Slot Gacor Gampang Menang Situs Slot Gacor

Has the fight for privacy changed in 2019? – TechCrunch

Albert Gidari

Albert Gidari is a consultant for privacy at the Stanford Internet and Community Center. He was a partner for over 20 years at Perkins Coie LLP, and achieved a top rank in the Chambers Privacy Act before going to consult the CIS on the privacy program. He negotiated the first confession secretary with the Federal Trade Commission. A recognized expert on electronic surveillance law, he took the first public litigation before the Foreign Intelligence Supreme Court, seeking the right holder's right to disclose the volume of national security claims received and the number of user accounts concerned, which ultimately resulted in greater disclosure of such requests.

There is no doubt that the privacy environment changed in 201[ads1]8 with the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the implementation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and new privacy laws passed around the globe.

"While privacy regulation intends to make technology companies serviced managers of the data they collect and their practices more transparent, ultimately, there is a deception to believe that users want more" privacy "."

For one thing, big tech companies have grown big privacy compliance organizations to meet their new regulatory obligations. For another, the major platforms are now lobbying for the implementation of a federal US privacy law. This is not surprising after a year of privacy, breach, and negative privacy news. But does all this mean a fundamental change is stored for privacy? I do not think.

The basic model that maintains the Internet is based on the exchange of user data for free service. As long as advertising women drive the growth of the Internet, regulation will simply think around the edges, set the slopes to dictate the terms of the exchange. The technology companies can be more responsible for how they handle data and for whom they reveal, but the fact is that the data will continue to be collected from all sorts of people, places and things.

In fact, if the last year has shown all that two rules are basic: (1) everything that can be connected to the Internet will be connected; and (2) anything that can be collected, collected, analyzed, used, and recognized as income. It is unreasonable.

While privacy regulation intends to make technology companies serviced by the managers of the data they collect and their practices more transparent, ultimately, it is a deception to believe that users want more "privacy". No one even knows what "more privacy" means. If it means that users want more control over the data they share, it is legitimate but not achievable in a world where people have no idea how many times or with whom they have already shared their information. Can you mention all the places in your life where you entered SSN and other identifying information? And given that the largest data collector (and probably the least secure) is the government, what does control really mean?

All this is not to say that privacy policy is useless. But it is to be recognized that nothing proposed today will result in a fundamental shift in privacy policy or a crime of consumer protection. Better privacy hygiene and more responsibility from the technical companies is a good thing, but it doesn't solve the privacy paradox that the same users who want more privacy share much of the information with others who are less reliable on social media (ask Jeff Bezos), or that the government raises data as technology companies look like pikers (visit a smart city near you).

Many years ago I used to exercise environmental legislation. I looked at companies striving to comply with new laws to control pollution by creating compliance infrastructures and teams aimed at preventing, detecting, and deterring violations. Today, I see the same thing about the big tech companies – hundreds of employees have been hired to do "privacy" compliance. The language is the same too: Cradle to grave privacy documentation of data streams for a product or service; audits and reviews of privacy practices data mapping; sustainable privacy practices. In short, privacy has been corporatised and industrialized.

We have true cleaner air and cleaner water as a result of environmental legislation, but we have also made it legal and built businesses around acceptable levels of pollution. Companies that still legally dump the arsenic in the water and bellow volatile organic compounds in the air. And we still get environmental disasters. So don't expect today's "Clean Privacy Law" to eliminate data breaches or profiling or abuse.

The privacy world is complicated and few people really understand the number and variety of companies involved in data collection and treatment, and none of them are in Congress. The power to fundamentally change the privacy equation is in the hands of those who use technology (or not choose) and in the hands of those who design it, and perhaps that is where it should be.

Gabriel Weinberg [19659002] Gabriel Weinberg is the founder and CEO of privacy-focused search engine DuckDuckGo.

Entering 2019, the interest in privacy solutions is really common. There are signs of this everywhere (media, politics, books, etc.) and also in DuckDuck's growth, which has never been faster. With a steady majority who are now seeking private options and other ways to track less, we expect governments to continue to increase their regulatory control and privacy practices such as DuckDuckGo to continue helping more people regain their privacy. [19659015] "Consumers do not necessarily feel they have anything to hide – but they just don't want businesses to gain their personal information, or be manipulated or unfairly treated by misuse of that information."

We are also seeing companies trading beyond just regulatory compliance, reflecting this new majority of the people and its concrete effect on the market. Only this month, we have seen Apple's Tim Cook conversation for stronger privacy regulation, and the New York Times reports strong advertising revenue in Europe after stopping the use of ad exchanges and behavioral targeting.

The core is driven by negative effects originating from the surveillance industry. The percentage of people who have noticed that the ads follow them on the Internet, or who have had their data broken or have had a family member or friend, experience some credit card fraud or identity theft, reached a boiling point in 2018. The way people learned about the extent to which the major platforms like Google and Facebook that collect the most data are used to convey misinformation, discrimination and polarization. Consumers do not necessarily feel that they have anything to hide – but they just do not want businesses to gain their personal information, or be manipulated, or treated unfairly by misusing this information. Fortunately, there are alternatives to the monitoring model, and several companies set a new standard of trust online by displaying alternative models.

Source link

Back to top button