skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Strengths and Weaknesses of Notice and Consent Requirements Under the GDPR, the CCPA/CPRA, and the FCC Broadband Privacy Order
Title: Strengths and Weaknesses of Notice and Consent Requirements Under the GDPR, the CCPA/CPRA, and the FCC Broadband Privacy Order
We compare the notice and consent requirements of the three recent privacy regulations that are most likely to serve as the starting points for the creation of a comprehensive consumer privacy bill in the United States: the European General Data Protection Regulation, the California Consumer Privacy Act/California Privacy Rights Act, and the Federal Communications Commission’s Broadband Privacy Order. We compare the scope of personal information under each regulation, including the test for identifiability and exclusions for de-identified information, and identify problems with their treatment of de-identified information and of pseudonymous information. We compare notice requirements, including the level of required detail and the resulting ability of consumers to understand the use and flow of their personal information, and identify deficiencies with consumers’ ability to track the flow of their personal information. Finally, we compare consumer choices under each regulation, including when a consumer must agree to the use of their personal information in order to utilize a service or application, and find that none of the regulations take full advantage of the range of options, and thereby fail to disincentive tracking.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1956393
PAR ID:
10429180
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Cardozo arts entertainment law journal
Volume:
40
Issue:
1
ISSN:
0736-7694
Page Range / eLocation ID:
113-174
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. (, Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC))
    The computer science literature on identification of people using personal information paints a wide spectrum, from aggregate information that doesn’t contain information about individual people, to information that itself identifies a person. However, privacy laws and regulations often distinguish between only two types, often called personally identifiable information and de-identified information. We show that the collapse of this technological spectrum of identifiability into only two legal definitions results in the failure to encourage privacy-preserving practices. We propose a set of legal definitions that spans the spectrum. We start with anonymous information. Computer science has created anonymization algorithms, including differential privacy, that provide mathematical guarantees that a person cannot be identified. Although the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines aggregate information, it treats aggregate information the same as de-identified information. We propose a definition of anonymous information based on the technological possibility of logical association of the information with other information. We argue for the exclusion of anonymous information from notice and consent requirements. We next consider de-identified information. Computer science has created de-identification algorithms, including generalization, that minimize (but not eliminate) the risk of re-identification. GDPR defines anonymous information but not de-identified information, and CCPA defines de-identified information but not anonymous information. The definitions do not align. We propose a definition of de-identified information based on the reasonableness of association with other information. We propose legal controls to protect against re-identification. We argue for the inclusion of de-identified information in notice requirements, but the exclusion of de-identified information from choice requirements. We next address the distinction between trackable and non-trackable information. Computer science has shown how one-time identifiers can be used to protect reasonably linkable information from being tracked over time. Although both GDPR and CCPA discuss profiling, neither formally defines it as a form of personal information, and thus both fail to adequately protect against it. We propose definitions of trackable information and non-trackable information based on the likelihood of association with information from other contexts. We propose a set of legal controls to protect against tracking. We argue for requiring stronger forms of user choice for trackable information, which will encourage the use of non-trackable information. Finally, we address the distinction between pseudonymous and reasonably identifiable information. Computer science has shown how pseudonyms can be used to reduce identification. Neither GDPR nor CCPA makes a distinction between pseudonymous and reasonable identifiable information. We propose definitions based on the reasonableness of identifiability of the information, and we propose a set of legal controls to protect against identification. We argue for requiring stronger forms of user choice for reasonably identifiable information, which will encourage the use of pseudonymous information. Our definitions of anonymous information, de-identified information, non-trackable information, trackable information, and reasonably identifiable information can replace the over-simplified distinction between personally identifiable information versus de-identified information. We hope that this full spectrum of definitions can be used in a comprehensive privacy law to tailor notice and consent requirements to the characteristics of each type of information. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; (, ACM)
    This article is an exploratory analysis of the impact of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) on data breaches that result in exposing sensitive private data of consumers. The CCPA applies to large for-profit businesses that collect and disseminate personal information of Californian consumers. It provides for consumer rights and imposes notification and security requirements on businesses that collect private information. We analyzed how CCPA affects data breach notifications that are required by the state's Office of Auditor General, for the period 2012 to 2023. The analysis provides interesting insights into the impact of CCPA on the pattern of data breaches. Our principal finding is that privacy breaches reduced to some extent after CCPA. Importantly, CCPA has helped in the overall improvement in reporting privacy breaches. We surmise that the CCPA brought more data breaches into light. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; (, Loyola consumer law review)
    Development of a comprehensive legal privacy framework in the United States should be based on identification of the common deficiencies of privacy policies. We attempt to delineate deficiencies by critically analyzing the privacy policies of mobile apps, application suites, social networks, Internet Service Providers, and Internet-of-Things devices. Whereas many studies have examined readability of privacy policies, few have specifically identified the information that should be provided in privacy policies but is not. Privacy legislation invariably starts a definition of personally identifiable information. We find that privacy policies’ definitions of personally identifiable information are far too restrictive, excluding information that does not itself identify a person but which can be used to reasonably identify a person, and excluding information paired with a device identifier which can be reasonably linked to a person. Legislation should define personally identifiable information to include such information, and should differentiate between information paired with a name versus information paired with a device identifier. Privacy legislation often excludes anonymous and de-identified information from notice and choice requirements. We find that privacy policies’ descriptions of anonymous and de-identified information are far too broad, including information paired with advertising identifiers. Computer science has repeatedly demonstrated that such information is reasonably linkable. Legislation should define these categories of information to align with technological abilities. Legislation should also not exempt de-identified information from notice requirements, to increase transparency. Privacy legislation relies heavily on notice requirements. We find that, because privacy policies’ disclosures of the uses of personal information are disconnected from their disclosures about the types of personal information collected, we are often unable to determine which types of information are used for which purposes. Often, we cannot determine whether location or web browsing history is used solely for functional purposes or also for advertising. Legislation should require the disclosure of the purposes for each type of personal information collected. We also find that, because privacy policies disclosures of sharing of personal information are disconnected from their disclosures about the types of personal information collected, we are often unable to determine which types of information are shared. Legislation should require the disclosure of the types of personal information shared. Finally, privacy legislation relies heavily on user choice. We find that free services often require the collection and sharing of personal information. As a result, users often have no choices. We find that whereas some paid services afford users a wide variety of choices, paid services in less competitive sectors often afford users few choices over use and sharing of personal information for purposes unrelated to the service. As a result, users are often unable to dictate which types of information they wish to allow to be shared, and which types they wish to allow to be used for advertising. Legislation should differentiate between take-it-or-leave it, opt-out, and opt-in approaches based on the type of use and on whether the information is shared. Congress should consider whether user choices should be affected by the presence of market power. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; (, MIS Quarterly)
    The increasing societal concern for consumer information privacy has led to the enforcement of privacy regulations worldwide. In an effort to adhere to privacy regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), many companies’ privacy policies have become increasingly lengthy and complex. In this study, we adopted the computational design science paradigm to design a novel privacy policy evolution analytics framework to help identify how companies change and present their privacy policies based on privacy regulations. The framework includes a self-attentive annotation system (SAAS) that automatically annotates paragraph-length segments in privacy policies to help stakeholders identify data practices of interest for further investigation. We rigorously evaluated SAAS against state-of-the-art machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL)-based methods on a well-established privacy policy dataset, OPP-115. SAAS outperformed conventional ML and DL models in terms of F1-score by statistically significant margins. We demonstrate the proposed framework’s practical utility with an in-depth case study of GDPR’s impact on Amazon’s privacy policies. The case study results indicate that Amazon’s post-GDPR privacy policy potentially violates a fundamental principle of GDPR by causing consumers to exert more effort to find information about first-party data collection. Given the increasing importance of consumer information privacy, the proposed framework has important implications for regulators and companies. We discuss several design principles followed by the SAAS that can help guide future design science-based e-commerce, health, and privacy research. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; (, The Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS))
    Recent data protection regulations (notably, GDPR and CCPA) grant consumers various rights, including the right to access, modify or delete any personal information collected about them (and retained) by a service provider. To exercise these rights, one must submit a verifiable consumer request proving that the collected data indeed pertains to them. This action is straightforward for consumers with active accounts with a service provider at the time of data collection, since they can use standard (e.g., password-based) means of authentication to validate their requests. However, a major conundrum arises from the need to support consumers without accounts to exercise their rights. To this end, some service providers began requiring such accountless consumers to reveal and prove their identities (e.g., using government-issued documents, utility bills, or credit card numbers) as part of issuing a verifiable consumer request. While understandable as a short-term fix, this approach is cumbersome and expensive for service providers as well as privacy-invasive for consumers. Consequently, there is a strong need to provide better means of authenticating requests from accountless consumers. To achieve this, we propose VICEROY, a privacy-preserving and scalable framework for producing proofs of data ownership, which form a basis for verifiable consumer requests. Building upon existing web techniques and features, VICEROY allows accountless consumers to interact with service providers, and later prove that they are the same person in a privacy-preserving manner, while requiring minimal changes for both parties. We design and implement VICEROY with emphasis on security/privacy, deployability and usability. We also assess its practicality via extensive experiments. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email