Privacy – cearta.ie

Ross O’Carroll-Kelly is the protagonist and narrator of many novels and a weekly satirical newspaper column in the Irish Times. He is a hugely self-confident South Dublin celtic tiger rugby cub who never grew up; his slightly dippy wife tolerates his legendary foibles and even-more-legendary indiscretions; and his terrible children take daily advantage of his boundless stupidity.

In last week’s column (audio here), he complained that his neighbour was power-washing the patio again, when he’s supposed to be working from home, but he gets away with it, because he gets his wife to move the cursor on his work laptop so it doesn’t go to sleep. Thanks to the pandemic, remote working is here to stay: in January of this year, the Government published its Making Remote Work – National Remote Working Strategy, “to ensure that remote working is a permanent feature in the Irish workplace in a way that maximises economic, social and environmental benefits”. It will create many benefits. For example, in this week’s column, Ross’s two eldest children, Ronan (Ro) (Ross’s illegitimate son, with many criminal connections) and Honor (Ross’s daughter-from-hell), go into the business of monitoring shirking remote-workers, without the need to microchip employees:

“So,” Honor goes, “a lot of you have, like, businesses, right?

…

The legal basis of the US$170m fine on Google for YouTube’s infringement of children’s privacy

10 September, 2019

| No Comments

| GDPR, Privacy

FTC NYAG Google YouTube logos

At the end of last week, the media was full of stories that Google had been “Fined $170 Million for Violating Children’s Privacy on YouTube” (that’s a headline from the New York Times; see also, for example, NPR | BBC | RTÉ | Silicon Republic). In this post, I want to sketch the legal background to, and consequences of, this fine; and, at the end, I will say a few words about the equivalent position in Europe.

In the US, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (15 USC §§ 6501–6506; hereafter: COPPA), and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (16 CFR § 312; hereafter: the COPPA Rule) made under it, regulate unfair and deceptive acts and practices in connection with the collection and use of personal information from and about children on the internet. In particular, 15 USC §§ 6502(b)(A) COPPA, and 16 CFR § 312.3 COPPA Rule, require the operator of any website or online service directed to children that collects personal information from children, or the operator of a website or online service that has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child,

(i) to provide notice on the website of what information is collected from children by the operator, how the operator uses such information, and the operator’s disclosure practices for such information; and
(ii) to obtain verifiable parental consent for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from children; …

Giving further effect to the second paragraph here, 16 CFR § 312.5(b)(1) COPPA Rule provides

An operator must make reasonable efforts to obtain verifiable parental consent, taking into consideration available technology.

…

The Great Hack and the dysaguria of Cambridge Analytica

24 July, 201919 August, 2019

| 3 Comments

| Digital Rights, Dysaguria, Media and Communications, Privacy

The Great Hack has just dropped on Netflix (IMDB | Rotten Tomatoes | wikipedia | poster left). It is a documentary that explores “how a data company named Cambridge Analytica came to symbolize the dark side of social media in the wake of the 2016 US presidential election”. Much has already been written about the Cambridge Analytica scandal (eg ICO here and here (pdfs) | Carole Cadwalladr in The Guardian), and a great deal more will be written as the movie is reviewed in the coming days. I don’t propose to add to those torrents here. Rather, I simply want to observe that there is a word for a company that symbolizes the dark side of social media.

Reacting to Thomas More’s coinage of “utopia” as the “perfect state”, from the Greek “eu” meaning “good”, and “topos” meaning “place”, John Stuart Mill coined “dystopia” as the “frightening state”, from the Greek “dys” meaning “bad”, and (again) “topos” meaning “place”. But, whilst “dystopia” is perfect to describe a “frightening state” and its frightened society, it is not particularly apt to describe a “frightening company” and its frightened society. Indeed, we don’t really have the words for when a corporate society goes bad; “dystopia” and “dystopian” have been pressed into service (even in the context of reviewing The Great Hack: “Watching this film, you literally start to wonder if history has been warped towards a sickening dystopia”); but the warped society in that movie is very different to the warped society in classic dystopian fiction (such as, to take the obvious example, Orwell’s 1984).…