The second installment of Where We’re Going: Privacy, took place shortly after the 2020 presidential election. Moderator Mark McKenna began the session by making note of ways in which privacy was likely to appear on the new administration’s agenda, namely in relation to social media platform privacy regulations and the privacy restrictions for how coronavirus information will be treated.
The first guest introduced was Christine Bannan, whose work revolves around advocating for consumer privacy. She described the importance of knowing that privacy not only ensures that your information is protected by companies, but also limits how these companies can legally use and distribute your information. The next guest introduced was Ryan Blaney, who works for a law firm in a group that focuses on privacy and cybersecurity. In explaining this role, he emphasized that there are distinctions between privacy violations, and that it is important to understand the laws regarding each one. IBM’s Chief Privacy Officer, Christina Montgomery, introduced herself and went on to share that “as data is becoming an increasing source of value but also a source of risk, there are lots of ethical decisions to make about how we’re using it.” Similarly focused on ethics as technology develops, Ryan Harkins emphasized his role at Microsoft and in advocating for comprehensive privacy laws at a federal level. These laws are in the long-term interest of Microsoft because they can ensure that the distrust of technology and data collection doesn’t grow. The last guest to be introduced, Santiago Garces, spoke about his work in creating ways for collected information to be used intentionally, knowing that new forms of data challenge the boundaries of privacy.
Following introductions, McKenna asked his guests to touch upon the question of whether or not privacy concerns are new and being made more prominent due to technology. Montgomery discussed how technology is making these concerns more prevalent, especially because it has progressed more rapidly than regulations, therefore leaving a gap between privacy rules needed and those in place. Blaney touched upon this idea, too, noting that some regulations have been extended to account for the changing data landscape. For example, HIPPA had previously been isolated to healthcare providers, but was recently extended to service providers as well. While concerns about data aren’t remarkably modern, Blaney did mention an increased “awareness of consumers about their respective privacy rights.” Garces agreed that these concerns have been present for decades; however, since digitization allows information to be recycled in many ways, the threats towards privacy have made concerns more challenging to pacify.
Industries in the U.S. generally regulate themselves when it comes to matters of privacy; Harkins complimented Microsoft’s proactive approach in establishing an ethics team within the company, but added that legislation is needed to address the concerns of the public. On this same point, Blaney emphasized that positioning a company matters a lot, especially with a lack of federal laws. Agreeing with the need to prioritize the ethics of collecting information, Montgomery stated that “it comes back to a point of accountability … to handle data in a responsible way.” Garces pointed out the irony that there is a negative connotation about the government having so much information when in reality, the government operates with much more transparency than data firms in the private sector.
To finish the discussion, McKenna asked each guest to identify what they believe to be the next big challenge relating to privacy. Bannan responded first, highlighting how the intersection between competition and privacy was bound to be problematic in the near future; since acquiring a company also means acquiring their data, antitrust action against platforms should be expected as big companies expand. Blaney hypothesized that corporations will begin taking more of an operational approach to privacy. Harkins’ prediction was consistent with his previously mentioned concerns in that he expected to see more of a push for comprehensive privacy legislation. Agreeing with the other panelists, Montgomery mentioned challenges regarding the conflict between how technology is trending and how the legal framework is developing within governments. Garces summarized the discussion in his closing point that “technology is going to be more pervasive in public spaces,” and thus, we need to make conscious decisions as a society about how to use these tools.
Visit the event page for more.
