Push for Internet Privacy Rules Moves to Statehouses

3 04 2017

Push for Internet Privacy Rules Moves to Statehouses

3/26/2017

Conor Dougherty

New York Times

    In the face of the Senate’s rollback on regulations preventing ISPs from monetizing information like a user’s browsing history, states like Illinois are now making moves towards increasing protections of their citizens’ privacy. In the case of Illinois, a “right to know” bill is in considering, which would “let consumers find out what information about them is being collected by companies like Google and Facebook, and what kinds of businesses they share it with.” Additionally, Illinois is looking to restrict smartphone tracking by applications in addition to audio recordings from TVs and wifi-enabled personal assistants.

    Obviously, other states could easily look to these laws should they be passed, hopefully spreading further than just Illinois. This would additionally make it more difficult for companies to work around, requiring specific features on a per-state basis. These laws, of course, fly in the face of what large corporate entities like Microsoft lobby for.

    While I’m appreciative of local state legislature for privacy, these laws feel a lot more like band-aids than legitimate solutions for the US. Protecting only a fraction of the country on a state-by-state basis is not ideal in that it creates pockets of lowered privacy. While it sounds ideal that other states may simply just adopt laws that Illinois or California have recently begun to push for, these regulations are the kind that should benefit all Americans, rather than just Illinoisans or Californians. If the majority of states prove that privacy is important to them and both the left and the right can prove that they can come together on these issues, there’s no reason that it should not just be the law of the land.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/technology/internet-privacy-state-legislation-illinois.html Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

Powered by WPeMatico



House Committee Approves Bill That Places Genetic Privacy At Risk

22 03 2017

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce gave approval last week to a bill that would undermine the privacy protections guaranteed by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). The bill would condition health insurance discounts for wellness programs on whether an employee agrees to participate in genetic testing. Under GINA, employers may not penalize employees for keeping their genetic data private. DNA profiles and other genetic records contain particularly sensitive personal information that can impact employment decisions, insurance availability, and even criminal justice outcomes. EPIC supported GINA and has backed the right of individuals to control the use of their genetic data in numerous comments and cases.

more

The content in this post was found at https://epic.org/2017/03/house-committee-approves-bill-.html Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

Powered by WPeMatico



There’s now only one US state where mug shots aren’t public records

13 03 2017
In a 53-14 vote that took place days ago, South Dakota’s legislative House passed legislation that makes arrest booking photos public records. The measure, which cleared the state’s Senate in January, will be signed by Governor Dennis Daugaard.

With that signature on Senate Bill 25, (PDF) South Dakota becomes the 49th state requiring mug shots to be public records. The only other state in the union where they’re not public records is Louisiana.

The South Dakota measure is certain to provide fresh material for the online mug shot business racket. These questionable sites post mug shots, often in a bid to embarrass people in hopes of getting them to pay hundreds of dollars to have their photos removed. The exposé I did on this for Wired found that some mug shot site operators had a symbiotic relationship with reputation management firms that charge for mug shot removals.

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/theres-now-only-one-us-state-where-mugshots-arent-public-records/
Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

13 03 2017

Washington Post

 March 11

Employers could impose hefty penalties on employees who decline to participate in genetic testing as part of workplace wellness programs if a bill approved by a U.S. House committee this week becomes law.

In general, employers don’t have that power under existing federal laws, which protect genetic privacy and nondiscrimination. But a bill passed Wednesday by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce would allow employers to get around those obstacles if the information is collected as part of a workplace wellness program.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/03/11/employees-who-decline-genetic-testing-could-face-penalities-under-proposed-bill/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



A Host of Biometric Privacy/Facial Recognition Bills Currently Circulating in State Legislatures

28 02 2017

proskauer new media and technology law blog

By Jeffrey Neuburger on February 23, 2017

We’ve written extensively about the numerous lawsuitsdismissals and settlements surrounding the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The statute, generally speaking, prohibits an entity from collecting, capturing, purchasing, or otherwise obtaining a person’s “biometric identifier” or “biometric information,” unless it satisfies certain notice and consent and data retention requirements. The statute contains defined terms and limitations, and parties in ongoing suits are currently litigating what “biometric identifiers” and “biometric information” mean under the statute and whether the collection of facial templates from uploaded photographs using sophisticated facial recognition technology fits within the ambit of the statute. Moreover, in two instances in the past six months, a district court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging procedural and technical violations of the Illinois biometric privacy statute for lack of Article III standing.

Thus, the epicenter of biometric privacy compliance and litigation has been the Illinois statute. A Texas biometric statute offers similar protections, but does not contain a private right of action.

The biometrics landscape may be about to get more complicated. An amendment has been proposed to the Illinois biometric privacy, and a number of biometric privacy bills mostly resembling BIPA have been introduced in other state legislatures. While most of the new proposed statutes are roughly consistent with the Illinois statute, as noted below, the Washington state proposal is, in many ways, very different. If any or all of these bills are enacted, they will further shape and define the legal landscape for biometrics.

more

The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2017/02/23/1445/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of privacynnewmedia.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.