Can Privacy by Design Really Keep Regulators at Bay?
A Legalweek panel argued companies should be more proactive developing products and privacy programs, but sometimes that is far easier said than done.
February 07, 2020 at 04:34 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Lawyers and a corporate privacy officer convened to discuss the importance of privacy controls during the "Privacy Engineering ('Privacy by Design'): What Is It & What Do I Need to Know?" panel held on the final day of Legalweek 2020 in New York.
Bristows partner Robert Bond described privacy by design as designing a product or workflow with regulatory compliance and best practices in mind, instead of retroactively trying to meet compliance rules.
To be sure, privacy by design isn't solved entirely by tech engineering, Bond noted. Instead, "quite a lot of it is training people in the business to abide by the policy or have an actual policy in place," he said.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe managing associate Matthew Coleman noted that a privacy approach shouldn't hamper a business's functions, data processing or strategic goals. Along with the policies and protocols proving a company is compliant, privacy by design can be leveraged as a "differentiator" in the marketplace among privacy-minded customers, he added.
But moving toward compliance can be difficult as lawyers wait for California Consumer Privacy Act and General Data Protection Regulation guidance.
"This year is when they are going to unleash it on us," said Stratagem Tech Solutions CEO and founder Amie Taal of the GDPR. "Those cases will provide the legal precedent of how the GDPR will be dealt with by the authorities so we can have case law."
As lawyers wait for case law regarding those new regulations, Fenwick & West technology and e-discovery counsel Robert Brownstone said U.S. government agencies are already stepping up to regulate data practices.
Although there isn't a federal data privacy law in the U.S., Brownstone warned that the Federal Trade Commission is flexing its regulatory authority to verify that companies' privacy notices match their actual practices.
To mitigate data's growing risk, the panel recommended companies map data flows to better manage data subject access requests, and perform data minimization to curb risk. But the best practices for how to provide privacy notices still varies, the panel said.
While the GDPR and CCPA require notices be transparent and "as intuitive as possible," Coleman said every company has to make a decision about how that notice should look depending on how much risk they are willing to take. As such, that "wide approach" confuses consumers.
But from the in-house perspective, drafting a notice that pleases all consumers is difficult, said Slack Technologies Inc. chief privacy officer Megan Cristina. "You are catering to a wide spectrum of people, it's really hard to make one-size-fits all," she said.
Some users are more tech savvy while others are not, which makes feedback regarding updated data policies mixed, she explained.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLexisNexis Responds to Canadian Professor’s Criticism of Lexis+ AI
When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Environmental Fines: Texas Secures Over $100M From Petrochemical Processor TPC Group
3 minute readBaker McKenzie Accepts Defeat on Australian Integration With Firm's Asia Practice
2 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 2GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 3Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 4Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
- 5FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250