GREAT BLUE HERONS alight — a lot — along this glistening stretch of Lake Union. Could be the impressive fishers simply have landed on the perfect, protected perch for that statue-standing thing they do — right up until they lightning-strike. Could be they’re doing that inquisitive-bird “Are You My Mother?” thing, imprinting on the mesmerizing […]

Redguide, published: Tue, 14 Apr 2020

To help you safeguard your sensitive data and provide ease of auditability and control, IBM introduced a new capability for IBM Z® called IBM Data Privacy Passports.

Is true privacy even possible in the internet age, and what is at stake if we don't protect what we have left?

Now, more than ever, are we sacrificing privacy online for connection? The changes in online dating behaviour during lockdown, and ruminations on aging when you still feel 28. Plus a song for its namesake.

Parliament is set to pass legislation introducing tough penalties for people or agencies who access data from the COVIDSafe app in violation of its stated purpose.

A company working on the Shell-owned Queensland Gas Corporation project tells job applicants they will not be accepted until they submit to blood tests to check if they are at risk of heart attack, high cholesterol and other conditions.

Future Tense a look at how we might be revealing more private details online than we think and the value in the information that’s being mined - and you’ll hear how you could protect your data by actually revealing more than you already are.

Victoria Police has suspended a senior constable over what Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton calls one of the most appalling breaches of privacy he's ever seen.

The Northern Territory's Police Commissioner and soon-to-be federal police chief admits some of his officers inappropriately accessed the private medical records of a public servant.

(United States DC Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a nonprofit organization's lawsuit seeking President Donald Trump's income tax records. Held that no one can use a Freedom of Information Act request to demand to inspect another's tax records. The case involved a FOIA request filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center shortly after the 2016 election.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a consolidated multi-district class action against Google and Viacom raising concerns over online privacy, the district court's dismissal of most of plaintiffs' claims are affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that: 1) The Video Privacy Protection Act permits plaintiffs to sue a person who discloses, not who receives, information related to viewers' consumption of video-related services; 2) plaintiffs have adequately alleged a claim for intrusion upon seclusion against Viacom; and 3) the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 does not preempt plaintiffs' state-law privacy claim.

(United States DC Circuit) - Remanded for dismissal. The Electronic Privacy Information Center sued following a US Department of Commerce announcement that citizenship would be among the questions included in the 2020 census. EPIC sought to enjoin the question because they claim their members were entitled to a Privacy Impact Assessment. However, EPIC lacked standing to proceed with the suit.

An article by Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, The World After Coronavirus, describes general dynamics of crises and particularly the current crisis: Many short-term emergency measures will become a fixture of life.  That is the nature of emergencies.  They fast-forward historical processes.  Decisions that in normal times could take years of deliberation are passed in … Continue reading Communication, Privacy, and Community in the New Normal →

What do you have to hide?  That’s an issue raised by two comments about my post, Communication, Privacy, and Community in the New Normal. One commenter asked, “What if the government or a private group knowing your real-time biometrics could save lives?  Why do we hold the privacy of such data in such high regard?” … Continue reading The Importance of Privacy →

Find out how to block BigTech's efforts.

Politicos watered down earlier efforts, so data defenders will fight to the end

The small group of policy wonks that forced California’s legislature to rush through privacy legislation two years ago are back – and this time they want a ballot.…

High-frequency audio could be used to stealthily track netizens

Technical folks looking to improve web privacy haven't been able to decide whether sound beyond the range of human hearing poses enough of a privacy risk to merit restriction.…

Having a privacy policy for your website or blog is a way to declare to your viewers and subscribers on what happens with any information that’s collected on them, why it’s being collected, and how that information is being stored. This is a vital component to your site if your site is for business, or if you have a website that uses affiliate type advertising in order to earn revenue such as Amazon or Google Adsense. In fact not having a privacy policy will get your affiliate account banned on most sites, so apart from that and covering your back to protect yourself from legal action are good enough reasons to have privacy policy.

Schools chancellor Richard Carranza put the kibosh on the app in early April, several weeks into the city’s seismic shift to remote learning, citing concerns about Zoom’s privacy and security features.

Weak encryption technology has given rise to the phenomenon of “Zoombombing”, where uninvited trolls gain access to a video conference.

TL;DR: A one-year subscription to Norton Secure VPN is on sale for £2.50 per month, saving you 50% on list price.

It feels like the world of VPNs is expanding, with more and more providers entering the market and increased demand from users. 

This market can be a daunting place, especially as you probably won't be familiar with most of the available providers. This doesn't mean you shouldn't consider these services, but we totally understand if you're reluctant to invest in an unknown provider.

Fortunately for those who would prefer to subscribe to an established provider, there are plenty of options from the leading names in securityNorton is one such brand, with a comprehensive VPN service on sale for just £2.50 per month. Read more...

Three months ago, Apple released a new credit card in partnership with Goldman Sachs that aimed to disrupt the highly regulated world of consumer finance. However, a well-known software developer tweeted that he was given 20x the credit line offered to his wife, despite the fact that they have been filing joint tax returns and […]

Hazy CEO Harry Keen explains why artificially produced data is gaining favour over information generated by real-world events

While coordinated action is urgently needed, should we be racing to download everything that promises a solution?

More patient portals and electronic health records should enable users to create "proxy" accounts for nurses and home aids to prevent unintentional sharing of personal health details, researchers said Monday.

Privacy isn't dead, but face surveillance technology might kill it, says civil rights advocate Kade Crockford. In an eye-opening talk, Kade outlines the startling reasons why this invasive technology -- powered by often-flawed facial recognition databases that track people without their knowledge -- poses unprecedented threats to your fundamental rights. Learn what can be done to ban government use before it's too late.

Data protection -- Law and legislation -- Australia.

Clementi, Tyler.

Gregory J. Matthews, Ofer Harel

Source: Statist. Surv., Volume 5, 1--29.

Abstract:
There is an ever increasing demand from researchers for access to useful microdata files. However, there are also growing concerns regarding the privacy of the individuals contained in the microdata. Ideally, microdata could be released in such a way that a balance between usefulness of the data and privacy is struck. This paper presents a review of proposed methods of statistical disclosure control and techniques for assessing the privacy of such methods under different definitions of disclosure.

References:
Abowd, J., Woodcock, S., 2001. Disclosure limitation in longitudinal linked data. Confidentiality, Disclosure, and Data Access: Theory and Practical Applications for Statistical Agencies, 215–277.

Adam, N.R., Worthmann, J.C., 1989. Security-control methods for statistical databases: a comparative study. ACM Comput. Surv. 21 (4), 515–556.

Armstrong, M., Rushton, G., Zimmerman, D.L., 1999. Geographically masking health data to preserve confidentiality. Statistics in Medicine 18 (5), 497–525.

Bethlehem, J.G., Keller, W., Pannekoek, J., 1990. Disclosure control of microdata. Jorunal of the American Statistical Association 85, 38–45.

Blum, A., Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissam, K., 2005. Practical privacy: The sulq framework. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. pp. 128–138.

Bowden, R.J., Sim, A.B., 1992. The privacy bootstrap. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 10 (3), 337–345.

Carlson, M., Salabasis, M., 2002. A data-swapping technique for generating synthetic samples; a method for disclosure control. Res. Official Statist. (5), 35–64.

Cox, L.H., 1980. Suppression methodology and statistical disclosure control. Journal of the American Statistical Association 75, 377–385.

Cox, L.H., 1984. Disclosure control methods for frequency count data. Tech. rep., U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Cox, L.H., 1987. A constructive procedure for unbiased controlled rounding. Journal of the American Statistical Association 82, 520–524.

Cox, L.H., 1994. Matrix masking methods for disclosure limitation in microdata. Survey Methodology 6, 165–169.

Cox, L.H., Fagan, J.T., Greenberg, B., Hemmig, R., 1987. Disclosure avoidance techniques for tabular data. Tech. rep., U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Dalenius, T., 1977. Towards a methodology for statistical disclosure control. Statistik Tidskrift 15, 429–444.

Dalenius, T., 1986. Finding a needle in a haystack - or identifying anonymous census record. Journal of Official Statistics 2 (3), 329–336.

Dalenius, T., Denning, D., 1982. A hybrid scheme for release of statistics. Statistisk Tidskrift.

Dalenius, T., Reiss, S.P., 1982. Data-swapping: A technique for disclosure control. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 6, 73–85.

De Waal, A., Hundepool, A., Willenborg, L., 1995. Argus: Software for statistical disclosure control of microdata. U.S. Census Bureau.

DeGroot, M.H., 1962. Uncertainty, information, and sequential experiments. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33, 404–419.

DeGroot, M.H., 1970. Optimal Statistical Decisions. Mansell, London.

Dinur, I., Nissam, K., 2003. Revealing information while preserving privacy. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principlesof Database Systems. pp. 202–210.

Domingo-Ferrer, J., Torra, V., 2001a. A Quantitative Comparison of Disclosure Control Methods for Microdata. In: Doyle, P., Lane, J., Theeuwes, J., Zayatz, L. (Eds.), Confidentiality, Disclosure and Data Access - Theory and Practical Applications for Statistical Agencies. North-Holland, Amsterdam, Ch. 6, pp. 113–135.

Domingo-Ferrer, J., Torra, V., 2001b. Disclosure control methods and information loss for microdata. In: Doyle, P., Lane, J., Theeuwes, J., Zayatz, L. (Eds.), Confidentiality, Disclosure and Data Access - Theory and Practical Applications for Statistical Agencies. North-Holland, Amsterdam, Ch. 5, pp. 93–112.

Duncan, G., Lambert, D., 1986. Disclosure-limited data dissemination. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81, 10–28.

Duncan, G., Lambert, D., 1989. The risk of disclosure for microdata. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 7, 207–217.

Duncan, G., Pearson, R., 1991. Enhancing access to microdata while protecting confidentiality: prospects for the future (with discussion). Statistical Science 6, 219–232.

Dwork, C., 2006. Differential privacy. In: ICALP. Springer, pp. 1–12.

Dwork, C., 2008. An ad omnia approach to defining and achieving private data analysis. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, p. 10.

Dwork, C., Lei, J., 2009. Differential privacy and robust statistics. In: Proceedings of the 41th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). pp. 371–380.

Dwork, C., Mcsherry, F., Nissim, K., Smith, A., 2006. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Theory of Cryptography Conference. Springer, pp. 265–284.

Dwork, C., Nissam, K., 2004. Privacy-preserving datamining on vertically partitioned databases. In: Advances in Cryptology: Proceedings of Crypto. pp. 528–544.

Elliot, M., 2000. DIS: a new approach to the measurement of statistical disclosure risk. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 2, 39–48.

Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology (FCSM), 2005. Statistical policy working group 22 - report on statistical disclosure limitation methodology. U.S. Census Bureau.

Fellegi, I.P., 1972. On the question of statistical confidentiality. Journal of the American Statistical Association 67 (337), 7–18.

Fienberg, S.E., McIntyre, J., 2004. Data swapping: Variations on a theme by Dalenius and Reiss. In: Domingo-Ferrer, J., Torra, V. (Eds.), Privacy in Statistical Databases. Vol. 3050 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 519, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-540-25955-8_2

Fuller, W., 1993. Masking procedurse for microdata disclosure limitation. Journal of Official Statistics 9, 383–406.

General Assembly of the United Nations, 1948. Universal declaration of human rights.

Gouweleeuw, J., P. Kooiman, L.W., de Wolf, P.-P., 1998. Post randomisation for statistical disclosure control: Theory and implementation. Journal of Official Statistics 14 (4), 463–478.

Greenberg, B., 1987. Rank swapping for masking ordinal microdata. Tech. rep., U.S. Bureau of the Census (unpublished manuscript), Suitland, Maryland, USA.

Greenberg, B.G., Abul-Ela, A.-L.A., Simmons, W.R., Horvitz, D.G., 1969. The unrelated question randomized response model: Theoretical framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association 64 (326), 520–539.

Harel, O., Zhou, X.-H., 2007. Multiple imputation: Review and theory, implementation and software. Statistics in Medicine 26, 3057–3077.

Hundepool, A., Domingo-ferrer, J., Franconi, L., Giessing, S., Lenz, R., Longhurst, J., Nordholt, E.S., Seri, G., paul De Wolf, P., 2006. A CENtre of EXcellence for Statistical Disclosure Control Handbook on Statistical Disclosure Control Version 1.01.

Hundepool, A., Wetering, A. v.d., Ramaswamy, R., Wolf, P.d., Giessing, S., Fischetti, M., Salazar, J., Castro, J., Lowthian, P., Feb. 2005. τ-argus 3.1 user manual. Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg NL.

Hundepool, A., Willenborg, L., 1996. μ- and τ-argus: Software for statistical disclosure control. Third International Seminar on Statistical Confidentiality, Bled.

Karr, A., Kohnen, C.N., Oganian, A., Reiter, J.P., Sanil, A.P., 2006. A framework for evaluating the utility of data altered to protect confidentiality. American Statistician 60 (3), 224–232.

Kaufman, S., Seastrom, M., Roey, S., 2005. Do disclosure controls to protect confidentiality degrade the quality of the data? In: American Statistical Association, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research.

Kennickell, A.B., 1997. Multiple imputation and disclosure protection: the case of the 1995 survey of consumer finances. Record Linkage Techniques, 248–267.

Kim, J., 1986. Limiting disclosure in microdata based on random noise and transformation. Bureau of the Census.

Krumm, J., 2007. Inference attacks on location tracks. Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Pervasive Computingy, 127–143.

Li, N., Li, T., Venkatasubramanian, S., 2007. t-closeness: Privacy beyond k-anonymity and l-diversity. In: Data Engineering, 2007. ICDE 2007. IEEE 23rd International Conference on. pp. 106–115.

Liew, C.K., Choi, U.J., Liew, C.J., 1985. A data distortion by probability distribution. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 10 (3), 395–411.

Little, R.J.A., 1993. Statistical analysis of masked data. Journal of Official Statistics 9, 407–426.

Little, R.J.A., Rubin, D.B., 1987. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. John Wiley & Sons.

Liu, F., Little, R.J.A., 2002. Selective multiple mputation of keys for statistical disclosure control in microdata. In: Proceedings Joint Statistical Meet. pp. 2133–2138.

Machanavajjhala, A., Kifer, D., Abowd, J., Gehrke, J., Vilhuber, L., April 2008. Privacy: Theory meets practice on the map. In: International Conference on Data Engineering. Cornell University Comuputer Science Department, Cornell, USA, p. 10.

Machanavajjhala, A., Kifer, D., Gehrke, J., Venkitasubramaniam, M., 2007. L-diversity: Privacy beyond k-anonymity. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data 1 (1), 3.

Manning, A.M., Haglin, D.J., Keane, J.A., 2008. A recursive search algorithm for statistical disclosure assessment. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 16 (2), 165–196.

Marsh, C., Skinner, C., Arber, S., Penhale, B., Openshaw, S., Hobcraft, J., Lievesley, D., Walford, N., 1991. The case for samples of anonymized records from the 1991 census. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 154 (2), 305–340.

Matthews, G.J., Harel, O., Aseltine, R.H., 2010a. Assessing database privacy using the area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 10 (1), 1–15.

Matthews, G.J., Harel, O., Aseltine, R.H., 2010b. Examining the robustness of fully synthetic data techniques for data with binary variables. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 80 (6), 609–624.

Moore, Jr., R., 1996. Controlled data-swapping techniques for masking public use microdata. Census Tech Report.

Mugge, R., 1983. Issues in protecting confidentiality in national health statistics. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods.

Nissim, K., Raskhodnikova, S., Smith, A., 2007. Smooth sensitivity and sampling in private data analysis. In: STOC ’07: Proceedings of the thirty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. pp. 75–84.

Paass, G., 1988. Disclosure risk and disclosure avoidance for microdata. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 6 (4), 487–500.

Palley, M., Simonoff, J., 1987. The use of regression methodology for the compromise of confidential information in statistical databases. ACM Trans. Database Systems 12 (4), 593–608.

Raghunathan, T.E., Reiter, J.P., Rubin, D.B., 2003. Multiple imputation for statistical disclosure limitation. Journal of Official Statistics 19 (1), 1–16.

Rajasekaran, S., Harel, O., Zuba, M., Matthews, G.J., Aseltine, Jr., R., 2009. Responsible data releases. In: Proceedings 9th Industrial Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). Springer LNCS, pp. 388–400.

Reiss, S.P., 1984. Practical data-swapping: The first steps. CM Transactions on Database Systems 9, 20–37.

Reiter, J.P., 2002. Satisfying disclosure restriction with synthetic data sets. Journal of Official Statistics 18 (4), 531–543.

Reiter, J.P., 2003. Inference for partially synthetic, public use microdata sets. Survey Methodology 29 (2), 181–188.

Reiter, J.P., 2004a. New approaches to data dissemination: A glimpse into the future (?). Chance 17 (3), 11–15.

Reiter, J.P., 2004b. Simultaneous use of multiple imputation for missing data and disclosure limitation. Survey Methodology 30 (2), 235–242.

Reiter, J.P., 2005a. Estimating risks of identification disclosure in microdata. Journal of the American Statistical Association 100, 1103–1112.

Reiter, J.P., 2005b. Releasing multiply imputed, synthetic public use microdata: An illustration and empirical study. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A: Statistics in Society 168 (1), 185–205.

Reiter, J.P., 2005c. Using CART to generate partially synthetic public use microdata. Journal of Official Statistics 21 (3), 441–462.

Rubin, D.B., 1987. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. John Wiley & Sons.

Rubin, D.B., 1993. Comment on “Statistical disclosure limitation”. Journal of Official Statistics 9, 461–468.

Rubner, Y., Tomasi, C., Guibas, L.J., 1998. A metric for distributions with applications to image databases. Computer Vision, IEEE International Conference on 0, 59.

Sarathy, R., Muralidhar, K., 2002a. The security of confidential numerical data in databases. Information Systems Research 13 (4), 389–403.

Sarathy, R., Muralidhar, K., 2002b. The security of confidential numerical data in databases. Info. Sys. Research 13 (4), 389–403.

Schafer, J.L., Graham, J.W., 2002. Missing data: Our view of state of the art. Psychological Methods 7 (2), 147–177.

Singh, A., Yu, F., Dunteman, G., 2003. MASSC: A new data mask for limiting statistical information loss and disclosure. In: Proceedings of the Joint UNECE/EUROSTAT Work Session on Statistical Data Confidentiality. pp. 373–394.

Skinner, C., 2009. Statistical disclosure control for survey data. In: Pfeffermann, D and Rao, C.R. eds. Handbook of Statistics Vol. 29A: Sample Surveys: Design, Methods and Applications. pp. 381–396.

Skinner, C., Marsh, C., Openshaw, S., Wymer, C., 1994. Disclosure control for census microdata. Journal of Official Statistics 10, 31–51.

Skinner, C., Shlomo, N., 2008. Assessing identification risk in survey microdata using log-linear models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 103, 989–1001.

Skinner, C.J., Elliot, M.J., 2002. A measure of disclosure risk for microdata. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology) 64 (4), 855–867.

Smith, A., 2008. Efficient, dfferentially private point estimators. arXiv:0809.4794v1 [cs.CR].

Spruill, N.L., 1982. Measures of confidentiality. Statistics of Income and Related Administrative Record Research, 131–136.

Spruill, N.L., 1983. The confidentiality and analytic usefulness of masked business microdata. In: Proceedings of the Section on Survey Reserach Microdata. American Statistical Association, pp. 602–607.

Sweeney, L., 1996. Replacing personally-identifying information in medical records, the scrub system. In: American Medical Informatics Association. Hanley and Belfus, Inc., pp. 333–337.

Sweeney, L., 1997. Guaranteeing anonymity when sharing medical data, the datafly system. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 4, 51–55.

Sweeney, L., 2002a. Achieving k-anonymity privacy protection using generalization and suppression. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge Based Systems 10 (5), 571–588.

Sweeney, L., 2002b. k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge Based Systems 10 (5), 557–570.

Tendick, P., 1991. Optimal noise addition for preserving confidentiality in multivariate data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 27 (2), 341–353.

United Nations Economic Comission for Europe (UNECE), 2007. Manging statistical cinfidentiality and microdata access: Principles and guidlinesof good practice.

Warner, S.L., 1965. Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association 60 (309), 63–69.

Wasserman, L., Zhou, S., 2010. A statistical framework for differential privacy. Journal of the American Statistical Association 105 (489), 375–389.

Willenborg, L., de Waal, T., 2001. Elements of Statistical Disclosure Control. Springer-Verlag.

Woodward, B., 1995. The computer-based patient record and confidentiality. The New England Journal of Medicine, 1419–1422.

Cooperation between different data owners may lead to an improvement in forecast quality - for instance by benefiting from spatial-temporal dependencies in geographically distributed time series. Due to business competitive factors and personal data protection questions, said data owners might be unwilling to share their data, which increases the interest in collaborative privacy-preserving forecasting. This paper analyses the state-of-the-art and unveils several shortcomings of existing methods in guaranteeing data privacy when employing Vector Autoregressive (VAR) models. The paper also provides mathematical proofs and numerical analysis to evaluate existing privacy-preserving methods, dividing them into three groups: data transformation, secure multi-party computations, and decomposition methods. The analysis shows that state-of-the-art techniques have limitations in preserving data privacy, such as a trade-off between privacy and forecasting accuracy, while the original data in iterative model fitting processes, in which intermediate results are shared, can be inferred after some iterations.

Cristina Butucea, Amandine Dubois, Martin Kroll, Adrien Saumard.

Source: Bernoulli, Volume 26, Number 3, 1727--1764.

Abstract:
We address the problem of non-parametric density estimation under the additional constraint that only privatised data are allowed to be published and available for inference. For this purpose, we adopt a recent generalisation of classical minimax theory to the framework of local $alpha$-differential privacy and provide a lower bound on the rate of convergence over Besov spaces $mathcal{B}^{s}_{pq}$ under mean integrated $mathbb{L}^{r}$-risk. This lower bound is deteriorated compared to the standard setup without privacy, and reveals a twofold elbow effect. In order to fulfill the privacy requirement, we suggest adding suitably scaled Laplace noise to empirical wavelet coefficients. Upper bounds within (at most) a logarithmic factor are derived under the assumption that $alpha$ stays bounded as $n$ increases: A linear but non-adaptive wavelet estimator is shown to attain the lower bound whenever $pgeq r$ but provides a slower rate of convergence otherwise. An adaptive non-linear wavelet estimator with appropriately chosen smoothing parameters and thresholding is shown to attain the lower bound within a logarithmic factor for all cases.

The Kangaroo Privacy Camera is an affordable indoor home security camera that delivers sharp daytime footage and is equipped with a built-in privacy shield, but some features require a paid subscription and its nighttime video quality could be better.

Many state and local education agency websites aren't disclosing the presence of third-party tracking services, which can use information about users' browsing.

Teachers can feel pressured to use education technology products without knowing how to protect their own and their students' privacy, according to a new online survey by privacy advocacy groups.

Giving users of smart assistants the option to adjust settings for privacy or content delivery, or both, doesn’t necessarily increase their trust in the platform, according to a team of Penn State researchers. In fact, for some users, it could have an unfavorable effect.

People find it convenient to use Facebook or other social media accounts to sign up for most new apps and services, but they prefer to use their e-mail address or open a new account if they feel the information in the app is too sensitive, according to a team of researchers.

Google has said that privacy and security are the focus for Android Q and many of its other releases this year, but Senior Security Analyst Max Eddy explains that a company built on mapping and sorting data can't deliver perfect privacy.

Regulation moves at a snail's pace, so it's up to CEOs, executives, and employees to reject projects that put profit over privacy. Clearview AI facial-recognition tech is just the latest example of 'innovation' that could quickly get out of hand.

As governments around the world consider how to monitor new coronavirus outbreaks while reopening their societies, many are starting to bet on smartphone apps to help stanch the pandemic.