Privacy Governance and Artificial Intelligence
AI systems continue to advance without a clear consensus on principles or a process to assess and mitigate AI risk. However, many state and federal governments are developing risk measurement and mitigation strategies that parallel privacy governance requirements.
February 13, 2024 at 10:47 PM
6 minute read
The United States does not currently have a comprehensive federal privacy law, though multiple states have begun to fill the void in the absence of federal policy. Similarly, multiple countries outside the United States have passed privacy laws, and most of this legal activity — domestic and international — is not sector- or industry-specific. Against this backdrop, artificial intelligence systems, trained on vast amounts of data, continue to advance without a clear consensus on principles or a process to assess and mitigate AI risk. However, state and federal governments around the world are developing approaches to measuring and mitigating risks, with many of the governance requirements reflecting a parallel to privacy governance requirements.
Privacy practitioners utilize the Fair Information Practice Principles to assess privacy risk. Different countries have adopted variations of this structure, though these principles usually include:
- Access and Amendment — individuals should have access to the information about them and the right to amend or correct inaccurate data;
- Accountability — data stewards must be responsible for adhering to the law and utilizing the Fair Information Practice Principles, and validating those actions through monitoring, auditing, and compliance measures;
- Authority — the data has been collected within the bounds of the law and the collector has authority to collect the information;
- Minimization — organizations should collect only the amount of information they need to accomplish their stated purpose;
- Quality and Integrity — information must be relevant and suitable for the purposes for which it is used and should be accurate, complete, and up to date;
- Individual Participation — an individual has knowledge and provided consent with respect to uses of their personal data, and has the ability to access, amend, or otherwise exercise choice in how the data is used;
- Purpose Specification and Use Limitation — individuals must receive notice about how their information will be used and all uses must be limited to those purposes disclosed at the time of collection;
- Security — data must be appropriately safeguarded and secured, regardless of physical or electronic format; and
- Transparency — organizations should be open about data policies and practices with respect to personally identifiable information.
Thematic consistencies in privacy governance also exist in the international and domestic privacy laws that have been passed. First, these laws are not sector-specific or geographically bound. As a general matter, they tend to apply to any company, regardless of geographic location, that processes personal data of residents covered by the law, even if those companies are not physically located in the jurisdiction.
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Fresh lawsuit hits Oregon city at the heart of Supreme Court ruling on homeless encampments
- 2Ex-Kline & Specter Associate Drops Lawsuit Against the Firm
- 3Am Law 100 Lateral Partner Hiring Rose in 2024: Report
- 4The Importance of Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and Its Impact on Privilege
- 5What’s at Stake in Supreme Court Case Over Religious Charter School?
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