Although the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act has been on the books for almost 10 years, a recent surge in lawsuits has likely been brought on by developments in biometric scanning technology and its increased use in the workplace. At least 32 class action lawsuits have been filed in recent months by Illinois residents in state court challenging the collection, use and storage of biometric data by companies in the state. This could potentially cause a reevaluation of company strategies and development of new defenses in the use of advancing biometric technology.
On September 29, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) formally announced a December 12th workshop on informational injury—the injury a consumer suffers when information about them is misused. The workshop will address questions such as, how to characterize and measure such injury and what factors businesses and consumers should consider the benefits and risks of collecting, using and providing personal information so as to gain further perspective for how the FTC should apply its legal framework for privacy and security enforcement under 15 USC § 45 (Section 5). In her September 19th remarks to the Federal Communications Bar Association, Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen, the Acting Chairman of the FTC, metaphorically characterized the workshop’s purpose as providing the next brushstrokes on the unfinished enforcement landscape the FTC is painting on its legal framework canvas. The full list of specific questions to be addressed may be accessed here.
Background. The FTC views itself as the primary US enforcer of data privacy and security, a role it recently assumed. While the FTC’s enforcement against practices causing informational injury through administrative proceedings goes back as far as 2002, its ability to pursue corporate liability for data security and privacy practices under its Section 5 “unfair or deceptive trade practices” jurisdiction was only ratified in 2015 by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation. The FTC has actively invoked its enforcement authority but, in doing so, has been selective in determining which consumer informational injuries to pursue by questioning the strength of evidence connecting problematic practices with the injury, examining the magnitude of the injury and inquiring as to whether the injury is imminent or has been realized. (more…)
The validity of Model Clauses for EU personal data transfer to the United States is now in real doubt as a result of a new Irish High Court judgment stating that there are “well founded grounds” to find the Model Clauses invalid. The issue of Model Clauses as a legitimate data transfer mechanism will now be adjudicated by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the same court that previously overturned the Safe Harbor arrangement. EU and US companies will need to consider various strategies in anticipation of this decision.
The US Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently released A Vision for Safety 2.0, an update to its prior guidance on automated driving systems. The new guidance adopts a voluntary, flexible approach to regulation of automated driving systems and clarifies that it alone, and not the states, is responsible for regulating the safety design and performance aspects of such systems.
New cybersecurity regulations issued by the NYDFS define the nonpublic information they regulate in exceptionally broad terms. This expanded definition of Nonpublic Information will create major challenges for regulated companies and their third-party service providers that will likely ripple through other ancillary industries.
Although the incorporation of technology into human endeavours—commercial, political and personal—is a normal component of technological innovation, the advent of artificial intelligence technology is producing significant challenges we have not felt or understood with earlier innovations. For many years, for example, there has been speculation, research and public debate about the impact of the internet, the functioning of search engines, and online advertising techniques on commercial and political decisions.
The alleged “hacking” of the 2016 US presidential election, and the concerns about such activities in the 2017 European elections, will only heighten the interweaving discussions on free speech, national sovereignty, cyber security and the nature of privacy.
The use of artificial intelligence and machine-learning technologies has only added to the list of issues and areas of concern. The consequences of automobile accidents involving “self-driving” technologies, the “flash crashes” on securities markets due to algorithmic trading, and bias in systems designed to determine benefit eligibility, are requiring us to consider what happens when we defer judgment to machines, and highlighting the importance of quality in data sets and sensors.
The government is continuing to ask for more help from the private sector to defend against cyber attacks. The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) recently published a report discussing current cyber threats and urging private companies and executives to join forces with the government to better address those threats. The report proposes “public-private and company-to-company information sharing of cyber threats at network speed,” among other things discussed here.
On 6 August 2017, the UK government released ‘The Key Principles of Vehicle Cyber Security for Connected and Automated Vehicles’, guidance aimed at ensuring minimum cybersecurity protections for consumers in the manufacture and operation of connected and automated vehicles.
Connected and automated vehicles fall into the category of so-called ‘smart cars’. Connected vehicles have gained, and will continue to gain, adoption in the market and, indeed, are expected to make up more than half of new vehicles by 2020. Such cars have the ability through the use of various technologies to communicate with the driver, other cars, application providers, traffic infrastructure and the Cloud. Automated vehicles, also known as autonomous vehicles, include self-driving features that allow the vehicle to control key functions–like observing the vehicle’s environment, steering, acceleration, parking, and lane changes–that traditionally have been performed by a human driver. Consumers in certain markets have been able to purchase vehicles with certain autonomous driving features for the past few years, and vehicle manufacturers have announced plans to enable vehicles to be fully self-driving under certain conditions, in the near future.
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology recently released a report (the Report) detailing user experience research on patient access to health data. The Report sought to examine the experiences of 17 individuals and processes of 50 health systems, with commentary from four medical record fulfillment administrators, to determine how the medical record request process can be improved for consumers. The Report ultimately concludes that patients and health care providers alike are in need of a well-defined process that is convenient, expedient and transparent.
Background
The Health Insurance Patient Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not create a uniform process for storage and production of medical records across providers, and in-turn did not create a convenient request process for patients. Generally, patients have a right to access a designated record set, which includes 1) medical records and billing records about individuals maintained by or for a covered health care provider; 2) enrollment, payment, claims adjudication, and case or medical management record systems maintained by or for a health plan; and 3) other records that are used, in whole or in part, by or for the covered entity to make decisions about individuals. Upon receipt of a request by a patient to access their health records, the covered entity receiving the request must produce the records within 30 days. Prior to producing those records, however, the covered entity must verify the identity of the individual making the request. This often involves signature verification or similar processes.
Jennifer Geetter and Lisa Schmitz Mazur wrote this bylined article on the regulatory implications of technology-supported devices, resources, and solutions that facilitate health patient-provider interaction. “Health industry regulators are struggling with how to apply the existing privacy regulatory regime, and the permitted uses and disclosures for which they provide, in this new world of healthcare innovation,” the authors wrote.
Subscribe
