#Data Protection Act

[dpdp-act]

India's DPDPA What you need to know

Introduction Provide a compelling introduction of the topic in this section. Explain that India's Data Protection Bill (DPDPA), a key piece of legislation, addresses privacy and security issues. In the digital age, personal data is shared and processed constantly. 

Background to DPDPA: Dig deeper into the history of DPDPA. Discussion of the history of India's data protection laws, including any gaps or previous attempts that led to a comprehensive law. Explain why the proliferation of technologies and the rise in data-driven business necessitated the legislation. 

DPDPA Key Provisions: The section should include a detailed breakdown of all the DPDPA's essential components. Each provision should be discussed in detail. 

Data processing principles: Explain principles that guide lawful processing of data, such as transparency, purpose limitation and data minimization. 

Discussion of the rights of data subjects: Discuss such rights as the right for individuals to access and correct inaccurate data or the right to be wiped out. 

Data breach notification obligations: Explain the obligations for organizations to promptly and transparently report data breaches. 

Explain the DPDPA's rules on international data transfers. 

Data protection officers (DPOs). Discuss their role in ensuring that the DPDPA is adhered to and the required qualifications for this position. 

Impact of the DPDPA on Business: Give a detailed analysis of the DPDPA's impact on businesses in India. Distinguish the burden of compliance, possible financial consequences, and changes in operations required. Discuss how organizations can adjust their data handling practices in order to comply with the DPDPA, and avoid penalties. 

Comparison to GDPR: The purpose of this section is to provide a detailed comparison between the DPDPA (Data Protection Act) and the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) in the European Union. Compare the similarities and differences between the DPDPA and GDPR, including the rights and principles of the data subject, as well as the jurisdiction and enforcement. Talk about how companies operating in India and Europe need to navigate the dual regulatory frameworks. 

Challenges & Concerns: Examine the challenges and concerns relating to the DPDPA. Discussions can include issues like compliance complexity, localization of data requirements, and possible conflicts with other laws or regulations. Use real-world case studies or examples to illustrate the challenges. 

The Data Protection Authority's Role: Describe the Data Protection Authority of India and its functions. Describe the role of this authority in enforcing DPDPA. This includes investigating data breaches, performing audits and issuing sanctions. Distinguish the possible impact of the DPAI in India on data protection. 

The Road ahead: A look at the future of Indian data protection. Discuss the expected developments such as updates to DPDPA and evolving technologies in data privacy. Analyze how the DPDPA could impact India's digital industry, innovation and international data trade agreements. 

Conclusion Reiterate the main points of the article, and emphasize the importance for individuals, organizations, and businesses in India to understand and comply with the DPDPA. Encourage the readers to keep up to date with data protection issues and to adapt proactively to an ever-changing landscape. 

[aiolegalservices]

Streamlining Business Compliance: AIO Legal Services for AML, GDPR, and Intellectual Property Rights

  In today’s fast-paced and ever-changing business landscape, regulatory compliance has become an indispensable aspect for companies operating in the UK. Failure to adhere to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws can lead to severe consequences, including financial penalties, reputational…

[guardiantech12]

How to Ensure Data Protection Compliance in Ghana

Data Protection

Data protection refers to the rules and practices put in place to guard against abuse, unauthorized access, and disclosure of sensitive personal information. Securing the data is crucial in today's increasingly digital and interconnected world, where enormous amounts of data are collected and shared, to safeguard individual privacy and win over customers, clients, and other stakeholders.

The basic goal of data protection is to make sure that data is handled, gathered, and stored securely and legally. To prevent cyberattacks, data breaches, and the unauthorized use of information, numerous organizational, technological, and legal procedures must be put in place.

Ghana's Data Protection Act:  To regulate the processing of personal data, the Data Protection Act was passed in 2012. Additionally, it created the National Data Protection Commission (NDPC) to oversee the observance of data protection rules.

The scope and applicability of the Act: The Act applies to all processors and data controllers operating in Ghana, regardless of their size or industry.

Penalties for non-compliance:  Serious infractions of The Data Protection Act may result in jail time, fines, or other sanctions.

The Fundamental Ideas in Data Protection:

A person's express agreement was obtained before any personal information was gathered, and the data was only used for the purposes for which it was collected.

Data minimization and precision:  Keeping only the information that is necessary while making sure it is up to date and accurate.

Information Security and Storage Limitations: Limiting the amount of time that data is retained and putting robust security measures in place to prevent unauthorized access, disclosure, or loss of information.

Personal Rights and Access: Upholding individuals' privacy rights to request access to, correction of, and erasure of their data.

Assuring Data Protection Compliance: Appointing an Officer for Data Protection: Appointing a Data Protection Officer (DPO) who will be responsible for overseeing data protection practices and ensuring compliance throughout the organization.

Implementing Data Protection Impact Assessments: Conduct assessments regularly to identify and resolve any potential threats to and vulnerabilities in data security.

The implementation of security measures: Encryption, access control, and firewalls are all security measures that are put in place to safeguard data from hacker assaults and other security lapses.

Training for employees on data protection: Educating staff members on the fundamentals of data protection policies, practices, and standards to promote a conformist culture.

Reacting to and informing about a data breach:

Planning the Response to a Data Breach: Create a thorough plan to respond to data breaches quickly and successfully.

Notifying the appropriate parties and those affected: To reduce the risk in the event of a breach, contact the NDPC and those who were impacted.

Future Data Breach Mitigation: It is possible to enhance data security and prevent future security breaches by using the lessons learned from past instances.

Data Transfer and Cross-Border Compliance: 

When transferring data outside of Ghana, be sure the recipient has given their approval and that the data is being transferred securely.

Putting in place mechanisms like Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) to protect data when it is transferred across borders will provide secure adequate safeguards.

Building customer trust is key to data protection, business prosperity, and profitability: Loyalty and Trust: Demonstrating a dedication to data security to win clients' trust and loyalty.

To avoid legal consequences: Respecting the rules on data protection will help you avoid costly legal penalties and reputational damage.

Reputation management: Keeping your business's reputation intact by safeguarding consumer data and responding to data breaches.

Conclusion:

To establish a more secure digital environment and safeguard the fundamental right to privacy for all Ghanaians, data protection in Ghana is a continuing journey that necessitates cooperation between the government, corporations, and people. Ghana may establish itself as a responsible and reliable member of the global digital economy by remaining watchful and aggressive in addressing data privacy issues.

[databenchdb]

Your information privacy and personal information is important to us. This notice explains our privacy practices in relation to how we manage and collect Personal Information about you.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Go back to the top of this article and reread that transcript of Rep. Buddy Carter grilling TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Now, Carter is a dunderhead, but he’s dunderheaded in a way that illuminates just how bad COPPA enforcement is, and has been, for 25 long years.

Carter thinks that TikTok is using biometric features to enforce COPPA. He imagines that TikTok is doing some kind of high-tech phrenology to make sure that every user is over 13 (“I find that [you aren’t capturing facial images] hard to believe. It is our understanding that they’re looking at the eyes. How do you determine what age they are then?”).

Chew corrects the Congressdunderhead from Georgia, explaining that TikTok uses “age-gating”: “when you ask the user what age they are.”

That is the industry-wide practice for enforcing COPPA: every user is presented with a tick-box that says “I am over 13.” If they tick that box, the company claims it has satisfied the requirement not to spy on kids.

But if COPPA were meaningfully enforced, companies would simply have to stop spying on everyone, because there are no efficient ways to verify the age of users at the scale needed for general operation of a website.

-How To Make a Child-Safe TikTok: Have you tried not spying on kids?

[commiepinkofag]

profits over people — the corporate hellscape of internet censorship, safety, privacy, data mining…

[thepastisalreadywritten]

Hospital staff embroiled in a privacy probe involving the Princess of Wales will likely be facing disciplinary action, an expert has warned.

The Mirror revealed an investigation is underway at the world-renowned The London Clinic into claims Catherine's confidentiality was breached while she was a patient in January.

At least one member of staff was said to have been caught trying to access the 42-year-old's medical notes.

The future Queen had abdominal surgery at the London hospital in January and stayed for a fortnight, as she recovered before returning home to Windsor.

The allegations are the latest blow to hit Catherine, whose absence from public life over the past two months has led to wild conspiracy theories on social media about her whereabouts and health.

Now, an employment expert has outlined the likely next steps for accused staff, while a data protection expert has suggested Catherine could well claim compensation.

Employment partner Tracey Guest at law firm Slater Heelis told the Mirror:

"Any hospital employee who has accessed Catherine's private medical records, without any proper work reason to do so, is at risk of being dismissed due to gross misconduct.

Previous cases for dismissal relating to confidential information have held that it is important for employers to have policies in place, which make it abundantly clear to employees that unauthorised interference with computers/accessing confidential information unnecessarily will carry severe penalties.

No doubt all hospital employees will have been given contracts of employment where confidential information is a key term.

And it is likely that the hospital will have policies in place to make it clear that unlawfully accessing patient confidential information is likely to amount to gross misconduct."

The next steps to follow will depend on the alleged employee's years of service at the clinic. Tracey continued:

"If an employee has two or more years' service, the hospital will need to follow a fair procedure prior to dismissing an employee, otherwise they will be at risk of a claim for unfair dismissal.

This means that the hospital should require the employee to attend an investigation meeting, where the allegations are put to the employee and the employee is given a chance to respond and put forward any explanation/deny the allegations.

If the Investigating Officer decides that there is a case to answer, the employee must then be required to attend a disciplinary meeting.

The employee should be advised in advance in writing of the disciplinary allegations against them and warned that a possible outcome may be dismissal.

The employee should also be given the right to be accompanied to the disciplinary meeting by a fellow employee or trade union representative of their choice.

If an employee is dismissed, they should be given the right to appeal the decision."

It is likely that accessing medical records without any proper work reason is also a breach of data protection, and these allegations would also be discussed with the employee concerned, Tracey explained.

Meanwhile, the employees' alleged actions causing reputational damage to the hospital will also be assessed.

"Given the publicity surrounding this matter, this allegation would be genuine and could provide a further reason to warrant dismissal for gross misconduct (subject to the findings of any appropriate investigation and disciplinary)," Tracey added, before suggesting:

"Any employee involved in accessing medical records without a proper reason to do so may be best advised to resign, in order to avoid having a dismissal on their records."

The clinic's boss said that all appropriate investigatory, regulatory and disciplinary steps will be taken when looking at alleged data breaches.

Al Russell, said in a statement:

"Everyone at the London Clinic is acutely aware of our individual, professional, ethical and legal duties with regards to patient confidentiality.

We take enormous pride in the outstanding care and discretion we aim to deliver for all our patients that put their trust in us every day.

We have systems in place to monitor management of patient information and, in the case of any breach, all appropriate investigatory, regulatory and disciplinary steps will be taken.

There is no place at our hospital for those who intentionally breach the trust of any of our patients or colleagues."

It is a criminal offence for any staff in an NHS or private healthcare setting to access the medical records of a patient without the consent of the organisation's data controller.

Looking at somebody's private medical records without permission can result in prosecution from the Information Commissioner's Office in the UK.

A spokesperson for the data watchdog said:

"We can confirm that we have received a breach report and are assessing the information provided."

Jon Baines, Senior Data Protection Specialist at Mishcon de Reya, outlined what this would mean and suggested that Catherine could claim for compensation.

"Any investigation by the ICO is likely to consider whether a criminal offence might have been committed by an individual or individuals," he began.

"Section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018 says that a person commits an offence if they obtain or disclose personal data 'without the consent of the controller.'

Here, the controller will be the clinic itself.

"Although there are defences available to someone charged with the offence — such as that they reasonably believed they had the right to 'obtain' the personal data, or on grounds of public interest — such defences are unlikely to apply where someone knowingly accesses patient notes for no valid or justifiable reason.

Mr Baines explained that an offence is only punishable by a fine.

In England and Wales, although the maximum fine is unlimited, there is no possibility of any custodial sentence.

"A further area of potential investigation for the ICO will be whether the clinic itself complied with its obligations under the UK GDPR to have 'appropriate technical or organisational measures' in place to keep personal data secure.," the data expert continued.

"Serious failures to comply with that obligation could lead to civil monetary penalties from the ICO, to a maximum of £17.5m although, in reality, given that such civil fines must be proportionate, it is rare that such large sums are even considered by the ICO.

Individuals, such as - in this case - The Princess of Wales, can also bring claims for compensation under the UK GDPR, and for 'misuse of private information', where their data protection and privacy rights have been infringed."

Mr Baines added:

"Whatever the outcome from the ICO, anyone working in an environment where they might have access to personal data, particularly of a sensitive nature, should be aware that there are potential criminal law implications arising from unauthorised access.

Any organisation holding such information should ensure it has appropriate measures in place to prevent, or at least reduce the risk, of such access."

Earlier today, a health minister said police have "been asked to look at" whether staff at The London Clinic attempted to access the Princess of Wales' private medical records.

MP Maria Caulfield, who is a nurse serving as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Mental Health and Women's Health Strategy, said there could be “hefty implications” if it turns out anyone accessed the notes without permission, including prosecution or fines.

When questioned whether it should be dealt with as a police matter, Ms Caulfield told LBC:

“Whether they take action is a matter for them. But the Information Commissioner can also take prosecutions, can also issue fines, the NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council), other health regulators can strike you off the register if the breach is serious enough.

So there are particularly hefty implications if you are looking at notes for medical records that you should not be looking at."

Reassuring listeners, she also told Times Radio:

"For any patient, you want to reassure your listeners that there are strict rules in place around information governance about being able to look at notes even within the trust or a community setting.

You can't just randomly look at any patient's notes. It's taken extremely seriously, both by the information commissioner but also your regulator.

So the NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council), if as a nurse, you are accessing notes that you haven't got permission to access, they would take enforcement action against that. So it's extremely serious.

And I want to reassure patients that their notes have those strict rules apply to them as they do for the Princess of Wales."

Kensington Palace refused to confirm what Catherine was being treated for at the time of the announcement she had surgery but later confirmed the condition was non-cancerous.

An official statement read:

"Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales was admitted to The London Clinic yesterday for planned abdominal surgery.

The surgery was successful and it is expected that she will remain in hospital for ten to fourteen days, before returning home to continue her recovery."

The Palace also raised that they wanted to keep her health concerns private, adding:

"Based on the current medical advice, she is unlikely to return to public duties until after Easter. The Princess of Wales appreciates the interest this statement will generate.

She hopes that the public will understand her desire to maintain as much normality for her children as possible; and her wish that her personal medical information remains private.

Kensington Palace will, therefore, only provide updates on Her Royal Highness' progress when there is significant new information to share.

The Princess of Wales wishes to apologise to all those concerned for the fact that she has to postpone her upcoming engagements.

She looks forward to reinstating as many as possible, as soon as possible."

As speculation has swirled regarding the Princess' whereabouts, Catherine was most recently seen stepping out in public with Prince William for the first time at the weekend.

The couple, dressed in sportswear, were spotted walking with shopping bags at a farm shop close to their home on the Windsor estate.

[asaxophony]

Legitimately confusing to still see artists and ppl recommending glaze/nightshade and acting like it's the end all be all when how effective both are is still kind of eeeeeh?

Glaze also tends to chew up and compress your images to the point ppl have to go back in and put filters over it. There also seems to be a really large misunderstanding on how Glaze functions, especially on this site.

Glaze changes a specific range of the art ran through it to be read by diffusion as a different style. Generally it's changing pixels and code within the image so ultimately it does end up changing the image, often adding visual noise in the form of swirls or giving it a crunchy compressed look. Depending on how far you run the art through Glaze it can come out looking like a badly compressed jpeg. Glaze does this using the same sort of AI tech. The end result occasionally needs to be run through filters to get it too not look shit. The ultimate goal of Glaze is if someone is training directly from your art, and it's all been ran through Glaze the person won't be able to get a solid style from it, so the images trained off of it will be off from your specific style and not able to replicate it believably. It does not prevent img2img.

Generally Glaze's adversal noise is now robust enough to not be easily edited or taken out by the ai bros, this definitely was not the case on its release. So definitely use it but just keep in mind how it functions and weigh the pros and cons of like it crunching art, and any art posted on the web has a chance of being scraped.

I've seen some arguments basically being like well its the equivalent of crunching you art down into shitty jpegs, no one is going to train off of something that looks like shit which is I think definitely like yeah art has the downside of ot having to be visually vlear and good looking g for it to function so you can ultimately only change it so much before it deviates too much from the artists original intent and vision.

[nationallawreview]

Consumer Privacy Update: What Organizations Need to Know About Impending State Privacy Laws Going into Effect in 2024 and 2025

Over the past several years, the number of states with comprehensive consumer data privacy laws has increased exponentially from just a handful—California, Colorado, Virginia, Connecticut, and Utah—to up to twenty by some counts. Many of these state laws will go into effect starting Q4 of 2024 through 2025. We have previously written in more detail on New Jersey’s comprehensive data privacy law,…

[technijianravi]

Critical Windows Update: Apply Patch Now to Prevent Black Basta Ransomware

[jcmarchi]

How the EU AI Act and Privacy Laws Impact Your AI Strategies (and Why You Should Be Concerned)

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/how-the-eu-ai-act-and-privacy-laws-impact-your-ai-strategies-and-why-you-should-be-concerned/

How the EU AI Act and Privacy Laws Impact Your AI Strategies (and Why You Should Be Concerned)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing industries, streamlining processes, improving decision-making, and unlocking previously unimagined innovations. But at what cost? As we witness AI’s rapid evolution, the European Union (EU) has introduced the EU AI Act, which strives to ensure these powerful tools are developed and used responsibly.

The Act is a comprehensive regulatory framework designed to govern the deployment and use of AI across member nations. Coupled with stringent privacy laws like the EU GDPR and California’s Consumer Privacy Act, the Act is a critical intersection of innovation and regulation. Navigating this new, complex landscape is a legal obligation and a strategic necessity, and businesses using AI will have to reconcile their innovation ambitions with rigorous compliance requirements.

Yet, concerns are mounting that the EU AI Act, while well-intentioned, could inadvertently stifle innovation by imposing overly stringent regulations on AI developers. Critics argue that the rigorous compliance requirements, particularly for high-risk AI systems, could bog developers down with too much red tape, slowing down the pace of innovation and increasing operational costs.

Moreover, although the EU AI Act’s risk-based approach aims to protect the public’s interest, it could lead to cautious overregulation that hampers the creative and iterative processes crucial for groundbreaking AI advancements. The implementation of the AI Act must be closely monitored and adjusted as needed to ensure it protects society’s interests without impeding the industry’s dynamic growth and innovation potential.

The EU AI Act is landmark legislation creating a legal framework for AI that promotes innovation while protecting the public interest. The Act’s core principles are rooted in a risk-based approach, classifying AI systems into different categories based on their potential risks to fundamental rights and safety.

Risk-Based Classification

The Act classifies AI systems into four risk levels: unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and minimal risk. Systems deemed to pose an intolerable risk, such as those used for social scoring by governments, are banned outright. High-risk systems include those used as a safety component in products or those under the Annex III use cases. High-risk AI systems cover sectors including critical infrastructure, education, biometrics, immigration, and employment. These sectors rely on AI for important functions, making the regulation and oversight of such systems crucial. Some examples of these functions may include:

Predictive maintenance analyzing data from sensors and other sources to predict equipment failures

Security monitoring and analysis of footage to detect unusual activities and potential threats

Fraud detection through analysis of documentation and activity within immigration systems.

Administrative automation for education and other industries

AI systems classified as high risk are subject to strict compliance requirements, such as establishing a comprehensive risk management framework throughout the AI system’s lifecycle and implementing robust data governance measures. This ensures that the AI systems are developed, deployed, and monitored in a way that mitigates risks and protects the rights and safety of individuals.

Objectives

The primary objectives are to ensure that AI systems are safe, respect fundamental rights and are developed in a trustworthy manner. This includes mandating robust risk management systems, high-quality datasets, transparency, and human oversight.

Penalties

Non-compliance with the EU AI Act can result in hefty fines, potentially up to 6% of a company’s global annual turnover. These harsh penalties highlight the importance of adherence and the severe consequences of oversight.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is another vital piece of the regulatory puzzle, significantly impacting AI development and deployment. GDPR’s stringent data protection standards present several challenges for businesses using personal data in AI. Similarly, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) significantly impacts AI by requiring companies to disclose data collection practices to ensure that AI models are transparent, accountable, and respectful of user privacy.

Data Challenges

AI systems need massive amounts of data to train effectively. However, the principles of data minimization and purpose limitation restrict the use of personal data to what is strictly necessary and for specified purposes only. This creates a conflict between the need for extensive datasets and legal compliance.

Transparency and Consent

Privacy laws mandate that entities be transparent about collecting, using, and processing personal data and obtain explicit consent from individuals. For AI systems, particularly those involving automated decision-making, this means ensuring that users are informed about how their data will be used and that they consent to said use.

The Rights of Individuals

Privacy regulations also give people rights over their data, including the right to access, correct, and delete their information and to object to automated decision-making. This adds a layer of complexity for AI systems that rely on automated processes and large-scale data analytics.

The EU AI Act and other privacy laws are not just legal formalities – they will reshape AI strategies in several ways.

AI System Design and Development

Companies must integrate compliance considerations from the ground up to ensure their AI systems meet the EU’s risk management, transparency, and oversight requirements. This may involve adopting new technologies and methodologies, such as explainable AI and robust testing protocols.

Data Collection and Processing Practices

Compliance with privacy laws requires revisiting data collection strategies to enforce data minimization and obtain explicit user consent. On the one hand, this might limit data availability for training AI models; on the other hand, it could push organizations towards developing more sophisticated methods of synthetic data generation and anonymization.

Risk Assessment and Mitigation

Thorough risk assessment and mitigation procedures will be crucial for high-risk AI systems. This includes conducting regular audits and impact assessments and establishing internal controls to continually monitor and manage AI-related risks.

Transparency and Explainability

The EU AI Act and privacy acts stress the importance of transparency and explainability in AI systems. Businesses must develop interpretable AI models that provide clear, understandable explanations of their decisions and processes to end-users and regulators alike.

Again, there’s the danger these regulatory demands will increase operational costs and slow innovation thanks to added layers of compliance and oversight. However, there’s a real opportunity to build more robust, trustworthy AI systems that could enhance user confidence in the end and ensure long-term sustainability.

AI and regulations are always evolving, so businesses must proactively adapt their AI governance strategies to find the balance between innovation and compliance. Governance frameworks, regular audits, and fueling a culture of transparency will be key to aligning with the EU AI Act and privacy requirements outlined in GDPR and CCPA.

As we reflect on AI’s future, the question remains: Is the EU stifling innovation, or are these regulations the necessary guardrails to ensure AI benefits society as a whole? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: the intersection of AI and regulation will remain a dynamic and challenging space.

[today-in-the-past]

The NSA Surveillance Leak: Unveiling a New Era of Privacy Concerns

On June 7, 2013, a revelation shook the foundations of the American public's perception of privacy and government surveillance. A leaked document exposed that the United States' National Security Agency (NSA) had been systematically collecting telephone records of millions of Americans. This unprecedented disclosure not only sparked widespread debates but also cast a long-lasting shadow over the balance between national security and individual privacy.

The Leak and Its Immediate Impact

The explosive information came to light through the efforts of Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, who provided classified documents to journalists from The Guardian and The Washington Post. The leaked document detailed how the NSA, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), had compelled telecom giant Verizon to hand over phone records, including call duration, time, location, and the participating numbers.

The immediate reaction was one of shock and outrage. Americans were confronted with the realization that their government was conducting mass surveillance on its own citizens without their knowledge. The disclosure ignited a fierce public debate over the scope and legality of such surveillance programs.

Legal and Ethical Controversies

At the heart of the controversy was the delicate balance between national security and the right to privacy. The government defended the program by arguing that it was essential for preventing terrorist attacks and protecting national security. Officials cited the Patriot Act, specifically Section 215, as the legal basis for their actions.

Legislative and Judicial Responses

The backlash prompted a series of legislative and judicial responses aimed at curbing the NSA's surveillance capabilities. In 2015, Congress passed the USA Freedom Act, which ended the bulk collection of telephone metadata by the NSA. The new legislation required the agency to obtain a targeted warrant from the FISA court to access specific records from telecom companies.

Judicially, the issue saw various rulings. In May 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records was illegal, stating that the Patriot Act did not authorize such sweeping surveillance.

The Global Impact and Ongoing Debate

The NSA leak had ramifications far beyond the United States. It revealed the extent of global surveillance efforts, showing that the NSA had been monitoring the communications of world leaders, international organizations, and foreign nationals. This disclosure strained diplomatic relations and fueled a worldwide debate on privacy and surveillance.

A decade after the leak, the conversation about privacy in the digital age continues to evolve. The rise of social media, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence has introduced new dimensions to the debate. Governments and tech companies are continually grappling with how to protect user privacy while addressing security concerns.

Conclusion

The 2013 NSA leak was a watershed moment in the history of privacy and surveillance. It highlighted the tension between national security imperatives and the fundamental right to privacy. While significant strides have been made to regulate surveillance practices, the debate remains highly relevant in an increasingly digital world. The legacy of the leak serves as a constant reminder of the need for vigilance in protecting civil liberties in the face of evolving technological capabilities.

Sources:

The Guardian - The Washington Post - ACLU - EFF

[mostlysignssomeportents]

In 1998, Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which prohibits online service providers from collecting the data of children under the age of 13 without parental consent.

COPPA is remarkable, first because it is one of the very, very few federal privacy guarantees enacted by Congress, an exclusive club whose founding member is the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, passed by Members of Congress panicked at the thought of video-store clerks leaking their porn rental histories.

But the other remarkable thing about COPPA is how poorly it is enforced.

In this regard, COPPA is very similar to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the EU’s 2016 landmark privacy law. The GDPR has many more moving parts than COPPA, as befits a general data-protection regulation, but at core, the GDPR seeks to incinerate the absurd fiction at the root of commercial surveillance: namely, that we “consent” to commercial surveillance by clicking “I agree” on long, unreadable terms of service.

Under the GDPR, companies that want to collect, sell or process your data need to explain themselves, clearly: they have to tell you what they’re collecting and how they plan on using it.

-How To Make a Child-Safe TikTok: Have you tried not spying on kids?

[lawforeverything]

Digital personal data protection act 2023

On this page you will read detailed information about Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023.

As a user of digital technologies and services in the modern world, you generate a significant amount of personal data on a daily basis. Your personal data has become an extremely valuable commodity, and it is often collected, used, and shared by companies and organizations in ways you may not fully understand or consent to. To address growing concerns over the use and protection of personal data, lawmakers have been working to establish comprehensive data privacy laws. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 is the latest legislative effort to strengthen data privacy rights and give individuals more control over their personal information in the digital age.

What Is the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023?

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) is a law passed in 2023 to strengthen data privacy rights and give people more control over their personal information. The DPDPA establishes a set of comprehensive data privacy protections for individuals. It regulates how companies can collect, use, and share personal information.

Under the DPDPA, companies must obtain your consent before collecting or sharing your personal data. Personal data refers to any information that can be used to identify you, such as your name, address, Social Security number, biometric data, internet activity, geolocation, and more. Companies must clearly explain how your data will be used in a privacy policy and terms of service. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time.

The DPDPA requires companies to limit data collection to only what is necessary for their services. They must delete or de-identify personal data when it is no longer needed. You have the right to access, correct, delete, and port your personal data. Porting data means transferring it from one service provider to another.

Some additional protections in the DPDPA include data minimization, purpose limitation, data security, transparency, and accountability. Companies must implement appropriate security safeguards to protect personal data from loss, misuse, unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration, and destruction. They must report data breaches to affected individuals and government agencies within 72 hours.

The DPDPA establishes the Digital Privacy Commission (DPC) to enforce the law. The DPC has the authority to investigate violations, issue fines, and pursue legal action against companies that fail to comply. Fines can be up to 4% of annual global revenue.

In summary, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 grants individuals more control and protection over their personal information in the digital age. It forces companies to be transparent in how data is collected and used, and hold them accountable for privacy and security violations. The DPDPA marks an important step forward for data privacy rights.

Key Provisions in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) was enacted to strengthen data privacy rights and protections for individuals. Some of the key provisions in the DPDPA include:

Data Privacy Rights

The DPDPA grants individuals certain rights regarding their personal data, including:

The right to access their personal data collected by companies. Individuals can request a report on what personal data a company has collected about them, how it’s used, and with whom it’s shared.

The right to correct inaccurate personal data. If an individual’s data is incomplete or incorrect, they have the right to request that the company update or amend the information.

The right to delete personal data, also known as “the right to be forgotten.” Individuals can request that a company delete their personal data under certain circumstances, such as if the data is no longer necessary for the purpose it was collected.

The right to opt out of the sale or sharing of personal data. Individuals have the right to request that a company not sell or share their personal information with third parties.

The right to data portability. Individuals have the right to request a transfer of their data to another controller or service provider in a commonly used format. For example, transferring photos from one social network to another.

Data Collection and Use Limitations

The DPDPA places restrictions on how companies can collect and use individuals’ personal data. Some of the key limitations include:

Requiring valid legal grounds for collecting and using personal data, such as the individual’s consent or to fulfill a contract.

-Limiting the collection of personal data to only what is necessary for the specified and legitimate purposes. Excessive data collection is prohibited.

Requiring transparency about how personal data is collected, used, shared and secured. Companies must provide clear and easy to understand privacy policies and notices.

Implementing data security measures like encryption and access controls to protect personal data from unauthorized access, theft or breach. Failure to do so can result in significant penalties.

Restricting the use of personal data for purposes beyond what the individual has consented to or what is necessary to fulfill the legitimate interests of the company. Personal data cannot be used in ways that could negatively impact or discriminate against individuals.

How the Act Protects Personal Data Privacy

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 (DPDPA) aims to strengthen data privacy rights and give individuals more control over their personal information in the digital age. Under the DPDPA, companies are required to obtain your consent before collecting or sharing your personal data. They must clearly disclose how your data will be used in an easy-to-understand privacy policy. You have the right to access your data, correct inaccuracies, delete it, or opt out of data collection altogether.

Limits on Data Collection and Use

The DPDPA places restrictions on companies’ ability to collect and use personal data. They can only collect data that is directly relevant and necessary to accomplish a specified purpose that you have consented to. Your data cannot be used for any undisclosed secondary purposes. Companies must also put reasonable security measures in place to protect your data from unauthorized access, disclosure, or hacking.

Right to Access and Delete Your Data

You have the right to request a copy of all the personal data a company has collected about you. This includes metadata, inferences, and any profiles they have created. You can also request that your data be deleted, and the company must comply unless they can demonstrate a legitimate reason for needing to retain it. When you delete your data, the company must also delete any profiles or models that were built using your data.

For complete information please visit :