One Article Review
| Source |  NoticeBored |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 424902 |
| Date de publication | 2017-10-29 11:54:31 (vue: 2017-10-29 11:54:31) |
| Titre | NBlog October 29 - peddling personal data |
| Texte |  Earlier this month, I blogged about personal data being valuable and hence worth protecting like any asset. But what about commercial exploitation such as selling it to third parties? Is that OK too?Some companies find it perfectly acceptable to Hoover-up all the personal information they can to use or sell to third parties, whereas others take a more conservative and (to my mind) ethical position, limiting personal data collection, using it for necessary internal business activities and refusing to sell or disclose it further (not even to the authorities in the case of Apple). The EU position on this is clear: personal information belongs to the people, not the corporations. Since privacy is a fundamental human right, people must retain control over their personal information, including the ability to limit its collection, accuracy, use and disclosure. The US position is ambiguous, at best. Efforts to tighten-up US laws around privacy and surveillance have been lackluster so far, often being stalled or knocked back by those same tech companies that are busy profiting from personal information, or by the spooks.With the battle lines drawn up, once GDPR comes into effect next May the charge is on. Privacy and unrestricted commercial exploitation of personal information are essentially incompatible, so something has to give. We've already witnessed the failure of a half-baked attempt at self-regulation (Safe Harbor) and it seems Privacy Shield is also faltering. What next?One possibility is a commercial response, where organizations increasingly decline doing business with US corporations that openly exploit and fail to protect personal information. That, coupled with the massive fines under GDPR, might finally drive home the message where it hurts them most: the bottom line. As Rana Foroohar from the Financial Times puts it "Privacy is a competitive advantage. Technology co |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | as the ability about accept acceptable accuracy activities advantage all already also ambiguous and/or another any anyway apple are around asset attempt authorities back baked battle been being belongs best between black blogged bottom business busy but can case charge choice: choose circumstances clear: collection comes commercial companies competitive consent conservative control corporations coupled cultural data decline deliberately disclose disclosed disclosure doing don drawn drive earlier effect efforts elements essentially ethical even exploit exploitation exploited extremes fail failure faltering far finally financial find fine fines foroohar from fully fundamental further gdpr give half harbor has have hence home hoover how human hurts implications including incompatible increasingly information informed internal issue its key knocked knowledge lackluster laws like limit limiting line lines massive matter may message might mind month more most: must nblog necessary next not obtained october often once one openly organizations others over parties peddlers peddling people perfectly perhaps personal personally plenty position possibility privacy profiting protect protecting provided puts quite rana refusing regulation requirements resent response retain right room safe same say see seems self sell selling shield since sneakily some something spooks stalled stewards such surveillance take tech technology that them things third those tighten times too two unacceptable under unrestricted use using valuable voluntarily what when where whereas whether white without witnessed worth |
| Tags | |
| Stories | |
| Notes | |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.