MCCA Panel Talks Privacy, Ethics Rules of the Road for Autonomous Vehicles
Autonomous vehicles could access location, health and other personal data. But who owns it, and should it be shared? Privacy and employment counsel discussed these issues at the MCCA Global TEC Forum.
April 08, 2019 at 07:31 PM
4 minute read
Ride-hailing companies have bet on a future with autonomous vehicles. It's a future filled with privacy compliance complications for in-house counsel.
A panel of outside and in-house counsel discussed autonomous vehicles' data collection and the impacts of future and current privacy regulation, particularly the California Consumer Privacy Act, on the emerging technology at the Minority Corporate Counsel Association's Global TEC Forum on Friday in San Francisco.
Panelist Darah Okeke, senior employment counsel at Uber Technologies Inc., said vehicles can track health, location or safety information, which people may not be comfortable sharing.
“It's really interesting when you see this expanded definition of personal information that now includes … things like how you smell or your size or your weight,” Okeke said. “Things that are really personal to you, things that you often can't change about yourself. And so if we're now in a space where companies are collecting this data about consumers and about drivers, we need to question ourselves.”
Brett Cook, an associate general counsel of data privacy, cybersecurity and investigations for the U.S. Navy, said companies designing or using autonomous vehicles should consider the ethical implications of sharing data with law enforcement. High-tech cars may be able to tell when a person is intoxicated or near a crime scene.
Vehicles can also collect health-habit data about trips to the gym or fast food restaurants, noted moderator Jeewon Kim Serrato, Norton Rose Fulbright's U.S. head of data protection, privacy and cybersecurity and former chief privacy officer of Fannie Mae.
“Do [car owners] have a right to say, 'Hey, Volvo. Hey, Uber. Delete my data. I don't want to be tracked. I don't want the autonomous vehicle to know that I like to have In-N-Out every night at 10 p.m.,'” Serrato asked. ”So what type of data then is necessary to be kept? What is the obligation for a company to keep the data for accounting purposes, for responding to law enforcement?”
Self-driving cars could also raise privacy issues around gathering children's data, Serrato said. CCPA requires opt-in consent from minors between 13 and 16, and a guardian's consent to collect data from children under 13.
Offering rides to mixed-age groups could get complicated. It's unclear how young riders who don't order the car will be notified about their privacy rights or provide consent. Cars could collect the data of children playing on tablets or phones during a ride, as well as location data.
“When you are putting a lot of these automation products and services into the market, and it's the machine who has decided what data to collect … how do you know what data has been collected and to whom it's transferred when there is no human involvement?” Serrato said.
She tossed that scenario to the audience—a mix of around 40 in-house counsel and firm lawyers—to brainstorm, alongside two other scenarios: who owns the data collected by a leased car, and whether location-based suggestion services for restaurants or gas stations should be opt-in.
Many respondents noted these issues are complicated and, at the moment, unclear from a regulatory standpoint. Lior Nuchi, a panelist and Norton Rose Fullbright partner said it's possible companies will see more privacy regulation related to autonomous vehicles in the coming years as public awareness grows.
Cook noted autonomous vehicles' data collection processes can be a good thing if done responsibly, leading to safer vehicles and roads.
“Maybe you want the car to know when you're in danger and you want it to communicate, to get help. Or if your vehicle is faulty … If there's a problem, this data it's collecting and sharing could be used to help you,” Cook said. “How can we be educated on what's needed, and what's just monetary data?
Read More:
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 AllHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Aggressive FTC May Force Merging Companies to Bolster Legal Defenses
4 minute readBest Legal Departments: How Blackstone's Legal and Compliance Team Got the All-Clear to Grow Business
CEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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