Sunday, August 02, 2020

Privacy Con

Whether "Con" is short-speak for "convention" or "confidence (not)", tricks with regard to ones identity, privacy, copyrights, and biometric data abound. Privacy cons are this week's theme.

Sharing Key Takeaways from the FTC's PrivacyCon, legal bloggers Lauren Kitces,  Marisol Mork,  Kristin Bryan, and  Dylan J. Yepez for Squire Patton Boggs, report on the five important privacy topics discussed at the fifth such annual event.

The six topics were Artificial Intelligence, Health Apps, Internet-of-Things, Privacy and Security related to virtual assistants and digital cameras, International privacy, and miscellaneous privacy and security issues. The Key Takeaways are an excellent summary.

Original Link:

Lexology Link:

As regards Health Apps, it is important to read up on recent news from FitBit, and to have confidence that FitBit promises that the acquiring advertisement company will respect users' medical privacy and will not use FitBit users' health and wellness data for one brand of advertising.

Chaim Gartenberg reports for The Verge:

The Trichordist writes at length about the Internet-of-Things, wittily terming it the Internet of other people's Things, because of the massive amount of copyright infringement online.

This link is to Part 4 of a multi-series set of articles based on the amici curiae SCOTUS filing in what the authors claim might be the most important copyright case of the decade, because it might set fair use standards for years to come:

While on the topic of copyright, Chris Castle explains that copyright infringement lowers "the customary price", or what consumers would pay to read the book or dance to the music if not for its availability free on the copyright infringing sites.

If you use TIKTOK, do you know that they are allegedly a pirate site and allegedly don't pay for the music?

One wonders, does Apple know?  Tiktok icons pop up in the app store. It would be good to have the Supreme Court rule on what is fair use and what is not!

Returning to the legal blogs, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP takes a look at Facebook and its use and possible abuse of biometric identifiers.

Lexology link:

Original link:

One should be wary about giving consent when banks and brokerage houses try to bully one (usually via the artificially intelligent receptionist before one gets through to a real banker or broker) into agreeing to have ones voice recorded to use as identification for the future. It's becoming increasingly tricky to have confidence that ones voice isn't recorded and used for that purpose regardless of ones wishes.

What happens if one catches cold? Would ones voice pass muster? What if one of the places storing ones voice were to be hacked. If it is already unwise to say, "Yes" to any stranger on the telephone, how much more dangerous to ones privacy and ones property would it be if biometric data is widely used for identification and security?!

Finally, for Baker and Hostetler LLP, legal bloggers Linda A. Goldstein and Amy Ralph Mudge discuss a social media bot dossier. Allegedly, this is about a company called Devumi, that was accused of selling the appearance of thousands of fake social media fans to boost the reputations and egos of persons wishing to appear influential or popular, especially on LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Original link:

Lexology link:

Back in 2018, Jesse M. Brody of Manatt Phelps and Phillips wrote about fake social media follower bots, apparently belonging to the same company, and presumably how these false friends con advertisers.

No comments:

Post a Comment