Search results

[…] NO Article 3(e) product manufacturer / distributor / importer /  user / third-party responsible to perform the CA Step 2 When to perform a CA? EX ANTE Before placing the AI system on the EU market or putting it into service (definitions in Art 3(9,11)) EX POST IF Afer placing the AI system on the EU market or putting it into service: Substantial modification to the AI system• NEW AI system • NEW CA required IF reasons of public security or the protection of life and health of  persons, environmental protection, and the protection of key industrial  and infrastructural assets  high-risk AI system placed on the market without a prior CA. (Art 47) Continued overleaf AI system that continues to learn +  pre-determined changes documented  in the initial CA no new CA required. 1200 Abernathy Rd NE, Building 600 | Atlanta,  Georgia | United States | 30328 Atlanta | London | Bangalore | Melbourne | Denver| Seattle | San Francisco | New York | São Paulo | Munich | Paris | Hong Kong | Bangkok As society redefines risk and opportunity, OneTrust empowers tomorrow’s leaders to succeed through trust and impact with the Trust Intelligence Platform. The market-defining Trust  Intelligence Platform from OneTrust connects privacy, GRC, ethics, and ESG teams, data, and processes, so all companies can collaborate seamlessly and put trust at the center of their  operations and culture by unlocking their value and potential to thrive by doing what’s good for people and the planet. Copyright © 2023 Future of Privacy Forum and OneTrust LLC.   Please contact Future of Privacy Forum or OneTrust for questions about commercial use of this publication. Step 3 What body is conducting the CA? INTERNAL CA THIRD-PARTY CA PROVIDER (or any other responsible actor) NOTIFIED BODY (NB) ANNEX VI AIA – Quality Management System (Art 17) – Technical documentation (Art 11) and verification of  compliance with the Requirements of Title III, Chapter 2 – Design & development process is  consistent with the technical documentation – Post-market monitoring (Art 61) is  consistent with the technical documentation ANNEX VII AIA – Assesses the Quality Management System (Art 17) – Assessed the Technical documentation (Art 11) Provider submits two applications to the NB 1. For the QMS 2. […]

[…] in the online services their kids use. Still, it cannot be the entire solution, and parents will not always be able to make informed decisions. Children’s design codes are placing an emphasis on the design of online services to avoid placing an overwhelming burden on the shoulders of parents. This emphasis works productively in […]

[…] •Utah (SB 152)•Requires parental consent to minors’ use of social media and requires age verification government-issued ID•Other states: Mississippi (S 2346); Louisiana (H 77); Montana (S 544); Virginia (S 1515)PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL10Age Verification Laws •Utah (SB 152)•Prohibits minors from accessing social media platforms between 10:30 pm and 6:30 amPRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL11Social Media Metering Laws […]

[…] – more broadly – any internet services with kids or teens as part of their audience. This panel will explore the basic principles behind Age Appropriate Design Codes, the variations in youth privacy approaches, and how global organizations are approaching these issues. Join us for a discussion to uncover these emerging issues and their […]

[…] to protect individuals in relation to how their personal data is processed, ensuring that such processing respects their fundamental rights, while at the same time seeking to promote the free movement of personal data within the EU.   While the two regulations do not have the same taxonomy of regulated actors, the broad scope of […]

[…] DATA MINIMIZATION POLICIES INVESTIGATIONS ACCOUNTABILITY TRANSPARENCY GOVERNANCE TRAINING FIPPS CONSUMER & PUBLIC EDUCATION SUBJECT ACCESS REQUESTS VENDOR & PARTNER DUE DILIGENCE DE-IDENTIFICATION PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS COMPLIANCE DASHBOARDS CODES OF CONDUCT PRIVACY BY DESIGN LEGAL REVIEW POLICY TEAM SELF REGULATION BEST PRACTICES RISK OFFICERS CONSENT MANAGEMENT ETHICAL REVIEWS DATA INVENTORY CERTIFICATION DATA MAPPING & DISCOVERY […]

[…] the full Case Study Report. Data Sharing Type: Closed Trusted Partnerships ORGANIZATION AND PARTNERS Company Founded in 2011, Gravy Analytics is a location technology company based in Virginia with about 60 employees and a reported annual revenue of $16.9 million in 2022. 1 The company primarily provides location data and analytics to other companies […]

[…] at a larger scale in applied settings and potentially infer causality. Organization and Partners Company Founded in 2011, Gravy Analytics is a location technology company based in Virginia with about 60 employees and a reported annual revenue of $16.9 million in 2022. 7 The company primarily provides location data and analytics to other companies […]

[…] transfer impractical, further expenses such as hosting and computation are required. RISKS AND BENEFITS Risks The data sharing team said that the absence of clear regulation or codes of practice regarding things like liability structures and vetting and the responsibilities of researchers leave it up to companies to make many data sharing decisions on […]