Posted in Consent

Opinion

Addressing the Challenges of the Internet of Things: An EU Perspective

By Brian Davidson, CIPP/E

Recent news that smart fridge software was hacked to send out spam is the latest example of the ineluctable opportunities and challenges presented by the Internet of Things (IoT).

The intrusiveness of IoT technologies and their potential to collect unlimited amounts of data on users’ daily habits brings with it serious privacy concerns. As European regulators grapple with the challenges and complexities of formulating a technology-neutral Data Protection Regulation, the difficulties of applying “traditional” concepts such as consent, purpose limitation, transparency, data deletion, accountability and security to the data processing activities carried out by an “Internet-ready” kitchen appliance become readily apparent.

More from Brian Davidson

Opinion

The Big Issues for the Retail Industry and Mobile Device Tracking

By Todd B. Ruback, CIPP/US, CIPP/E, CIPP/IT

Mobile device tracking is a big deal in the retail world, a very big deal. So big that it can transform the retail industry. Which is why last week I attended the FTC’s Mobile Device Tracking Seminar to learn more.

Here’s the big picture.

More from Todd B. Ruback

Opinion

The Privacy Pro’s Guide to the Internet of Things

By Eduardo Ustaran, CIPP/E

Recent stories about smart fridges being hacked, cars knowing our intimate secrets and energy companies predicting what we are having for dinner—OK, I made that one up—highlight the fascinating challenges that the Internet of Things (IoT) is set to bring. More fascinating, however, is the fact that addressing and successfully dealing with these challenges in a way that the opportunities are fully realised at the same time that our privacy is properly safeguarded rests with today’s and tomorrow’s privacy professionals.

The privacy issues raised by the IoT will test our skills in the same way that more traditional Internet uses have been challenging our professional ability to identify risks, assess their likely impact and deploy practical solutions for everyone’s benefit. Here are some tips on how we may be able to handle the IoT revolution.

More from Eduardo Ustaran

Trending

Revenge Porn, Copyrights and Data Ownership: Where Does Our Data Begin and End?

By Jedidiah Bracy, CIPP/US, CIPP/E

There was an interesting article in The Atlantic Monthly this week about revenge porn and copyright law—and I’m hoping some of you out there can help me.

But first, let me step back.

More from Jedidiah Bracy

Privacy Engineering

Which Information Do Consumers Most Closely Guard?

We know that consumers don’t always understand how companies collect their data, and that these misconceptions can create a trust gap between retailers and shoppers.

This doesn’t mean that consumers are completely unwilling to share their data with retailers, though. Our team at Create with Context surveyed 800 consumers in the U.S., asking them which information they’d be willing to give up in exchange for 50 percent off of three different items: a gallon of milk, a large-screen television and a new car.

More from Ilana Westerman

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.