AI News, 2019 IAPP Global Privacy Summit: Lessons from GDPR, Plans for ... artificial intelligence

DOCSIS® Technology: National Broadband Down Under

I was recently asked to speak with a reporter from Australia about CableLabs newly minted DOCSIS 3.1 specifications.  In and of itself that’s nothing terribly unusual:  in my role as the lead for the DOCSIS 3.1 project here at CableLabs, one of my responsibilities is to inform people about the technology.  It would’ve been just like any other briefing, except for the reason I was given for the request: That Australia was planning to adopt DOCSIS technology for its National Broadband Network, and so he was interested in learning more about the technology, and how it might be deployed in Australia.

[infographic source:  NCTA Industry Data.] The report also found that for areas without HFC access networks, other technologies (including fiber) would be more appropriate to meet the objectives of the NBN.  Some Australians have raised concerns that this will create a disparity between fiber and HFC customers.  This is where the performance enchancements of DOCSIS 3.1 technology become essential to the success of using HFC networks for the NBN.  With the multi-gigabit capabilities of DOCSIS 3.1 technology, HFC customers will be able to receive the same services as FTTH customers.  This enables an easy and cost effective migration path for HFC customers, using DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems today to meet the needs of the NBN today, and DOCSIS 3.1 cable modems to provide even faster services if they’re needed in the future.

SIIA Moderates IAPP Public Records Panel: Differences to be Sure, But Areas of Consensus Emerge

The panelists engaged in a spirited discussion and found a few high-level points of consensus, such as: that the use of public records confer important social benefits, that open access and use can yield the potential for harmful results that should be accounted for, and that the treatment of public records by privacy laws can raise First Amendment concerns that must be balanced by policymakers.

SIIA framed the discussion at the outset by noting that public records play a vital role in creating an informed citizenry, enabling rapid and inexpensive access to credit, and promoting public safety (such as identifying the location of missing and exploited children).

The intersection of public records data and its commercial collection raises a number of privacy questions, such as: If our privacy laws restrict the use of public records data, what benefits are we losing and what harms are we avoiding?

SIIA began the panel discussion by asking each of the panelists to identify the benefits and costs of commercial access to public records data, specifically focusing on identifying the goods we want to preserve and the harms we want to avoid.

Cindy Van Ort noted that as a society we reap enormous benefits from the commercial collection of public records, and that any harms, on balance, are minimal because the information is public and thus already available for use by third parties without restriction As an example, Ms.

Chris Calabrese agreed that the commercial processing of public records yields social benefits, but argued that policymakers should focus on whether the use of that data impacts privacy, rather than on whether information is public or private.

David Cuillier pointed to the concrete benefits that can be derived from public records data, citing James Hamilton’s Democracy’s Detectives for the statistic that the societal ROI for every $1 spent by news organizations producing document-based investigative reporting is $287.

Mr. Cuillier talked about the importance of public records data for a free press, noting that it is essential for accurate reporting and the ability of the media to inform the citizenry of government actions, and abuses of power.

For his part, Mr. Cuillier agreed that a privacy law should prevent individual harms derived from the use of public record data, but cautioned against a privacy law prohibiting the commercial collection and use of public records data.

While the ultimate responsibility for the correction or deletion should rest with the government entity that publishes and maintains the record, there is a shared responsibility between the government and commercial sector to ensure the data is accurate and removed when necessary.

Van Ort pointed out that commercial entities like Thomson Reuters continuously update their platform, sometimes through daily feeds, which ensures accuracy as public records data changes, but which would make deletion at the commercial level ineffective.

The Act defines publicly available information so narrowly that it only covers information obtained from public records if it is used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the government maintained and published the public record.

She asserted that the compatible use standard nullifies the exemption for public records data because, as a practical matter, it will be impossible to identify the original intention for the maintenance and availability of public records in order to determine a compatible use, especially where the use of the public records data changes over time, such as census data.

He questioned how an individual, entity, or news organization can establish a qualified compatible purpose and expressed concern that the test will not only impede our free press, but also the citizenry’s access to information about government programs and actions.

While Mr. Calabrese agreed that the compatible use standard is not the best model, he differed in his argument that a privacy law should cover all commercial uses of personal data, irrespective of whether the data is public or private.

As SIIA has advocated at both the state and federal level, we believe that privacy regulations must be carefully crafted to maintain an open government data policy allowing for uses of that data, while preventing unintended and harmful uses of public records information.

The panelists engaged in a spirited discussion and found a few high-level points of consensus, such as: that the use of public records confer important social benefits, that open access and use can yield the potential for harmful results that should be accounted for, and that the treatment of public records by privacy laws can raise First Amendment concerns that must be balanced by policymakers.

SIIA framed the discussion at the outset by noting that public records play a vital role in creating an informed citizenry, enabling rapid and inexpensive access to credit, and promoting public safety (such as identifying the location of missing and exploited children).

The intersection of public records data and its commercial collection raises a number of privacy questions, such as: If our privacy laws restrict the use of public records data, what benefits are we losing and what harms are we avoiding?

SIIA began the panel discussion by asking each of the panelists to identify the benefits and costs of commercial access to public records data, specifically focusing on identifying the goods we want to preserve and the harms we want to avoid.

Cindy Van Ort noted that as a society we reap enormous benefits from the commercial collection of public records, and that any harms, on balance, are minimal because the information is public and thus already available for use by third parties without restriction As an example, Ms.

For his part, Mr. Cuillier agreed that a privacy law should prevent individual harms derived from the use of public record data, but cautioned against a privacy law prohibiting the commercial collection and use of public records data.

While the ultimate responsibility for the correction or deletion should rest with the government entity that publishes and maintains the record, there is a shared responsibility between the government and commercial sector to ensure the data is accurate and removed when necessary.

She asserted that the compatible use standard nullifies the exemption for public records data because, as a practical matter, it will be impossible to identify the original intention for the maintenance and availability of public records in order to determine a compatible use, especially where the use of the public records data changes over time, such as census data.

He questioned how an individual, entity, or news organization can establish a qualified compatible purpose and expressed concern that the test will not only impede our free press, but also the citizenry’s access to information about government programs and actions.

While Mr. Calabrese agreed that the compatible use standard is not the best model, he differed in his argument that a privacy law should cover all commercial uses of personal data, irrespective of whether the data is public or private.

As SIIA has advocated at both the state and federal level, we believe that privacy regulations must be carefully crafted to maintain an open government data policy allowing for uses of that data, while preventing unintended and harmful uses of public records information.

IAPP / Anonos Webinar on GDPR Compliant Data Analytics

This webinar presents information on how data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (Big Data) are possible in compliance with GDPR ...

GDPR: A Global View

Moderator: J Trevor Hughes, President and CEO, International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) Panelists: Tharishni Arumugam APAC Privacy ...

Data Privacy Day 2019: A New Era in Privacy

Join NCSA, sponsors and special guests on January 28 for a privacy event like no other! This year, Data Privacy Day will spotlight the value of information.

Data Protection or Big Data can they coexist?

Taylor Wessing partners discuss the symbiotic relationship between the seemingly conflicting interests of data protection and big data.