The laws governing legal advertising in some states require the following statements in any publication of this kind:
“THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT.”
php/*
The laws governing legal advertising in some states require the following statements in any publication of this kind:
“THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT.”
Copyright: © All rights reserved
The internet was once viewed as an instrument of freedom. It freed communications across borders, aided the ability of people to rally against repressive governments, dramatically lowered entry barriers to sellers of goods and services across borders. But like many good things, the internet has been increasingly harnessed to repress – or more neutrally to assist those in control of government to keep their power and a watchful eye and long arm over those who threaten their view of public order, The Freedom House report is a disturbing compilation of the rise of digital authoritarianism. The study of 65 countries that hold 87% of the world’s internet users found a decline in freedom from June 2017-May 2018 in 26 nations compared to gains in 19. If you have ideas for more interviews or stories, please email info@thedataprivacydetective.com.
Because U.S. states employ over 16 million people and hold the data of almost all American residents, state governments are major targets for data villains seeking to obtain data about us. How safe is our personal information in the hands of state governments and what security challenges must states address to better protect personal data? Podcast guest Trey Grayson is a veteran of these issues, having served as Kentucky’s Secretary of State for eight years and later as director of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government’s Institute of Politics and member of the President’s Commission on Election Administration, which reviewed the 2012 election. Trey is now a principal of the public policy firm CivicPoint and an attorney with Frost Brown Todd LLC. As an attorney and public policy expert, Trey offers guidance on the state of cybersecurity and state-held data in episode 26 of the Data Privacy Detective podcast.
The EU’s GDPR requires businesses outside the EU to appoint a “representative” in a member state and a Data Protection Officer in the EU to consult on and monitor data privacy matters. In this episode, Alessandro Di Mattia joins us to explore the definitions and requirements surrounding these positions and the roles they play in protecting consumer personal data according to the GDPR.
The California Supreme Court faced a challenge that may have been the first stone cast in a global debate about free expression on the internet. The case centered on a San Francisco law firm that got a one-star YELP review from an unhappy former client. When the firm’s YELP rating dipped from 5.0 to 4.5 the law firm successfully sued the reviewer for a defamation claim. YELP was not originally a party to the case, but when the judgment ordered YELP to remove the information, YELP refused. If you have ideas for more interviews or stories, please email info@thedataprivacydetective.com.
“California enacts the strictest online privacy law in the country!” trumpeted CNN/Tech. A statute passed unanimously in the legislature and immediately signed by Governor Brown, AB 375, had the support of large tech firms and privacy advocates. It moves California in the direction of the European Union, granting rights to California consumers concerning personal information they share online. The Data Privacy Detective turns his magnifying glass on this statute. It will have an impact. If California were a country, it would boast the world’s fifth largest economy. California has citizen initiative rights that let people propose laws enacted by a popular vote, bypassing the legislature. Enraged by the Cambridge Analytica scandal of data shared by Facebook that ended up sold without consumers’ direct knowledge for political campaign purposes, a wealthy Californian tired of waiting for the legislature to act. He promoted an initiative aimed at creating tough consumer data privacy protections. Alarmed by the proposal, California’s large tech community backed a quick legislative response that is a compromise compared to the initiative language. It was drafted, enacted, approved and signed into law in about a week, and the initiative leader withdrew his effort and supported the outcome. See www.caprivacy.org. If you have ideas for more interviews or stories, please email info@thedataprivacydetective.com.
Businesses not located in the European Union have tried to understand whether the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), applies to them. And if it does, or if it might, one of the puzzles has been whether a non-EU business needs to appoint a natural person or legal entity to be its “representative” or a natural person to be its “Data Protection Officer” for dealing with EU and its Member States’ Data Protection Authorities (DPAs). This podcast focuses on that question. If you have ideas for more interviews or stories, please email info@thedataprivacydetective.com.
How did U.S. businesses deal with the launch of GDPR? And what’s its immediate impact on how U.S. businesses address personal information they have? The Data Privacy Detective turns the magnifying glass to this question, focusing on small and mid-sized (SME) U.S. businesses that hold personal data of Europeans. Most coverage about GDPR is about titanic battles of tech giants whose business models are based on monetizing customer data. My spyglass turns to a different subject: How did SMEs in the United States deal with GDPR? The clear majority of them do not sell personal data of Europeans, but instead collect and use it for ordinary business purposes, such as marketing goods and services, employing personnel, collecting payment and other processing that has nothing to do with surreptitious use of such personal information beyond the obvious. If you have ideas for more interviews or stories, please email info@thedataprivacydetective.com.
GDPR, the European Union’s effort to protect personal data, has dominated the efforts of businesses to deal with personal data across borders. Less noticed is China’s evolving system of controlling, regulating and protecting the personal information of its people. On May 1, 2018, China issued standards for personal information protection.
In this podcast episode, the Data Privacy Detective discusses the background to the EU / U.S. and Swiss Privacy Shield and how it relates to the new requirements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)that will take effect on May 25, 2018. If you have ideas for more interviews or stories, please email info@thedataprivacydetective.com.
In this podcast, the Data Privacy Detective turns a magnifying glass to how businesses located outside the EU can gather and use personal data that originates in the EU without violating the GDPR. Businesses inside the EU are actively working to bring their policies and procedures in line with the GDPR, with the benefit of many years of practice under the 1995 EU Directive that required EU countries to adopt laws based on a common background and similar principles to what becomes a directly binding regulation on May 25, 2018. For businesses beyond EU borders, how do they determine if GDPR’s extraterritorial reach affects them and what should they do about it?