Why Are Academics Upset With Facebook's New Privacy Rules?; Forbes, May 4, 2018

Kalev Leetaru, Forbes; Why Are Academics Upset With Facebook's New Privacy Rules?

"Putting this all together, there is something inherently wrong with a world in which academics condemn Facebook for conducting consent-free research on its users, only to turn around and condemn the company again when it tries to institute greater privacy protections that would prevent academics from doing the same, all while those very same academics partner with Facebook to create a new research initiative that entirely removes consent from the equation and where ethical considerations are unilaterally TBD, to be figured out after researchers decide what they want to do with two billion people’s private information. Cambridge University’s ethics panel gives us hope that there are still some institutions that believe in the ethical protections that took decades to build, only to fall like dominoes in the digital “big data” era. In the end, it is not just the social media giants and private companies rushing to commercialize our digital selves and stave off any discussion of privacy protections – the academic community is running right alongside helping to clear the way."

Machine learning as a service: Can privacy be taught?; ZDnet, April 2, 2018

Robin Harris, ZDNet; Machine learning as a service: Can privacy be taught?

"Machine learning is one of the hottest disciplines in computer science today. So hot, in fact, that cloud providers are doing a good and rapidly growing business in machine-learning-as-a-service (MLaaS).

But these services come with a caveat: all the training data must be revealed to the service operator. Even if the service operator does not intentionally access the data, someone with nefarious motives may. Or their may be legal reasons to preserve privacy, such as with health data.

In a recent paper, Chiron: Privacy-preserving Machine Learning as a Service Tyler Hunt, of the University of Texas, and others, presents a system that preserves privacy while enabling the use of cloud MLaaS."

Can Europe Lead on Privacy?; The New York Times, April 1, 2018

Tom Wheeler, The New York Times; Can Europe Lead on Privacy?

"The United States government has a lot of explaining to do. Why is it that American internet companies such as Facebook and Google are required to provide privacy protections when doing business with European consumers but are free to not provide such protections for Americans? Why is it that Americans’ best privacy hope is the secondary effect of interconnected networks rather than privacy protections designed for Americans? Why shouldn’t Americans also be given meaningful tools to protect their privacy?"

What is the future of privacy, surveillance and policing technologies under Trump?; CBS News, June 22, 2017

Jonathan Ernst, CBS News; What is the future of privacy, surveillance and policing technologies under Trump?

"As developing policing technologies continue to outpace laws restricting their use, and as Mr. Trump and top members of his administration like Attorney General Jeff Sessions take a hard line against illegal immigration, terrorism and crime, experts in constitutional law and civil liberties fear the lack of an accompanying conversation on privacy protections could contribute to the erosion of Fourth Amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

"I think we will see a push from the Trump administration to expand surveillance powers, and that of course could directly implicate Fourth Amendment protections," said Christopher Slobogin, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School who has studied and written on Fourth Amendment, privacy and surveillance issues for years.

"And they're going to push I think also for greater militarization of the police, which could affect Fourth Amendment issues," Slobogin added."

Privacy concerns as China expands DNA database; BBC News, May 17, 2017

BBC News; 

Privacy concerns as China expands DNA database

""Mass DNA collection by the powerful Chinese police absent effective privacy protections or an independent judicial system is a perfect storm for abuses," Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

DNA collection can have legitimate policing uses in investigating specific criminal cases, she explains. "But only in a context in which people have meaningful privacy protections."

"Until that's the case in China, the mass collection of DNA and the expansion of databases needs to stop.""