Modern privacy

Online privacy debate at IAB leadership summit

Online privacy — Pam Dixon will participate in the IAB’s formal privacy policy debate as a privacy and consumer representative on Tuesday, Feb. 26. This marks the first time the IAB annual leadership summit has hosted a formal policy debate. The debate will be moderated by Katy Kay of Advertising Age.

Consumer experiences of job searching and online reputation

Reputation and privacy — Pam Dixon spoke at the Southwestern Law School Privacy Conference on the topic of reputational privacy Friday the 22cnd along with Neville Johnson and Paul Tweed. Dixon highlighted three key consumer situations WPF assisted with recently, discussing the employment challenges consumers faced when harmful material was available online during the job search process.

NTIA drafting process ongoing

Mobile Privacy — The World Privacy Forum attended the NTIA Multistakeholder meeting as one of the core drafters of the code of conduct being considered by the NTIA Multistakeholder process. WPF and the other drafters are accepting comments from all stakeholders in preparation of the next iteration of the draft.

Debating the future of privacy

Arizona School of Law — Pam Dixon participated as a discussant and contributor to the Arizona School of Law’s private workshop on the topic of the future of privacy. Key areas of discussion included the European Union’s Right to be Forgotten proposal, consent and health privacy, and Do Not Track.

US Supreme Court delivers opinion about GPS tracking

01/23/2012 GPS tracking | United States v. Jones — The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police must get a warrant before using GPS devices to track criminal suspects. This case was narrow and dealt specifically with a GPS device physically attached to a suspect’s vehicle. The concurring opinion of Justice Sotomayor points out that the subtler issues of digital era tracking were not dealt with in this case, for example, cell phone tracking, web site tracking, etc. She wrote: “More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976).” She continued: “This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.”