Privacy is not just for governments to violate. I wonder what’s next?
New real estate platform lets homebuyers check their neighbors’ political affiliations
New York Post: “A new real estate platform is giving homebuyers an unprecedented peek into their potential neighborhoods — revealing everything from political leanings to local demographics — before they even commit to buying. Oyssey, a tech startup soft-launching this month in South Florida and New York City, lets buyers access neighborhood political affiliations based on election results and campaign contributions, along with housing trends and other social data. The platform is betting that today’s buyers care just as much about their neighbors’ values as they do about square footage or modern finishes…
The site operates as a one-stop shop for homebuyers, streamlining the process of browsing listings, signing contracts and communicating with agents — all while integrating block-by-block political and consumer data. Oyssey markets the service to real estate agents and brokers via a subscription model, though buyers can use the platform for free by invitation from their agents. The launch comes at a turbulent time for the real estate industry…”
At what point does security become less expensive that fines for not having security?
https://pogowasright.org/irish-data-privacy-watchdog-fines-meta-e251-million-for-gdpr-failure/
Irish data privacy watchdog fines Meta €251 million for GDPR failure
Euractiv reports:
The fine was issued for a security breach on social media Facebook which started in July 2017, and affected close to three million accounts in the European Economic Area.
“This enforcement action highlights how the failure to build in data protection requirements […] can expose individuals to […] risk to the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals,” said the Irish DPC deputy commissioner Graham Doyle.
The breach was a bug in Facebook’s design which allowed unauthorised people using scripts to exploit a vulnerability on a Facebook code, allowing them to view profiles of users they should not have been able to see otherwise.
Meta is expected to appeal the decision. “We took immediate action to fix the problem,” said a Meta spokesperson in an email.
Meta discovered the security issue in September 2018, fixed the vulnerability and informed law enforcement authorities.
Read more at Euractiv. The specific infringements cited by the DPC were as follows:
The DPC’s final decisions noted the following infringements of the GDPR and the resulting fines for each:
Decision 1
Article 33(3) GDPR – By not including in its breach notification all the information required by that provision that it could and should have included. The DPC reprimanded MPIL for failures in regards to this provision and ordered it to pay administrative fines of €8 million.
Article 33(5) GDPR – By failing to document the facts relating to each breach, the steps taken to remedy them, and to do so in a way that allows the Supervisory Authority to verify compliance. The DPC reprimanded MPIL for failures in regards to this provision and ordered it to pay administrative fines of €3 million.
Decision 2
Article 25(1) GDPR – By failing to ensure that data protection principles were protected in the design of processing systems. The DPC found that MPIL had infringed this provision, reprimanded MPIL, and ordered it to pay administrative fines of €130 million.
Article 25(2) – By failing in their obligations as controllers to ensure that, by default, only personal data that are necessary for specific purposes are processed. The DPC found that MPIL had infringed these provisions, reprimanded MPIL, and ordered it to pay administrative fines of €110 million.
Be careful what you ask for?
Prof vs AI: Law professor who ChatGPT accused of rape, finds allegations 'chilling and ironic'
… “It fabricated a claim suggesting I was on the faculty at an institution where I have never been, asserted I took a trip I never undertook, and reported an allegation that was entirely false,” he remarked to The Post. “It’s deeply ironic, given that I have been discussing the threats AI poses to free speech.”
The 61-year-old legal scholar became aware of the chatbot's erroneous claim when he received a message from UCLA professor Eugene Volokh, who allegedly asked ChatGPT to provide “five examples” of “sexual harassment” incidents involving professors at U.S. law schools, along with “quotes from relevant newspaper articles.”
No comments:
Post a Comment