Privacy & New Media

EPIC

Nov. 5, 2020

California voters this week approved Proposition 24, the California Privacy Rights Act, with 56% of voters supporting the measure. EPIC previously published an analysis of Proposition 24, nothing that the measure “would make some important improvements to privacy protections for California residents, particularly through the establishment of a California Privacy Protection Agency.” In 2018, the State of California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), the first comprehensive consumer privacy law enacted in the United States. Proposition 24 significantly changes the CCPA. EPIC has also published a resource to help California residents exercise their rights under the CCPA.

The content in this post was found at:
<https://epic.org/2020/11/california-voters-pass-califor.html>

Clicking the title or link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com.

EPIC

Nov. 9, 2020

 

The FTC has reached a settlement with Zoom requiring the company to address data security but fails to address user privacy. Writing in dissent, Commissioner Slaughter said, “When companies offer services with serious security and privacy implications for their users, the Commission must make sure that its orders address not only security but also privacy.” Commissioner Chopra, also dissenting, wrote “The FTC’s status quo approach to privacy, security, and other data protection law violations is ineffective.” In July 2019, EPIC sent a detailed complaint to the FTC citing the flaws with Zoom and warning that the company had “exposed users to the risk of remote surveillance, unwanted video calls, and denial-of-service attack.” In April 2020, EPIC wrote to Chairman Simons urging the FTC to open an investigation. EPIC has long advocated for the creation of a U.S. data protection agency.

EPIC

Nov. 10, 2020

A divided federal appeals court has ruled that Baltimore’s use of spy planes to continuously surveil the city does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The technology, known as wide-area aerial surveillance, allows police to capture high-definition video and track the movements of pedestrians and vehicles over a 32-square mile area. Although the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals acknowledged “that there are aerial surveillance programs that would transgress basic Fourth Amendment protections,” the court concluded that Baltimore’s program “does not violate the Constitution” and “burdens privacy substantially less than a well-established staple of existing surveillance: security cameras.” Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory dissented, concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States requiring a warrant for cell phone location data also requires police to obtain a warrant for persistent aerial surveillance. Gregory explained that “Long-term, recorded surveillance of public movements uncovers more than temporary trailing by a suspecting officer; it reveals a person’s most intimate associations and activities.” EPIC filed an amicus brief in Carpenter v. United States and has long fought to limit drone surveillance and other forms of aerial spying.

The content in this post was found at:
<https://epic.org/2020/11/divided-court-rules-baltimores.html>

Clicking the title or link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com.

EPIC

Nov. 10, 2020

EPIC and a coalition of privacy, civil rights, and consumer organizations have released a policy framework for the Biden Administration to protect privacy and digital rights for all Americans. “Without laws that limit how companies can collect, use, and share personal data, we end up with an information and power asymmetry that harms consumers and society at large,” the groups said. “Individual, group and societal interests are diminished, and our privacy and other basic rights and freedoms are at risk.” The ten recommendations include: 1) recognizing privacy and surveillance as racial justice issues; 2) establishing algorithmic governance and accountability to advance fair and just data practices; 3) encourage enactment of a baseline comprehensive federal privacy law; 4) the establishment of a U.S. Data Protection Agency; and 5) bringing consumer, privacy, and civil rights experts into key government positions.

The content in this post was found at:
<https://epic.org/2020/11/epic-coalition-release-data-pr.html>

Clicking the title or link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com.

Nov. 10, 2020

EPIC submitted comments urging the Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee to investigate fusion centers and recommend that DHS ban facial recognition technology at fusion centers.

The content in this post was found at:

<https://epic.org/2020/11/epic-again-urges-dhs-advisory-.html>

Clicking the title or link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com.

EPIC

Sept. 29, 2020

Individuals alleging that a landlord discriminated against them by using a tenant-screening algorithm will face a higher burden of proof under a new rule that went into effect last Thursday. The rule creates a defense to a discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Act where the “predictive analysis” tools used were not “overly restrictive on a protected class” or where they “accurately assessed risk.” Last October, EPIC and several others warned the federal housing agency that providing such a safe-harbor for the use of algorithms in housing without imposing transparency, accountability, or data protection regulations would exacerbate harms to individuals subject to discrimination. The agency did modify its rule following comments from EPIC and others, removing a complete defense based on use of an “industry standard” algorithm or where the algorithm was not the “actual cause” of the disparate impact. But the final rule simply replaces the word “algorithm” with “predictive analysis” and includes vague “overly restrictive” and “accurate assessment” standards. The Alliance for Housing Justice called the rule “a vague, ambiguous exemption for predictive models that appears to confuse the concepts of disparate impact and intentional discrimination.”

The content in this post was found at:

<https://epic.org/2020/09/new-housing-regulation-limits-.html>

Clicking the title or link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com.

Oct. 1, 2020

Facebook has announced the integration of Facebook Messenger and Instagram. Early last year, Facebook had released plans to integrate WhatsApp, Messenger, and Instagram, breaking the promises Facebook made when it acquired WhatsApp. After yesterday’s announcement, Facebook declined to give a timeline for when WhatsApp integration would occur. In 2014, EPIC and the Center for Digital Democracy warned the FTC that Facebook incorporates user data from companies it acquires, and that WhatsApp users objected to the acquisition.

The content in this post was found at:

<https://epic.org/2020/10/facebook-integrates-instagram-.html>

Clicking the title or link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com.

Oct. 1, 2020

 

TikTok, responding to a recent letter from EPIC, said that user privacy “will remain a priority for TikTok” if and when a deal with Oracle is finalized—but stopped short of agreeing to EPIC’s full demands. Last month, after Oracle reached a tentative agreement to serve as TikTok’s U.S. partner and “independently process TikTok’s U.S. data,” EPIC sent letters to both companies warning them of their legal obligation to protect the privacy of TikTok users. The deal would pair one of the largest brokers of personal data with a social network of 800 million users, posing grave privacy and legal risks. Although TikTok responded that it was “committed to helping ensure that any transfer and processing of personal data . . . complies with applicable law” and the company’s privacy policies, TikTok did not agree to other EPIC demands, including a commitment not to merge user data with Oracle products.

 

EPIC

March 19, 2020

The Department of Justice has released the 2019 FOIA Litigation and Compliance Report which details the DOJ’s efforts to encourage agency compliance with the FOIA across federal agencies. DOJ updated the Guide to the Freedom of Information Act, with recent court decisions. The DOJ report also summarizes agency guidance, including the application of Exemption 4 after the Supreme Court expanded the definition of “confidential” information. On that issue, EPIC filed an amicus brief in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media telling the Supreme Court that access to commercial records is critical for government oversight. EPIC celebrated Sunshine Week with the 2020 EPIC FOIA Gallery, highlighting important EPIC FOIA work from the past year, including EPIC’s case for the release of the Mueller Report, EPIC v. Department of Justice.

The content in this post was found at:

<https://epic.org/2020/03/doj-releases-2019-foia-litigat.html>

Clicking the title or link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com.

Sept. 24, 2020

In a report, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General found that Customs and Border Protection failed to safeguard pictures of travelers obtained for a facial recognition pilot program, the Biometric Entry-Exit Program. The pictures were exposed in a data breach of a CBP subcontractor, Perceptics, LLC. OIG found that the CBP failed to undertake sufficient information security practices to prevent Perceptics from obtaining the data. At least 17 of the images were ultimately released on the dark web. EPIC leads an ongoing campaign to Ban Face Surveillance. In 2018 EPIC urged CBP to suspend its Biometric Entry-Exit Program. EPIC previously obtained documents on that program through a FOIA lawsuit.

The content in this post was found at:

<https://epic.org/2020/09/cbp-failed-to-protect-sensitiv.html>

Clicking the title or link will take you to the source of the post and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com.