Search

Many nations have adopted comprehensive data privacy laws to protect customers’ data. However, privacy policies of mobile wallet digital payment systems (DPS), and particularly the mobile wallet and remittance services that are part of DPS, are often not compliant with privacy laws. There is a lack of measures to assess how adequate the policies are in addressing data privacy issues. To address this problem, this article develops a compliance index to help DPS organizations assess the compliance of their privacy policies with the general data protection regulation (GDPR). The compliance index is created through a natural language process that includes term frequency-inverse document frequency matrix and topic modeling using latent Dirichlet allocation, to compute 1) an emphasis density score that indicates the level of emphasis a privacy policy places on GDPR dimensions, and 2) a privacy score that identifies the level of compliance of a privacy policy with GDPR. The compliance index is validated by assessing its effectiveness at the country level in comparison with an international publicly available data privacy benchmark.

At present, one of the greatest challenges faced by privacy advocates is public awareness. In an era in which there are almost as many cell phone subscriptions are there are people on earth [1], the security of our personal information is an issue that impacts almost everyone both immediately and in the long-term. Yet the public appears resistant to changing behavior. This reluctance to be more vigilant with personal information is in large part due to the fact that the allure of digital networked devices outweighs the perceived potential risks to privacy and to the sanctity of our identifying data.

How can we limit the amount of data distribution for both security and privacy? Let's encourage organizations to push for a common privacy policy in licenses. Better privacy terms might gain adherents and become important enough for marketing that most vendors adopt them.

Biometric systems provide a valuable service in helping to identify individuals from their stored personal details. Unfortunately, with the rapidly increasing use of such systems [1], there is a growing concern about the possible misuse of that information. To counteract the threat, the European Union (EU) has introduced comprehensive legislation [2] that seeks to regulate data collection and help strengthen an individual?s right to privacy. This article looks at the implications of the legislation for biometric system deployment. After an initial consideration of current privacy concerns, the definition of ?personal data? and its protection is examined in legislative terms. Also covered are the issues surrounding the storage of biometric data, including its accuracy, its security, and justification for what is collected. Finally, the privacy issues are illustrated through three biometric use cases: border security, online bank access control, and customer profiling in stores.

The recent English Court of Appeal case of Google v. Vidal-Hall raises three issues for many Internet-based businesses: whether they can be sued in tort for misuse of private information, whether browser-generated information is defined as personal data, and whether compensation for emotional distress without accompanying financial loss can be awarded.

Kieron O'Hara considers the right to be forgotten, including its potential ramifications and successes.

Does privacy protection matter in consumer electronics (CE)? What is privacy, how is it valued, and where does it sit in your organization today? Chances are, if you do not have a chief privacy officer or data-protection officer, your company is lacking in protecting critical data, let alone observing all the laws and statutory regulations dealing with privacy (e.g., audits, compliance, etc.). Managing privacy is crucial, especially considering the key mandated privacy requirements, such as those concerning personally identifiable information (PII), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the payment card industry (PCI). In addition, the privacy definitions and the policy and enforcement effectiveness are themselves varied and complex, and they change depending on where your data reside-i.e., the state, province, and country. For example, the European Union's (EU's) data-protection directive [1] is much stricter than the weak U.S. privacy laws. (Note that if you plan to market a global CE product, you should know about the Safe Harbor Framework).

How secure is "secure enough," and how private is "private enough"? At age 25, the Internet offers unprecedented potential for both liberty and protection, but can easily breed lawlessness and oppression--blurring the line between safety and simple prying.

To leverage the cloud's power, EU authorities must revisit policies related to various types of personal data and their associated privacy risks.

Facebook is an Internet and societal phenomenon. In just a few years it has claimed a significant proportion of the world's population as regular users, becoming by far the most dominant Online Social Network (OSN). With its success has come a good deal of controversy, especially over privacy. Does Facebook and its kin herald a true shift in privacy values, or despite occasional reckless revelations, are most users actually as reserved as ever? We argue it's too early to draw conclusions about society as a whole from the OSN experience to date. However, Facebook in particular brings a number of compliance risks in jurisdictions that have enacted modern Information Privacy Law.

Uniform rules on data protection are not just a pipe-dream of privacy professionals. They are also more than an artificial model of legal practitioners, and more than an ideal that drives politicians who engage in discussions about a right to forget or a fundamental right to privacy. They already exist. There is a scheme for data protection in place that already affects one sixth of the world's population. The odds are that you are either one of them or know one of them. These uniform rules set out a clear picture of how data will be treated. Yet, they have neither been compiled by a congregation of government officials nor by an assembly of famous law professors. On the contrary, they have been assembled by a single player, who might not even have been interested in the freedom and privacy of the people subject to the scheme, but rather in the marketing value of their data. This player is called Facebook. The scheme is called privacy terms.

Machine-readable policies can stick to data to define allowed usage and obligations as it travels across multiple parties, enabling users to improve control over their personal information. The EnCoRe project has developed such a technical solution for privacy management that is suitable for use in a broad range of domains.

The enhanced development of information and communication technologies in government has created new opportunities for agencies to collect, share and re-use data. At the same time, the commercial worth of governmental data sets and value-added information products/services have increased. Government agencies are finding that data they have routinely collected to fulfil their statutory and business functions can now more easily be re-used for commercial purposes. The prospect of increasing revenue through the commercial re-use of public sector information (PSI) is clearly appealing for governments and their agencies. Examples of PSI that have been re-used commercially include residential property transaction details, land title information, ordanance survey data and street address registers. This article examines those shifting boundaries, particularly in light of information privacy and national security concerns arising from governmental commercialization of PSI that includes personal information. I seek to show that information privacy laws can be subverted in the face of overt commercialization by government agencies; that commercialization can have a negative impact on individuals; and can also give rise to societal concerns relating to privacy, security, and the open governance of the information society.

The development and implementation of new technologies has led to a significant erosion of privacy. In this circumstance, it is an arduous struggle to control one's personal information. Now we need to determine the best ways to protect individuals from abuse when their personal information is collected and distributed.

The notion of "home" is a critical organizing principle for how we understand the relationship between individuals and society at large. A wide range of cultural and legal practices enshrine the home with various protections that ensure us a degree of privacy, security, solitude, and control over our lives there. As our private papers migrate to the Web, activities that we could previously conduct in "private" have seemingly been thrown open to unfettered public view. Additionally, as increasingly powerful communication technologies reach into our homes, places that were once private become more connected to public life

Healthcare institutions typically post their privacy practices online as privacy policy documents. We conducted a longitudinal study that examines the effects of HIPAA's enactment on a collection of privacy policy documents for a fixed set of organizations over a four-year period. We present our analysis of 24 healthcare privacy policy documents from nine healthcare Web sites, analyzed using goal mining, a content-analysis method that supports extraction of useful information about institutions' privacy practices from documents. We compare our results to our pre-HIPAA study of these same institutions' online privacy practices and evaluate their evolution in the presence of privacy laws

Information privacy is much broader than data security. It's about the collection, processing, use, and protection of personal information. Essentially, business processes, IT systems, and compliance controls must support the full set of requirements embodied in these principles and expressed in relevant laws and policies. Implementation choices, including automation level and security control selection, become business and business-risk decisions. To institute such principles, businesses should understand the critical need for policy-driven security and privacy compliance in developing the right business processes and overall technical architecture

Internet privacy policies describe an organization's practices on data collection, use, and disclosure. These privacy policies both protect the organization and signal integrity commitment to site visitors. Consumers use the stated website policies to guide browsing and transaction decisions. This paper compares the classes of privacy protection goals (which express desired protection of consumer privacy rights) and vulnerabilities (which potentially threaten consumer privacy) with consumer privacy values. For this study, we looked at privacy policies from nearly 50 websites and surveyed over 1000 Internet users. We examined Internet users' major expectations about website privacy and revealed a notable discrepancy between what privacy policies are currently stating and what users deem most significant. Our findings suggest several implications to privacy managers and software project managers. Results from this study can help managers determine the kinds of policies needed to both satisfy user values and ensure privacy-aware website development efforts.

Information-technology managers at United States companies are likely to be affected by recent legislation in the European Union and in Canada that restricts the transfer of citizens' personal information to countries that do not protect that information adequately. We argue that, from both ethical and pragmatic perspectives, USA businesses should reject the voluntary, self-certifying approach to data protection currently in favor in the United States. USA businesses should advocate instead for a European approach that mandates stronger data protection and establishes a government agency charged with enforcing it. If the USA adopted a European approach to data privacy, USA businesses would attract more customers and avoid the legal problems that are likely to result when European and Canadian data-privacy authorities begin to enforce their new laws vigorously.

As a privacy adviser, I am often called upon to determine whether or how a particular initiative can comply with privacy law. But often a more compelling and relevant question is: will this project fly, or will it crash and burn? The answer to both questions is often “it depends.” The principles set down in privacy laws in Australia and around the world are examples of what's known as fuzzy law, meaning they offer plenty of blank space around phrases like “reasonable expectations” and “take reasonable steps,” that the privacy adviser has to fill in. And then even if you do comply with the law, a backlash from your customers or the wider public can bring your project undone faster than you can say “Australia Card” (a national identity card proposed by the Australian Government which sank in 1987 due to massive public opposition to the scheme). So how are we supposed to figure out in advance what will be considered unduly privacy invasive, and what won't?

The Web is commonly viewed as an information access tool for end users. But as much as it simplifies access to stock quotes, medical libraries, or reference manuals, the Web also makes it easier for individuals and organizations to obtain and infer. Emerging technologies can protect privacy without restricting the information flow crucial to efficient organizations. Solutions to privacy concern must combine laws, societal norms, market and technology.

In paper-based prescribing in the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS), patients are responsible for protecting the privacy of their prescription information while it is in transit from the prescriber to the dispenser. The UK government has introduced a plan for future NHS reform that includes a change from paper-based prescribing to a national electronic transfer of prescriptions (ETP) system. This brings with it concerns for patient data privacy and questions about the burden of trust placed on professionals in the ETP system. As recently seen in the Emilio Calatayud case in the United States, systems that contain an aggregation of identifiable personal information can be abused. A similar case could result from malpractice in an ETP system. We have developed and implemented an ETP system for the UK NHS. We present our system for protecting the privacy of patient data, describe how we implemented it in Java, and discuss how others can use our system for other applications both inside and outside the healthcare sector.

Modern information technology is facilitating the steady disappearance of individual privacy - even under normal circumstances. Add a real or hyped threat to the common good, and the erosion of individual privacy is further accelerated.

Simply declaring privacy to be a legal right doesn't provide any resources to enforce it. If privacy was an economic transaction, meaning that people pay for it, then their payments would provide resources to protect it. Would we have better privacy if people were paying for it directly rather than trying to get it via political campaigns?

As long as the government does not regulate online privacy policies, market forces will largely dictate the practices of most businesses. If the market values data collection highly, then data collection will be here to stay. Businesses that do not monitor their data collection practices or violate privacy policies risk serious repercussions from an unforgiving public. Companies continue to face criticism from the media and on Wall Street for egregious breaches of trust. Given this climate, businesses will seek solutions that show them to be good corporate citizens while delivering maximum value to their customers. For businesses, privacy and profit must go hand-in-hand.

Individual online privacy, already a hot button in the political landscape, is no less important for IT professionals. In 1999, the authors distributed a survey to 500 data workers in the healthcare and financial fields. The results of the study suggest that privacy concerns are not confined to consumers, but the employees who access and collect the data are concerned as well. The survey posed 15 questions regarding the responders' attitudes about the organizational practices at their organization. The data collected from the survey reveals that healthcare workers are concerned about organizational practices causing errors in patient information, as well as unsanctioned use of patient information. Similarly, the survey research indicates that employees of financial institutions are concerned with organizational practices that allow improper access to customer information. Given the results in these two fields, IT workers and managers in all fields must be prepared to deal with this issue, for it is likely to confront them soon.

In building a culture of privacy, an organization must clearly articulate privacy as an organizational priority; communicate key privacy and security messages; educate across the organization; raise awareness of the importance of registering privacy incidents and breaches; build privacy into the fabric of the organization's activities; and make privacy information and guidance readily accessible. Accomplishing these objectives provides a framework to create or reinforce a privacy culture. In 2003, the province of Ontario, Canada, created the smart systems for health agency (SSHA) to connect healthcare professionals across the province.

To create a future with improved prospects for dealing with security and privacy, nations will have to reach agreement on many issues, including Banking and financial services; privacy laws related to sensitive data such as healthcare information; intellectual property (IP) rights, their reasonable protection, and the significant challenge of achieving international agreement on an enforceable set of common standards; cybercrime laws and penalties for breaking them and new networking technologies that adversely impact privacy, the subtleties of which might not be fully appreciated until a product is well entrenched. Many of these issues have been around since the onset of literacy, but the challenge of dealing with them has grown enormously in the information age owing to the speed, storage capacity, intelligence, and ubiquity of modern IT (and its inherent vulnerabilities).

Because the (US) Constitution does not clearly and explicitly articulate a right to privacy, a legal standard of what constitutes privacy remains elusive in the United States. In 1965, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas declared that a penumbra within the wording of the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments entitles each of us to a "zone of privacy". The extent of this zone, however, is unclear. Public officials and celebrities alike can testify that the penumbra shades some more than others. US courts have generally operated under the principle that the right to privacy is tantamount to the right to be left alone, but everyday experience confirms that this right isn't absolute, even when we are in the comfort of our homes or offices. Mass marketers invade our privacy by calling us during meal-time, filling our mailboxes with junk mail, and spamming our personal computing space. Many employers read our e-mail and check the Web sites that we visit.

In the face of the snowballing bigness of the institutions of globalized human life, we must reserve privacy rights explicitly so that we can misrepresent ourselves to those against whom we have no other defense.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that although consumers say they want companies to post privacy policies and make security breach disclosures, these notices are not actually having much of an effect on consumers. A number of further steps may be needed to realize the potential of transparency to improve the privacy and security of personal information. Companies are urged to go beyond notices and actually improve their privacy and security practices so that consumers have meaningful privacy choices and personal information is adequately protected.

The article examines the USA Patriot Act; a new push by law enforcement to wiretap voice-over-IP (VoIP) communications; and the need to prevent abuses of technology at the international level. Although the Patriot Act might be good for overall security, it raises serious privacy concerns. It is very one-sided in favoring law enforcement's ability to get information about people, without giving them the opportunity to attempt to protect that information. The act permits using wiretaps without requiring authorities to specify who is being tapped or where the tapping occurs. The Patriot Act likewise opens the door to potential technology abuses, such as providing funding for government database improvements, while offering no protections in terms of how those databases will be used. The article also examines the worldwide state of security by looking at concerns about the dumping and testing of surveillance technologies in countries where civil rights and civil liberties are not an issue.

When the US government erected export-control barriers against the cryptographic technology used to ensure data confidentiality, a coalition of privacy advocates joined IT companies to get those barriers removed and enable widespread adoption of encryption for privacy protection. The most fundamental challenge to 20th century privacy laws is more social than technical - adding to the stream of personal data is a new wave of user-generated content in the form of blogs. Access control and security techniques will remain vital to privacy protection - access control is important for protecting sensitive information and, above all, preserving anonymity.

Discusses the gradual erosion of privacy in society and the ways in which individuals are being monitored. The constitutional right to privacy is mentioned based on provisions within the Bill of Rights and amendments. The relationship between globalization and privacy is finally considered.

A draft EC directive that threatens an embargo on personal information to any nation that does not satisfy its privacy requirements is discussed. The directive seeks to harmonize privacy laws to allow the free flow of personal data because many different approaches might impede economic ventures among members. A historical outline of the proscription of secondary use of personal information in the US is presented. The interpretation of the secondary use principle and two recent cases that demonstrate the wide range of disagreement on secondary use are also discussed. >

The matter of invasion of privacy has become a touchy issue in the computer age, and Europe is moving to resolve questions of human rights with uniform legal guarantees. The emerging branch of law is called data protection. Already, some people are questioning whether the law will ever be able to catch up with reality. For example, the notion of `data bank', which appears in some laws, is already becoming inadequate; it is now possible to manipulate data instantaneously without a permanent record. As a result, French law now uses the term `data treatment'. A further example: with networks and intelligent terminals for data processing, rules intended originally for specialists now must address the public at large. For this very reason, an ongoing dialogue between lawyers and data-processing experts is essential.

The UK Data Protection Act 1984 covers the collection, holding, manipulation and distribution of data concerning living individuals by computerized systems from within the United Kingdom. Individuals who visit the UK fall within the bounds of the Act as soon as they arrive. Although they may be exempt from the Act in relation to the data that they personally control within the UK, they could immediately be liable in connection with data held overseas-perhaps by their employer, client, or any other entity for whom they could be construed to be an agent. The author covers the basic elements of the Act: the definition of data, personal data, data subject, data user, computer bureau, processing, preparing the text of documents, transfer of data, and the territorial scope of the Act. He covers who might have to register and why, how to register, and other implications of the Act.