A US federal judge has ruled that the 29 million Facebook users affected by the September 2018 data breach may not seek damages as a remedy, but can only pursue the enforcement of better security practices at Facebook, according to a report by Reuters. Judge Alsup of the US District Court stated that Facebook’s repetitive losses of users’ privacy indicated a long-term need for supervision, which comes in addition to prior judgment which indicated that Facebook’s views about user’s privacy expectations were “so wrong”.Read More
In just a short few weeks, a monumental change of privacy regulations will kick in for US businesses. On 1 January 2020, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) will come into effect, with a compliance deadline at the end of January 2020, and signifies a shift in tone in the privacy sphere for the US – with a move closer to global privacy norms, and away from the perspective that personal data is a company asset.
A series of data disasters such as Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal and the massive Equifax breach left many Americans feeling powerless. Regulators stepped in after the fact to punish the companies, but at the time, there was little that U.S. consumers could do to prevent data breaches. Under the CCPA, Americans (well, Californians, mostly) move a step closer to general privacy protection. However, the Act only targets larger companies or those with prolific data use so there is still a long way to go to being general protection.
In October, the California Governor signed five bills to amend CCPA to provide some regulatory relief for businesses when the CCPA comes into effect. For a detailed analysis on the amendments, we refer you to Volume 2 of our colleagues’ Volume 2 of The Privacists available at the K&L Gates Hub.
In his cautionary tale, 1984, author George Orwell spoke of a paradigm where the unregulated use of powerful technology, referred to as “telescreens”, manifested a society beholden to the ethics of the controller. This paradigm is perhaps more real than ever, according to an article by Reuters.
By exploring the views of Cambridge Analytica whistle-blower Christopher Wylie, the article advises that the deep, multifaceted involvement of big tech companies in consumers’ lives, the ultimate dependence that arises from such involvement and the overwhelming vulnerability of such consumers renders tech companies “too big to fail”. Wylie argues that the vast imbalance of power and information in favour of these companies over users is resulting in a constant scrambling by regulators to control the rapid adoption of such technology forms.Read More
With the Brexit deadline looming as 31 October 2019, and no finalised deal in place, the prospects of an inconclusive Brexit are growing. Therefore, there remains significant uncertainty as to the actions and preparations of entities who are subject to the unpredictable tides of this political sea. So how should such companies prepare in these circumstances of a foreseeable no-deal? Our colleagues have tackled this challenging question in Volume 1 of The Privacist available at the K&L Gates Hub.
Everyone knows the saying “the Pen is mightier than the sword”. The famous saying has been used for centuries to describe the ultimate power of words and communication over forms of violence. However, the rapid implementation and use of technology as a “combat” method doubts whether this saying is correct in a modern technological era, and begs the question as to whether technology is in fact mightier than the sword!
This dilemma is highlighted through the recent cyberstrike conducted by the United States. According to a Report by the Washington Post, in June of this year the Cyber Command of the US Military utilised a technology cyberstrike to target a significant Iranian database in the Persian Gulf. The relevant database was alleged to have been used by the IRGC, Iran’s elite paramilitary force, to damage oil takers and shipping traffic in the Persian Gulf. According to the Pentagon, the operation was in the works for weeks after Iran’s alleged attacks on two US tankers in the Gulf of Oman earlier in June, and following an attack by Iranian forces on an unmanned U.S. Surveillance drone hours earlier, the cyber-strike was immediately given the go-ahead.Read More
We live in an era where the adoption and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is at the forefront of business advancement and social progression. Facial recognition technology software is used or is being piloted to be used across a variety of government sectors, whilst voice recognition assistants are becoming the norm both in personal and business contexts. However, as we have blogged previously on, the AI ‘bandwagon’ inherently comes with legitimate concerns.
This is no different in the banking world. The use of AI-based phishing detection applications has strengthened cybersecurity safeguards for financial institutions, whilst the use of “Robo-Advisers” and voice and language processors has facilitated efficiency by increasing the pace of transactions and reducing service times. However, this appears to sound too good to be true, as according to a Report by CIO Drive, algorithmic lending models may show an unconscious bias.Read More
We have blogged numerous times on the notifiable data breach scheme provided for in Part IIIC of Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) including more recently in relation to its success in assisting the preparedness of the health sector to report and respond to data breaches.
Whilst the NSW Information Privacy Commissioner recommends that public sector agencies notify it and affected individuals where a data breach creates a risk of serious harm, neither NSW privacy laws nor the notifiable data breach scheme require public sector agencies in NSW to provide such notification. There are many reasons for state government agencies to mandatorily report data breaches. Informing citizens when privacy breaches occur provides an opportunity for individual protection against potentially adverse consequences, whilst mandatory data breach reporting would address the current under-reporting of data breaches in NSW, which according to the consultation may be the norm.Read More
By Cathryn Palfrey and Esther Power
This week marked the conclusion of the first prosecution under the Criminal Law Amendment (Intimate Images) Act 2018 (WA). Mitchell Joseph Brindley, 24 years old, pleaded guilty to posting ten intimate images of the woman he dated. The images were taken with the woman’s consent whilst they were in a relationship. When it ended, Mr Brindley created fake Instagram accounts under her name and posted the images without her consent.
Non-consensual intimate image dissemination is colloquially known as ‘revenge porn’. A study in 2017 found that 20% of Australians between the ages of 16-49 years had a picture or video of themselves shared without their consent.
A global movement has emerged to counter the surge of ‘revenge porn’.Read More