We get it. You're busy. It's possible you didn't have time to catch all of The Privacy Advisor Podcasts this last month. Don't worry. We've got them assembled here for your listening pleasure, starting with the most recent.
Our modern privacy frameworks, with their emphasis on gaining informed consent from consumers in order to use their data, are broken models. That's according to Woodrow Hartzog, a law professor at Northeastern University in Boston. In this episode of The Privacy Advisor Podcast, Hartzog discusses the ways that, given such models, technologies are designed at the engineering level to undermine user privacy. Hartzog's research focuses on “the complex problems that arise when personal information is collected by powerful new technologies, stored and disclosed online.” Social media companies, for example, which make money on user data via advertisers, “have every incentive to use the power they have with designers to engineer your almost near-constant disclosure of information. We will be worn down by design; our consent is preordained,” he says.
What we know about attorney Jay Edelson to date: He loves beach volleyball so much that he had a court installed at his Chicago law firm so he and his crew could blow off steam. The New York Times refers to him as Silicon Valley's "baby faced boogeyman" for his aggressive court takedowns of tech behemoths. And he's got a very firm grasp on the global privacy and data protection legislative landscape. In this episode of The Privacy Advisor Podcast, Edelson talks about his latest legal pursuits, including a class-action lawsuit against Facebook for alleged violation of biometric privacy law, and another against Kanye West over alleged consumer privacy violations via his music streaming service, Tidal. Edelson also discusses why he thinks the new California Consumer Privacy Act is no good.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the government generally must have a warrant to gather location data from cellphones. The case followed an appeal filed by Timothy Carpenter after he was convicted of a series of armed robberies with help from cellphone data obtained by law enforcement without a warrant. Lawyers representing Carpenter asserted that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, as the lack of a warrant constitutes as an unreasonable search and seizure. The case incited much reaction from both privacy and law enforcement advocates. But now that the dust has settled a bit, what can we take away from the case, and how might this change the trajectory of digital surveillance policy in the U.S.? Professor Orin Kerr of the USC Gould School of Law and Jennifer Granick of the American Civil Liberties Union discuss why the case is so significant and what it could mean for the future of digital surveillance, the third-party doctrine and how the Fourth Amendment applies. Kerr also weighs in on how the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court might impact Fourth Amendment cases in the future.
Anyone using the internet today is surely aware of the viral hate that displays itself everywhere, from social media platforms to newspaper comment sections to group chat forums. It is in such forums that marginalized groups face the kind of cyberbullying that surely exists on our streets but seemingly not to the extremes we see when users can hide behind a screen. In this live event, hosted by Hogan Lovells in Washington to commemorate Pride Month, Chris Wolf talks to host Angelique Carson, CIPP/US, about strategies to combat viral hate online in the name of protecting those who are especially targeted, including the LGBTQ community.
In our continuing series on robocalls, Editor Angelique Carson, CIPP/US, talks to U.S. Federal Trade Commission Attorney Ian Barlow. He is in charge of running the do-not-call-list program and bringing cases against illegal robocallers. It’s an area of intense focus for the agency, which has also paired with the Federal Communications Commission and private industry to try and find solutions. In this episode, Barlow describes some of the cases he’s prosecuted, who these recidivist robocallers are, and whether he feels the agency has a grip on this persistent and aggravating problem for U.S. consumers.
If you want to comment on this post, you need to login.