felt by Supreme Court justices on judges weighing in on technology and privacy issues. As Justice Elena Kagan said last summer, “The justices are not necessarily the most technologically sophisticated people.”  And the court may face it’s biggest challenge yet, if, as many suspect, it eventually weighs in on the NSA’s metadata collection programs. Justice Antonin Scalia told a group of technology experts last July that elected branches of government are better equipped to grapple with security requirements and privacy protections.

More from Jedidiah Bracy

Opinion

Consent and Personal Control Are Not Things of the Past

We will be releasing a white paper, early in the new year, challenging the view that consent and personal control of one’s data by data subjects is a thing of the past – it is not. In fact, in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations, we are witnessing the opposite: a resurgence of interest in strengthening personal privacy.