Modernizing privacy for the new IT
The Internet has transformed the way we think about innovation and how we achieve economic growth.
October 31, 2013 at 08:00 PM
7 minute read
The Internet has transformed the way we think about innovation and how we achieve economic growth. There are close to three billion users connected to the Internet and that number will continue to grow. Virtual computing, and now cloud computing, has expanded the potential of the Internet by offering greater options and improved services—from e-mail to social networking to consumers, and online shared services for business that reduce costs, improve efficiencies, and expand reach. But with this new form of IT comes new risks that must be addressed.
Regulators worldwide have growing concerns about upholding the right to privacy in the cloud. The amount of data in play, how it may be collected, who can access it and how it may be used have fundamentally changed.
The majority of our privacy and data protection laws were created before widespread use of the Internet, let alone the cloud. These laws and associated regulations must be modernized to match a global Internet-based economy and data-rich environment. Given the importance of Internet-based services to the economy and consumers, these new frameworks must balance the tension between innovation and legitimate privacy rights. The key is organizational accountability and social responsibility.
Organizations need to become good data stewards and be held accountable for achieving an appropriate level of protection without being hindered in their ability to innovate globally. Unless we evolve our legal frameworks, our current laws will continue to struggle to keep pace with new technologies and business models, and organizations will further lose clarity on how to comply.
A successful approach to modernizing these frameworks should focus on a principles-based approach, keeping the following in mind:
-
Outcomes. Clearly stating what needs to be achieved, not how an organization achieves it.
-
Clarity. The obligation should be clear so organizations know if they are compliant.
-
Implementation. Outcomes need to be practical, both technically and commercially.
-
Technological Neutrality. It must avoid specifying specific solutions in achieving a requirement to ensure flexibility and scalability.
-
Encouragement of Innovation. Respect for privacy should not be mutually exclusive of innovation.
-
Global Interoperablity. New frameworks need to harmonize goals and outcomes and allow data and associated protections to flow freely.
-
Respect for Context. Not all consumers, data, relationships, or social norms are equal. Allow for a range of different situations.
-
Predictable Enforcement. Compliant organizations should have a level of certainty that bad actors will be the subject of meaningful enforcement actions.
In an environment where more and more data is being collected ubiquitously, analytic tools are making it easier to discover and apply insights. The environment is shifting from traditional, single data controllers to distributed controllers and processors. Lawmakers and regulators must evolve to an outcomes-based approach to ensure data protection. Individual participation and autonomy have become less effective in some of these new environments, and we need solutions that respect privacy rights when concepts like consent are not feasible or practical. Collection is an important principle, but harms generally emerge based on how data is used. Shifting the nexus from collection to use may be a solution when consent is impractical.
Moving to this new paradigm is going to require change in the private sector as well. We need to encourage lawmakers to evolve these frameworks, but we also need to demonstrate that we can be trusted, that we have comprehensive programs that allow us to understand the risks we may create, and that we proactively work to mitigate those risks effectively. The only way we'll achieve the changes that are necessary to ensure privacy protection in the new IT is to work together—lawmakers, regulators, civil society and industry.
The Internet has transformed the way we think about innovation and how we achieve economic growth. There are close to three billion users connected to the Internet and that number will continue to grow. Virtual computing, and now cloud computing, has expanded the potential of the Internet by offering greater options and improved services—from e-mail to social networking to consumers, and online shared services for business that reduce costs, improve efficiencies, and expand reach. But with this new form of IT comes new risks that must be addressed.
Regulators worldwide have growing concerns about upholding the right to privacy in the cloud. The amount of data in play, how it may be collected, who can access it and how it may be used have fundamentally changed.
The majority of our privacy and data protection laws were created before widespread use of the Internet, let alone the cloud. These laws and associated regulations must be modernized to match a global Internet-based economy and data-rich environment. Given the importance of Internet-based services to the economy and consumers, these new frameworks must balance the tension between innovation and legitimate privacy rights. The key is organizational accountability and social responsibility.
Organizations need to become good data stewards and be held accountable for achieving an appropriate level of protection without being hindered in their ability to innovate globally. Unless we evolve our legal frameworks, our current laws will continue to struggle to keep pace with new technologies and business models, and organizations will further lose clarity on how to comply.
A successful approach to modernizing these frameworks should focus on a principles-based approach, keeping the following in mind:
-
Outcomes. Clearly stating what needs to be achieved, not how an organization achieves it.
-
Clarity. The obligation should be clear so organizations know if they are compliant.
-
Implementation. Outcomes need to be practical, both technically and commercially.
-
Technological Neutrality. It must avoid specifying specific solutions in achieving a requirement to ensure flexibility and scalability.
-
Encouragement of Innovation. Respect for privacy should not be mutually exclusive of innovation.
-
Global Interoperablity. New frameworks need to harmonize goals and outcomes and allow data and associated protections to flow freely.
-
Respect for Context. Not all consumers, data, relationships, or social norms are equal. Allow for a range of different situations.
-
Predictable Enforcement. Compliant organizations should have a level of certainty that bad actors will be the subject of meaningful enforcement actions.
In an environment where more and more data is being collected ubiquitously, analytic tools are making it easier to discover and apply insights. The environment is shifting from traditional, single data controllers to distributed controllers and processors. Lawmakers and regulators must evolve to an outcomes-based approach to ensure data protection. Individual participation and autonomy have become less effective in some of these new environments, and we need solutions that respect privacy rights when concepts like consent are not feasible or practical. Collection is an important principle, but harms generally emerge based on how data is used. Shifting the nexus from collection to use may be a solution when consent is impractical.
Moving to this new paradigm is going to require change in the private sector as well. We need to encourage lawmakers to evolve these frameworks, but we also need to demonstrate that we can be trusted, that we have comprehensive programs that allow us to understand the risks we may create, and that we proactively work to mitigate those risks effectively. The only way we'll achieve the changes that are necessary to ensure privacy protection in the new IT is to work together—lawmakers, regulators, civil society and industry.
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
© 2025 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 AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Arguing Class Actions: With Friends Like These...
- 2How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 3Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 4Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
- 5Weil Adds Acting Director of SEC Enforcement, Continuing Government Hiring Streak
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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