A
really simple question.
Who
Owns Privacy?
With
GDPR, CCPA, and a US federal bill being actively considered by
Congress, we’ve reached a regulatory ‘point of no return’ with
privacy compliance. GDPR alone has generated over 30 large fines
worth more than 400 million euros in less than 24 months….
And we’ve yet to observe the initial cost of non-compliance with
CCPA.
Regulation
aside, we’re seeing a dramatic increase in awareness among
customers, employees, and ‘data subjects’ about how their
information is used in the data economy. This rising awareness has
spurred demands for more transparency and control over data access,
deletion, and rectification — with our recent DataGrail
study finding that 65% of participants desire to know what
information is collected on them.
As
of today, most of the means for organizations to deliver on privacy
expectations are unsustainable. Another DataGrail
survey from 2019 found
that the average company involved 26 different stakeholders across
almost as many functional groups to deliver an access request [link].
The pervasiveness of personal data across a modern business — from
marketing, to customer support, to finance, to business intelligence
— has forced a sprawl in responsibility.
The
GDPR doesn’t apply, except when it does.
Grandmother
ordered to delete Facebook photos under GDPR
It ended up in
court after a falling-out between the woman and her daughter.
The judge
ruled the matter was within the scope of the EU's General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR).
… The case
went to court after the woman refused to delete photographs of her
grandchildren which she had posted on social media.
The mother of
the children had asked several times for the pictures to be deleted.
The
GDPR does not apply to the "purely personal" or
"household" processing of data.
However,
that exemption did not apply because posting photographs
on social media made them available to a wider audience, the ruling
said.
"With
Facebook, it cannot be ruled out that placed photos may be
distributed and may end up in the hands of third parties," it
said.
Interesting.
Like twisting the knob to see if a door is locked?
Just
turning your phone on qualifies as searching it, court rules
Smartphones
are a rich data trove not only for marketers but also for law
enforcement. Police and federal investigators love to get their
hands on all that juicy personal information during an investigation.
But thanks to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and all
the case law built upon it, police generally need a warrant to search
your phone—and that includes just looking at the lock screen, a
judge has ruled (PDF).
Usually
when the topic of a phone search comes up in court, the question has
to do with unlocking. Generally, courts have held that law
enforcement can compel you to use your body, such as your
fingerprint
(or your
face ),
to unlock a phone but that they cannot compel you to share knowledge,
such
as a PIN.
In this recent case, however, the FBI did not unlock the phone.
Instead, they only looked at the phone's lock screen for evidence.
… In
his ruling, the judge determined that the police looking at the phone
at the time of the arrest and the FBI looking at it again after the
fact are two separate issues. Police are allowed to conduct searches
without search warrant under special circumstances, Coughenour wrote,
and looking at the phone's lock screen may have been permissible as
it "took place either incident to a lawful arrest or as part of
the police's efforts to inventory the personal effects" of the
person arrested. Coughenour was unable to determine how,
specifically, the police acted, and he ordered clarification to see
if their search of the phone fell within those boundaries.
But
where the police actions were unclear, the FBI's were both crystal
clear and counter to the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights,
Coughenour ruled. "Here, the FBI physically intruded on Mr.
Sam's personal effect when the FBI powered on his phone to take a
picture of the phone's lock screen." That qualifies as a
"search" under the terms of the Fourth Amendment, he found,
and since the FBI did not have a warrant for that search, it was
unconstitutional.
Attorneys
for the government argued that Sam should have had no expectation of
privacy on his lock screen—that is, after all, what everyone who
isn't you is meant to see when they try to access the phone. Instead
of determining whether the lock screen is private or not, though,
Coughenour found that it doesn't matter. "When the Government
gains evidence by physically intruding on a constitutionally
protected area—as the FBI did here—it is 'unnecessary to
consider' whether the government also violated the defendant’s
reasonable expectation of privacy," he wrote.
Sounds a lot
like Phrenology to me.
Artificial
intelligence can make personality judgments based on photographs
Russian
researchers from HSE University and Open University for the
Humanities and Economics have demonstrated that artificial
intelligence is able to infer people's personality from 'selfie'
photographs better than human raters do. Conscientiousness emerged
to be more easily recognizable than the other four traits.
Personality predictions based on female faces appeared to be more
reliable than those for male faces. The technology can be used to
find the 'best matches' in customer service, dating or online
tutoring.
The
article, "Assessing the Big Five personality
traits using real-life static facial images," will be
published on May 22 in Scientific
Reports.
… The
average effect size of r = .24 indicates that AI can make a correct
guess about the relative standing of two randomly chosen individuals
on a personality dimension in 58% of cases as opposed to the 50%
expected by chance.
Worth
considering.
A
Buyer’s Guide to AI and Machine Learning
… One
limitation of some AI or ML products is that for certain applications
of the technology, there is no source of absolute truth to compare
against the accuracy of the output. For example, neither humans nor
machines know how to produce the perfect set of end-to-end tests for
any given application. This is the test oracle problem: there is no
objective standard of truth. No one wants to introduce this kind of
uncertainty into their sales process. Yet, our buyers deserve
well-informed answers about our products.
… Regardless
of how you plan to use a product, it’s important to ask the right
questions to understand the product and build resiliency around its
accuracy levels. The next time a seller tells you “AI is doing
this,” you can ask the following:
(Related)
Six
things CCOs need to know about ICO’s AI guidance
The
122-page publication, called “Explaining
decisions made with AI” and
written in conjunction with The Alan Turing Institute, the U.K.’s
national center for AI, hopes to ensure organizations can be
transparent about how AI-generated decisions are made, as well as
ensure clear accountability about who can be held responsible for
them so that affected individuals can ask for an explanation.
No comments:
Post a Comment