Evolving PII Definitions May Make AI-Only Review Too Risky
What constitutes personally identifiable information (PII) is becoming more nuanced and less cookie-cutter, so companies are turning to their counsel to oversee the AI technology tasked with PII identification.
December 23, 2019 at 11:00 AM
3 minute read
The days of names, addresses and dates of birth being the only details that fall under the definition of personally identifiable information (PII) are fleeting. As companies wait for case law to establish the growing definition more clearly, some are leaning on counsel and AI technology to make the final call on what constitutes PII, and personal health information (PHI) as well.
Nick Schneider, head of business development and strategy at AI solution developer Text IQ, called identifying such information in a company's databases a "teamwork setup."
He said such a process starts with working alongside a corporate client or the client's counsel to get an idea of what's in the company's data sets. Next, the tech company will run its software to identify additional types of PII and PHI. Lastly, the tech team works with data subject experts/lawyers about which data falls under a regulation's scope.
Using AI to help automate the identification of PII or PHI always requires regulatory expertise and knowledge of where a company hosts data. And as new laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) go into effect, closer collaboration between counsel and software developers is needed, Schneider noted.
Perkins Coie partner and ad tech privacy and data management practice co-chair Dominique Shelton Leipzig agreed. "The tech tools, machine learning and AI are more refined. These are great tools, but they just aren't in the position yet to satisfy all the requirements you must meet."
She noted the CCPA considers "persistent identifiers," such as data that is linked to a consumer across different services, personal information. Such PII is difficult for a machine to distinguish and requires a lawyer's review.
Likewise, while a data subject access requests (DSAR) AI-automated tool is great for finding data quickly, the legal team needs to be involved to verify what the legal requirements are.
"Having a tool to grab that data and pull it into a customer's account is very helpful but the problem is, it isn't foolproof yet," Leipzig said.
Still, Seyfarth Shaw partner Richard Lutkus said developers can code algorithms to spot potential personally identifiable information and keep up with PII and PHI's expanding definitions.
The real challenge is convincing clients an AI solution is best to assist their privacy compliance, Lutkus said.
"It takes some discussion with the client to get them comfortable with it, they don't trust the black box of AI," he said. But he noted that when clients realize the large volume of data they need to examine under the strict deadlines imposed by the GDPR, CCPA or a state's data breach notification law, AI-powered PII detection tools may become appealing.
"Now I think people are kind of gathering information and testing and figuring out first what the human process is to figure that out and through that, they are finding it's cumbersome and costly," Lutkus noted.
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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