De-Identification

As FPF’s work expands to include an international audience, we are pleased to relaunch FPF’s popular infographics in various languages. Because conversations around data protection have become more global, the need for high-quality information and new forms of communication in different languages continues to increase.  The infographics translation project aims to help FPF provide a […]

Author: John Verdi (Vice President of Policy) This week, SB 980 (the “Genetic Information Privacy Act”) passed the California State Assembly and State Senate, with near unanimous support (54-10 and 39-0). If signed by the Governor before the Sept. 30 deadline, the law would become the first comprehensive genetic privacy law in the United States, […]

By Pollyanna Sanderson (Policy Counsel), Katelyn Ringrose (Christopher Wolf Diversity Law Fellow) & Stacey Gray (Senior Policy Counsel)   Today, on the first day of a rapid-fire 2020 legislative session in the state of Washington, State Senator Carlyle has introduced a new version of the Washington Privacy Act (WPA). Legislators revealed the Act during a live press […]

FPF uses Facebook Live to discuss timely topics. Watch some of our previous videos here and be sure to tune in live for our next discussion!

Last week, the Future of Privacy Forum filed written comments in response to the California Public Utilities Commission’s proposed decision authorizing pilot programs for passenger service in Autonomous Vehicles. The CPUC is a consumer protection agency that oversees, among other topics, provision of passenger service in the state. The proposed decision called for a number of criteria to be met by companies seeking to operate AV passenger service, including reporting of communications between passengers and remote operators of driverless AVs, as well as aggregated operations data.

Strava’s location data controversy demonstrates the unique challenges of publicly releasing location datasets (open data), even when the data is aggregated.

The Future of Privacy Forum filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to the FCC’s proposed rules regarding the privacy and data practices of Internet Services Providers (ISPs). The FCC’s March 31, 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM or Notice) seeks to regulate ISP’s data practices pursuant to Section 222 of the Communications Act – a sector-specific statute that includes detailed requirements that apply to telecommunications services, but does not apply to other services offered by broadband providers nor to online services operating at the edge of the network (e.g. web sites).

The Future of Privacy Forum, EY, and Privacy Analytics are hosting an event to share and advance practices and policies around de-identification. This all day forum will include panel discussions on topics such as emerging policy questions, de-identification case studies, implementation and best practices, and the role of controls. We encourage audience participation and knowledge sharing. Wednesday, April 13, […]

Each year, FPF invites privacy scholars and authors to submit articles and papers to be considered by members of our Advisory Board, with an aim toward showcasing those articles that should inform any conversation about privacy among policymakers in Congress, as well as at the Federal Trade Commission and in other government agencies. For our […]

Later today, Peter Swire, FPF Senior Fellow, will participate at the FCC’s public workshop on broadband consumer privacy. He also prepared written comments expanding on his thoughts. Professor Swire summarizes his research as follows: First, I examine the effect of the Section 222(a) definition of “proprietary information” as compared with the Section 222(c) definition of […]