Search results

Today, FPF released a new report on the effectiveness of a key federal children’s privacy requirement known as verifiable parental consent (VPC). The Children’s Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA) requires operators of child-directed services to provide parents with detailed, direct notice and obtain parents’ affirmative express consent – verifiable parental consent – […]

[…] features, including a mechanism to report “harmful or unwanted” behavior. The children’s and health provisions of SB 3 appear to be informed by the California Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) and the recently enacted Washington State My Health, My Data Act, respectively, but contain numerous important distinctions.  FPF has prepared a comparison chart to help […]

[…] alongside technological and societal developments. The Model Framework is also technology-, industry-, scale- and business-model agnostic.  Substantively, the Model Framework is guided by two fundamental principles to promote trust and understanding in AI. First, organizations using AI in decision-making should ensure that the decision-making process is explainable, transparent and fair. Second, AI systems should […]

[…] communities. Addressing underrepresentation in data requires improved data collection methodologies that acknowledge the diversity within the AANHPI population, allocate resources to support comprehensive data collection efforts, and promote disaggregated reporting. Policymakers and researchers should work collaboratively with AANHPI communities to ensure accurate and representative data collection, analysis, and interpretation to inform policies that address […]

[…] the Review Report’s proposal to grant the OAIC the power to determine codes of practice, the Report proposes that the OAIC should issue a “Children’s Online Privacy Code” for online services that are likely to be accessed by children. The Code would align with the UK’s Age Appropriate Design Code, and would provide guidance […]

[…] in California AADC, Section 2 defines “substantial harm or privacy risk” to include: mental health disorders; addictive behaviors; physical violence, online bullying and harassment; sexual exploitation; the promotion and marketing or tobacco, gambling, alcohol, or narcotic drugs; and predatory, unfair, or deceptive marketing practices or other financial harms. Both the California AADC and Section […]

[…] law in Vietnam, Vietnam’s first legislative instrument on personal data protection takes the form of a “decree,” which is ranked lower in Vietnam’s statutory hierarchy than a code or law, and it is the result of executive action. A benefit of enacting a decree is that it can be done so more easily, without […]

Today, the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) — a global non-profit focused on data protection headquartered in Washington, D.C. — announced the winners of the third annual Award for Research Data Stewardship.  FPF is a long-standing advocate for privacy-protective data sharing by industry to the research community to advance scientific insights and drive […]

[…] Most notably, our CEO Jules Polonetsky was the recipient of the 2023 IAPP Leadership Award, given to individuals who “demonstrate an ongoing commitment to furthering privacy policy, promoting recognition of privacy issues, and advancing the growth and visibility of the profession.” Jules has served as FPF’s CEO for the last 15 years. “The Privacy […]

[…] may seek the input of data subjects or their representatives before approval (Section 65). The Act does not specifically mention that each controller must develop their own code of ethics; the broad provision gives leeway for controllers to either do so independently or as a group. Data Subject Rights: From Absolute Opt-Out of Commercial […]