Podcasts about Schrems

Der Meta-Konzern will mit Daten seiner Nutzer die Netzwerke Facebook und Instagram trainieren. Jurist und Datenschutz-Aktivist Max Schrems hält das für illegal – und deshalb Schadensersatzforderungen für möglich. Schrems, Max www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Im neuen Podcast mit Stefan Brink und Niko Härting dreht sich alles um Allianzen im Datenschutz: Zunächst (ab Minute 00:40) geht es in Querbeet um die Frage, ob der unberechenbare US-Präsident Trump das EU-US Data Privacy Framework zu Fall bringen könnte – aus dem Jahr 2023, als die Allianz zwischen EU und USA noch stand. Stefan erklärte in einem Beitrag für das „Handelsblatt“, warum es sich jetzt rächen könnte, dass der Angemessenheitsbeschluss der EU-Kommission nur mit einer Executive Order des Präsidenten Biden und nicht wie von Datenschützern verlangt durch ein Parlamentsgesetz umgesetzt und abgesichert wurde: Jeder Präsident der USA hat es nun selbst in der Hand, das Abkommen wieder scheitern zu lassen. Sodann geht es (ab Minute 13:21) beim Referentenentwurf zum Data Act-Durchführungsgesetz und die bröckelnde Allianz der Datenschutz-Aufsichtsbehörden der Länder und des Bundes: Der EU-DA, der eine faire Verteilung des Datenwertes vernetzter Produkte anstrebt, bekommt in Deutschland mit der Bundesnetzagentur eine zentrale Aufsichtsbehörde für die Durchsetzung und Überwachung der Verordnung (EU) 2023/2854. Ergänzend wird eine Sonderzuständigkeit für die Bundesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit geschaffen – interessanterweise an den Aufsichtsbehörden der Länder vorbei. Aufgrund seiner Gesetzgebungskompetenz aus Artikel 74 Absatz 1 Nummer 11 Grundgesetz (Recht der Wirtschaft) begründet der Bund diese Sonderzuständigkeit der BfDI mit Artikel 87 Absatz 3 Satz 1 Grundgesetz. Die BfDI verfüge über das für eine zügige Identifizierung und Bewertung von Datenschutzfragen sowie die Aufbereitung von Sachverhalten notwendige Fachwissen und könne somit erheblich zu einer raschen Beurteilung der datenschutzrechtlichen Fragestellungen beitragen. Brechen da alte Allianzen zwischen der deutschen Datenschutzaufsichtsbehörden von Bund und Ländern? Haben wir es hier mit der Blaupause für Zentralisierung der Aufsicht über private Unternehmen beim Bund (BfDI) zu tun? Schließlich (ab Minute 29:02) gibt es offenbar eine denkwürdige Allianz zwischen Axel Voss (MdEP der EVP-Fraktion) und Max Schrems von der Datenschutz-Organisation NOYB. Voss präsentiert seinen Plan zur Revision der DS-GVO, er will in einem 3-Schichten-Modell eine Differenzierung der Pflichten der DS-GVO abhängig von der nach Unternehmensgröße (vgl. DSA zu very large online platforms VLOP) vornehmen. Schrems stimmt insoweit zu, das „one size fits all“ der DS-GVO sei schon immer verrückt gewesen. Allerdings korreliert ein an der Unternehmensgröße ausgerichteter asymmetrischer Ansatz keineswegs mit dem risikobasierten Ansatz der DS-GVO: Risiken ergeben sich aus Datenmenge, Datenarten (Art. 9-Daten) und TOMs als risikomindernden Maßnahmen – nicht zwingend aus der Unternehmensgröße. Ehemalige, bröckelnde und denkwürdige Allianzen im Datenschutz also…

PALESTRINA: Misa “Aeterna Christi Munera” a 4 vv (21.25). Coro de la Abadía de Westminster. Dir.: J. O’Donnell. Laudate dominum onmes gentes (2.40). Terra tremuit (2.10). Ascendit deus (1.58). Incipit oratio (7.40). Illumina oculos meos (2.46). Ego sum panis vivus (2.57). Coro de la Catedral de Regensburg. Dir.: T. Schrems.Escuchar audio

In this episode of the Data Malarkey podcast, master data storyteller Sam Knowles is joined by Alice Wallbank, a professional support lawyer for the law firm Shoosmiths, whose clients include Mercedes-Benz, Octopus Ventures, and Travelodge. The company also specialises in working for businesses in both the property and banking sector.   The Financial Times has garlanded Shoosmiths as “one of Europe's most innovative law firms”, and Alice's pioneering role at the company – focused on privacy, data, and increasingly AI – is symptomatic of a business in the vanguard of a profession catching up with the broadest implications of technology.   At the start of this year, Alice co-hosted an excellent ‘data insights' conference – naturally hybrid, both in the room and online – which featured a keynote from Austrian activist and lawyer, Max Schrems. Schrems is famous for his successful campaigns against Facebook (and Meta) for their violations of European data privacy laws.   Before joining Shoosmiths, Alice spent six years as the principal legal counsel for the cyber and information security division of the leading technology business, QinetiQ.    Alice is a passionate advocate of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), describing it “as a good thing for data privacy – without a shadow of a doubt”. Although first introduced in 2016 and in place since 2018, it has its origins in a 1995 directive, designed to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals from Big Tech. Alice believes this showed “remarkable foresight”.   One of the very few people in the UK, Europe, and the world to have read all 90,000 words of the EU's AI Act, artificial intelligence gives Alice that fabled reaction to trench warfare of “a combination of boredom and terror”. There are huge potential upsides – such as radiography diagnostics – and massive downsides from a system that is “at heart a self-limiting black box” dealing in “biases in, biases out”.   And in a Data Malarkey exclusive, Alice is our first guest in more than 40 episodes … to sing. She dons her white stilettos, dances round her handbag, and turns the clock back to 1984 for a tuneful rendition of Rockwell's dancefloor smash, Somebody's Watching Me – for Alice, an insightful foreshadowing of data privacy issues 40 years into the future.   EXTERNAL LINKS   Shoosmiths home page – https://www.shoosmiths.com   Alice's profile on the Shoosmiths' site – https://www.shoosmiths.com/people/cvdetails/alice-wallbank   Alice's article on Ashley Madison – https://www.grip.globalrelay.com/could-the-ashley-madison-data-breach-happen-today/   Another blog from Alice, this time on the environmental credentials of GDPR.   The EU AI Act – all 90,000 words of it – here   Rockwell's Somebody's Watching Me from 1984 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvAYIJSSZY     To find out what kind of data storyteller you are, complete our data storytelling scorecard at https://data-storytelling.scoreapp.com. It takes just two minutes, and we'll send you your own personalised scorecard which tells you what kind of data storyteller you are.  

Im neuen Podcast blicken Stefan Brink und Niko Härting in Querbeet (ab Minute 03:33) in die USA und stellen fest, dass die Handelskommission FTC in Sachen Datenschutz klare Ansagen an die großen Plattformen macht (https://www.ftc.gov/reports/look-behind-scenes-examining-data-practices-social-media-video-streaming-services) und ein Bundes-Datenschutzgesetz einfordert. Sodann (ab Minute 06:10) betrachten sie eine Entscheidung des EuGH zur Sanktionspflicht der Aufsicht (EuGH Urteil vom 26.9.24 C-768/21). Zur Erleichterung der Datenschutzaufsicht stellt der EuGH fest, dass die Aufsichtsbehörde nicht verpflichtet ist, in jedem Fall eines Verstoßes eine Abhilfemaßnahme zu ergreifen und insbesondere eine Geldbuße zu verhängen, etwa wenn der Verantwortlicher bereits für Abhilfe gesorgt hat. Das soll aber nur eine Ausnahme sein … Dann geht es (mal wieder) um Max Schrems vs. Meta (ab Minute 15:58): Im Wege der Vorabentscheidung klärt der EuGH (Urteil vom 4.10.2024 C-446/21) wie Meta mit besonderen Arten personenbezogener Daten (Art. 9 DS-GVO) im Werbekontext umzugehen hat. Schrems hatte in einer öffentlichen Podiumsdiskussion seine sexuelle Orientierung angesprochen, Meta hat dieses Datum genutzt, um ihm personalisierte Werbung anzubieten, obwohl er seine sexuelle Orientierung nicht in seinem Facebook-Profil angegeben hat. Hiergegen klagte Schrems u.a. wegen Verstoßes von Meta gegen den Grundsatz der Datenminimierung Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. c DS-GVO. Etwas kryptisch meint dazu der EuGH, das die unbegrenzte Speicherung der Daten unzulässig sei (ohne eine Löschfrist vorzugeben) und führt zu Art. 9 Abs. 2 Buchst. e DSGVO (Daten, die „die betroffene Person offensichtlich öffentlich gemacht hat“) aus, dass solche Daten keinen Schutz mehr nach Art. 9 Abs. 1 DS-GVO beanspruchen können; dies gelte allerdings nicht für Art. 9-Daten „aus anderen Quellen“. Etwas ratlos bleiben Niko und Stefan zurück …

This Day in Legal History: Watergate Trial BeginsOn October 4, 1974, the trial of key Watergate conspirators began, marking a significant moment in American legal and political history. The defendants included top Nixon administration officials H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Mitchell, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson. These men were accused of participating in the cover-up of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, a scandal that would ultimately lead to President Nixon's resignation.The trial was presided over by Judge John Sirica, who had played a pivotal role in uncovering the truth behind Watergate. At the outset, the court reviewed transcripts of the now-infamous Watergate tapes, which had been secretly recorded by President Nixon in the Oval Office. These recordings captured critical conversations revealing the extent of the administration's involvement in the cover-up.The tapes provided key evidence, especially a June 23, 1972, conversation known as the "smoking gun" tape, in which Nixon and Haldeman discussed obstructing the FBI's investigation. The trial was part of the broader legal reckoning following Nixon's resignation two months earlier in August 1974.Haldeman and Ehrlichman, two of Nixon's closest aides, were found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. John Mitchell, Nixon's former Attorney General, was also convicted on conspiracy charges. This trial helped close one chapter of the Watergate scandal, demonstrating the judicial system's role in holding even the highest-ranking officials accountable for abuses of power.A federal court has blocked President Biden's latest student debt relief plan, ruling it likely unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted a preliminary injunction requested by a coalition of seven Republican-led states. Judge Matthew T. Schelp, who issued the ruling, emphasized the public interest in ensuring the government follows the law. The plan, which would have canceled debt for 27 million borrowers, is now paused.The plaintiffs argue the plan is an executive overreach. While Georgia was dismissed from the lawsuit for lacking standing, Missouri's Higher Education Loan Authority was found to have suffered an injury, giving Missouri standing to continue the case. This ruling temporarily halts the debt relief program as the court considers whether to permanently strike it down. The injunction is a blow to Biden's efforts to reduce student debt, following the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier decision in 2023 that struck down a broader relief plan. Another related plan, known as “SAVE,” which aims to provide zero-dollar payments and expedite forgiveness for some borrowers, is also under review by the Eighth Circuit Court. This decision prevents the debt relief plan from taking effect while the court evaluates the case, reflecting the court's consideration of the public interest and potential harm.Biden's Latest Student Debt Relief Plan Blocked by Federal CourtThe U.S. government has supported Nvidia investors in a Supreme Court case where they allege the company misled the market about its reliance on cryptocurrency mining sales. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a brief urging the Court to allow the case to proceed, siding with the investors. The Ninth Circuit Court previously revived the class action, ruling that Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang made materially false or misleading statements about the company's revenue dependence on crypto mining, particularly before a 2018 market downturn.Nvidia disputes the case, claiming the investors' allegations were based on unreliable expert data. However, the DOJ and SEC argued that the claims were backed by multiple sources, including accounts from former employees, a Royal Bank of Canada report, Nvidia's own public statements, and SEC filings. These sources collectively suggest Nvidia earned $1.35 billion more from crypto sales during the boom than it disclosed.The government emphasized that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), which governs investor lawsuits, was not misapplied by the Ninth Circuit. It rejected Nvidia's argument that the case was based solely on unsubstantiated expert opinions, pointing out that the allegations were supported by sufficient evidence to infer Nvidia's intent to mislead investors.Nvidia Investors Backed by US in Supreme Court Crypto Sales CaseThe European Union's top court has ruled that Meta must limit the use of personal data collected from Facebook users for targeted advertising. This decision supports privacy advocate Max Schrems, who argued that Meta's personalized advertising violated privacy regulations by processing personal data without proper limitations. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) emphasized that under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the principle of data minimization restricts how much personal data companies can use for targeted ads.Meta responded by stating it has invested heavily in privacy features and does not use sensitive data for personalized ads. Schrems' lawyer welcomed the decision, saying it would significantly reduce the amount of data Meta and other companies can use for advertising, even when users consent. This ruling marks another victory for Schrems, who has repeatedly taken Meta to court over alleged GDPR violations.Meta must limit data use for targeted advertising, top EU court rules | ReutersCupertino, California, has reached a settlement with the state's Department of Tax and Fee Administration, allowing the city to retain millions in sales tax revenue tied to Apple's online sales through August 2024. The settlement resolves a dispute that began in 2021 when the department audited Cupertino's 26-year tax-sharing agreement with Apple. Under this agreement, Apple treated all in-state online sales as originating from Cupertino, directing a portion of the state sales tax to the city, which in turn shared 35% of the revenue with Apple.The tax department has scrutinized similar deals with other retailers like Best Buy and Williams-Sonoma, arguing that businesses need to show active participation in the transactions where the sales are reported. Last year, Cupertino set aside $56.5 million to potentially repay the state as the dispute escalated to $60.3 million by February 2024.The settlement avoids litigation, but the city did not disclose specific financial details or directly reference Apple in the announcement. It clarified that the agreement does not impact its tax-sharing arrangement with any taxpayer.Cupertino Settles With State in Apple Sales Tax-Sharing FightThis week's closing theme is by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.This week's closing theme is the Adagio lamentoso from Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 in B minor, Op. 74, also known as the "Pathétique" Symphony. Tchaikovsky composed this masterpiece in 1893, just a few months before his sudden and mysterious death. The "Pathétique" Symphony is widely regarded as his most personal and emotionally charged work, filled with profound sorrow and introspection.The fourth movement, "Adagio lamentoso," is the symphony's haunting conclusion. Unlike most symphonies, which end on a triumphant or uplifting note, Tchaikovsky chose to close his final symphony with this slow, lamenting movement. It reflects deep melancholy and resignation, expressing a sense of despair that resonates with listeners. The music ebbs and flows between quiet, intimate passages and moments of overwhelming intensity, capturing the fragility and tragedy of life.Tchaikovsky was known for his ability to express raw emotion through music, and the "Adagio lamentoso" exemplifies this talent. The theme's descending lines seem to mirror a downward spiral into sorrow, giving it an almost funereal quality. Some have speculated that the symphony reflects Tchaikovsky's own inner turmoil and struggles, adding a layer of poignancy to the already emotional score.As you listen to the "Finale" this week, take note of its deep, somber beauty and how Tchaikovsky blends anguish with moments of quiet reflection. It's a fitting close to a symphony that grapples with life's most profound emotions.Without further ado, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 in B minor, Op. 74, the Pathetique Symphony. Enjoy.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this crucial episode of The Retreat Leaders Podcast, we sit down with Cera Schrems, a seasoned business insurance specialist, to unpack the complexities of insurance for retreat hosts and venue owners. Cera brings her expertise to the table, providing essential knowledge to protect your business and ensure peace of mind.   Key Discussion Points: 1. Understanding Insurance Needs:    - Cera outlines the different types of insurance policies that retreat hosts and venue owners should consider, including liability insurance, property insurance, and business interruption insurance.    - Explanation of how these policies protect against various risks associated with running retreats such as accidents, property damage, and unexpected cancellations.   2. Tailoring Insurance to Retreat Operations:    - Discussion on the importance of customizing insurance coverage to fit the specific needs and risks of a retreat business.    - Cera provides tips on assessing risk factors and choosing the right level of coverage.   3. Legal Requirements and Best Practices:    - Insight into the legal requirements surrounding insurance for retreats and how to comply with local laws and regulations.    - Best practices for maintaining adequate coverage and regularly reviewing insurance policies to ensure ongoing protection as your business grows.   4. Cost Management Strategies:    - Cera discusses strategies to manage insurance costs without compromising on necessary coverage.     More info on Cera: Cera "C" is a Business Insurance Specialist who advises on risk management and mitigation. Through her work, she contributes to building more resilient and sustainable businesses with communities and planet in mind. Her holistic approach to insurance reflects her values of compassion, integrity, and a deep-seated desire to make a positive impact on the world around her.   LinkedIn IG   The Retreat Leaders Podcast Resources and Links: Learn to Host Retreats The Retreat Ranch   Thanks for tuning into the Retreat Leaders Podcast. Remember to subscribe for more insightful episodes, and visit our website for additional resources. Let's create a vibrant retreat community together!   Subscribe:  Apple Podcast | Google Podcast | Spotify Connect with Shannon Jamail: Visit The Retreat Leaders Podcast Visit Retreat Ranch  Facebook Mind & Body Complete

Schrems avvia un ricorso in un 11 paesi contro Meta che non permette di opporsi al trattamento di dati e messaggi personali per la propria ai, anche presso terzi.La comunicazione che ho ricevuto indica che non tratta i messaggi, che la ai serve a loro e che posso oppormi se lo chiedo.Il link, al quarto tentativo, ha funzionato. E ho mandato la mia richiesta.Ma dissento da chi la mette tutta in privacy. Potrebbe, ma non e' certo. E' certo invece altro.Ecco cosa.Nell'area pro la richiesta che ho presentato.Ricordare di usare la stessa email usata per entrare su FB / Instagram: c'e' un errore di identificazione, almeno usando librewolf (non usate brave e la su vpn)

Tässä jaksossa Milla, Laura ja Pilvi eivät käsittele euroviisuja eivätkä edes 1600-luvun Japania (paitsi ihan pikkuriikkisen), sillä Virallinen Valvoja Lauran tiukassa valvonnassa kaikki pysyttelevät tiukasti tietosuojamaailman mielenkiintoisimmissa uutisissa (uskokoon ken tahtoo että edes Laura pystyy tähän).  Virallisen valvojan tuoman ryhtiliikkeen itsevarmuuden myötä aloitamme käsittelemällä tapaus Yleä ja pohdimme, millaisia erilaisia näkökulmia pakollisessa kirjautumisessa kansallisen yleisradion palveluun voi olla tietosuojan näkökulmasta.  Siitä siirrymme asiallista aasinsiltaa pitkin uusimpaan Schrems-tapaukseen (Schrems IV? Screhms Five? Schrems Tokyo Drift?), jossa Julkisasiamies on antanut ratkaisuehdotuksensa joka on herättänyt paljon mielenkiintoista keskustelua. Onko henkilötieto kenen tahansa käytettävissä jos se on "julkista tietoa"? Hyvin lähellä tuota uusinta Schrems-rainaa olevaa aihetta käsitellään myös Hollannin tietosuojavaltuutetun tuoreissa linjauksissa siitä miten internetiä saisi kaapia ja köyriä. Lisäksi käuydään kurkkaamassa NOYBin OpenAI:ta koskevaa valitusta (mahdollinen Schrems VI - Jedin paluu?) liittyen muun muassa tekoälyn hallusinaatioihin vastauksissaan, TikTokin lisääntyviä hankaluuksia sekä Yhdysvaltojen uutta ehdotusta kansalliseksi tietosuojalaista.  Liity seuraamme kuuntelemaan sangen ryhdikästä jaksoa uutisista (uskoo ken tahtoo, ks yllä) ja tiedät taas tietosuojan maailmasta kaiken mitä tarvitsee tietää!   Linkit: Tapaus Yle: https://www.is.fi/digitoday/art-2000010384833.html NOYBin kommentti liittyen Asiaan C‑446/21:  https://noyb.eu/en/ag-cjeu-facebook-must-minimize-personal-data-ads-eu Julkisasiamiehen ratkaisuehdotus Asiassa C‑446/21: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=285201&pageIndex=0&doclang=FI&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2196517   Hollannin tietosuojavaltuutettu ja internetin kaavinta: https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/actueel/ap-scraping-bijna-altijd-illegaal TikTok ja EU komissio: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_926 ByteDance valitsee mieluummin TikTokin sulkemisen Yhdysvalloissa kuin myynnin: https://www.reuters.com/technology/bytedance-prefers-tiktok-shutdown-us-if-legal-options-fail-sources-say-2024-04-25 Yhdysvaltojen ehdotus uudeksi kansalliseksi tietosuojalaiksi: https://iapp.org/media/pdf/resource_center/american_privacy_rights_act_cheat_sheet.pdf https://iapp.org/news/a/how-apra-could-affect-ai/   FISA 702 pidetään voimassa: https://iapp.org/news/a/fisa-section-702s-reauthorization-era/   Tykkäsitkö jaksostamme? Tue meitä täällä: https://bmc.link/privacypod4u Voit seurata TietosuojaPodia Twitterissä täältä: https://twitter.com/PodPrivacy Voit lähettää meille palautetta Twitterin yksityisviestinä, hashtagilla #tietosuojapod tai sähköpostilla tietosuojapod@protonmail.com Seuraa meitä myös Instagramissa ja LinkedInissä nimellä privacypod!  

Dalli all'untore ! Era vicino al muro, lo imbrattava e contagiava la peste. Cosi' Giangiacomo Moro fu vittima di un pensiero totalmente infondato quanto praticamente vero per tutti, cardinali santi compresi.Ora si chiede a OpenAi di togliere dati personali sbagliati. La risposta ? Non sono dati, sono calcoli probabilistici.Si continua a considerare le AI come documenti invece di conversazioni probabilistiche. E, attenzione, la conversazione dipende anche da chi interroga.La mia tesi, solitaria nel web, e' fondata sui fatti. Quella che OpenAi tratta dati personali e' tutta da provare, ma attualmente data per scontata dal mondo del diritto. Dipende dall'uso che si fa della AI, ovviamente, ma la tecnologia non e' come viene descritta dal mondo del diritto, se non in casi eccezionali. Ma il ripeterlo continuamente sembra farlo diventare vero.Sullo sfondo la mancanza di tecnici nella AI.Sull'Osservatorio privacy i documenti di Noyb con il testo dell'atto giudiziario e le analisi riservate agli iscritti www.civile.it/privacy Nell'area membri l'approfondimento in audio.

Was ist in der KW 17 in der Datenschutzwelt passiert, was ist für Datenschutzbeauftragte interessant? Wir geben einen kurzen Überblick der aktuellen Themen: BGH zur Auslegung "Kopie von personenzogenen Daten" (VI ZR 330/21) https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&nr=137175&pos=0&anz=1 Schlussantrag vom 25.04.2024 – EUGH Aktenzeichen C-446/21 des Generalanwalts zu Meta vs Max Schrems https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_4379956/de/ DSK veröffentlicht Stellungnahme zum Gesetzentwurf zur Änderung des BDSG https://www.datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/media/st/240412_BDSG-E_Stellungnahme_DSK.pdf Sammelklage: Personenbezogene Daten an Werbefirmen abgegeben Neue Datenschutzbeauftragte für Sachsen-Anhalt Empfehlungen & Lesetipps Suchmaschine für Tätigkeitsberichte der Datenschutzbehörde https://taetigkeitsberichte.com/ CNIL veröffentlich Jahresbericht 2023 https://www.cnil.fr/en/cnil-publishes-its-annual-report-2023 EDSB hat hat seinen Jahresbericht 2023 veröffentlicht https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2024/edpb-annual-report-2023-safeguarding-individuals-digital-rights_de Weitere Infos, Blog und Newsletter finden Sie unter: https://migosens.de/newsroom/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DS_Talk Übersicht aller Themenfolgen: https://migosens.de/datenschutz-podcast-themenfolgen/ (als eigener Feed: https://migosens.de/show/tf/feed/ddt/) Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/datenschutztalk_podcast/ Folge hier kommentieren: https://migosens.de/schlussantrag-zu-schrems-iii-liegt-vor-datenschutz-news-kw-17-2024

We are the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠United Digital Nomads⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ About this episode Cera Schrems unpacks her journey to remote work which includes a stint of van life as a digital nomad. Cera works remotely as an Account Executive at Insurance Service of Asheville, Inc. She is an active member and organizer for the AVL Digital Nomads. And for some extra fun, this may be the only podcast with a mention of chocolate meditation. This week's featured locally (Asheville, NC) produced beverage: Vanilla Rooibos Infusion and Ginger White Tea from Sarilla. About the United Digital Nomads The United Digital Nomads is an expanded vision of the AVL Digital Nomads, a meetup group in Asheville, NC, since 2021. The mission of UDN is to help remote workers thrive. This includes remote and hybrid workers, traveling nomads, freelance and solo entrepreneurs.  United Digital Nomads on Meetup: ⁠UDN on Meetup⁠  ⁠AVL (Asheville) Digital Nomads on Meetup⁠ ⁠Triangle (Raleigh) Remote Workers & Digital Nomads on Meetup⁠ ⁠DAY (Dayton) Digital Nomads on Meetup⁠ ⁠Chicago Digital Nomads (CDN) on Meetup⁠ AVL Digital Nomads links Visit: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠avldigitalnomads.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join: the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AVL Digital Nomads Slack community⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@avldigitalnomads⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on Instagram AVL Digital Nomads sponsors: ⁠Venture Asheville⁠ ⁠The Van Winkle Law Firm⁠ AVL Digital Nomads supporters: ⁠Hatch Coworking⁠ ⁠Devil's Foot Beverage Company⁠ ⁠Hi-Wire Brewing⁠ ⁠Highland Brewing⁠ ⁠Wedge Brewing Co.⁠ ⁠Archetype Brewing⁠ Contact UDN Podcast (we want to hear your story!) ⁠Email UDN Podcast --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/united-digital-nomads/message

Een betaald abonnement op Facebook en Instagram kost nu tien euro per maand, maar Meta wil dat best ruwweg halveren. Toch blijft de kritiek op deze 'oplossing', legt Joe van Burik uit in deze Tech Update. Sinds afgelopen najaar kun je een tientje per maand betalen voor Facebook of Instagram/ Dan mag Meta niet meer je data gebruiken voor gepersonaliseerde advertenties. Om zo te voldoen aan Europese weten, in het kader van privacy en dataverwerking. Daarom wordt dit ook wel 'Pay or Okay' genoemd, door critici zoals privacyactivist Max Schrems. Nu heeft Meta laten weten dat ze best willen zakken naar zes euro per maand voor één account. En als je daaraan gekoppelde accounts hebt, vier euro - dus gemiddeld een halvering van de prijs. Dat heeft een advocaat van Meta gezegd tijdens een verhoor met de Europese Commissie, meldt Reuters. Die daaraan toevoegt 'Dat is zo laag als we kunnen gaan, en dan krijg je nog steeds echt een kwaliteitsdienst. We willen af van de onzekerheid die deze regels bezorgen.' Dit aanbod ligt nu bij de Ierse privacy-waakhond/ Schrems heeft ook al gereageerd, en is geheel zoals verwacht hierover niet te spreken. Volgens zijn privacyinstantie None of Your Business blijft Meta hiermee mensen dwingen tot betalen óf het accepteren van privacy-schending. In een reactie laat hij weten: 'Uit onderzoek blijft dat zelfs voor 2 euro per maand of minder maar een paar mensen dit zou willen. En 99 procent van de mensen blijft dus instemmen met privacy-schending. De GDPR, oftewel AVG, schrijft voor dat betalen geen alternatief mag zijn voor een gratis dienst. Een prijsverlaging verandert daar helemaal niets aan.' Verder in deze Tech Update: De Europese Centrale Bank en diverse nationale banken, waaronder die in Duitsland, willen met AI meer inzicht krijgen in klimaatverandering, en hoe bedrijven hun voornemens en afspraken daarover rapporteren Ook volledig elektrische Ferrari's krijgen 'emotie' in het geluid dat ze produceren, belooft CEO Benedetto Vigna See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

To what extent do elected officials and lawmakers understand how data transmits the internet? This week, host Elisa is joined by Alex Joel of American University's Washington College of Law for the second half of their discussion on international data transmission and privacy. Alex sheds light on the concept of data localization, delves into the intricacies of Schrems cases I & II, and discusses how the rulings on these cases impact global data flows and national security. Alex Joel is a Scholar-in-Residence and Adjunct Professor at American University's Washington College of Law: https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/ajoel/bio/ References: The CLOUD Act: https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/privacy/cloud-act/cloud-act-text.pdf Schrems I: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62014CJ0362 Schrems II: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62018CJ0311 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT "Digital Repression Growing Globally, Threatening Freedoms." The National Intelligence Council: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/NIC-Declassified-Assessment-Digital-Repression-Growing-April2023.pdf "Global Trends 2040." The National Intelligence Council: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf E.O. 14086: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-10-14/pdf/2022-22531.pdf EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): https://gdpr.eu/tag/gdpr/ Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Section 702 Resource Page: https://www.fisa702resources.com/ The Fair Information Practice Principles: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/Governing%20Privacy%20Policy%20-%20The%20Fair%20Information%20Principles-Framework%20for%20Privacy%20Policy%20at%20the%20Department%20of%20Homeland%20Security.pdf The Privacy Act of 1974: https://osc.gov/Pages/Privacy-Act.aspx#:~:text=The%20Privacy%20Act%20provides%20protections,relevant%2C%20timely%20or%20complete%3B%20and OECD Privacy Guidelines, 1980: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0188

Romain Robert is member of the litigation chamber of Belgium's Supervisory Authority. He worked in various Brussels law firms between 2002 and 2011. Between 2007 and 2011, he was also a researcher at the Research Centre in Law and Society at the University of Namur. In 2011, he joined Belgium's Supervisory Authority as a legal advisor. He worked as legal officer at the Policy and Consultation Unit of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) as of 2015 and joined the Secretariat of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) in May 2018. In April 2020, Romain joined NOYB - an NGO conducting strategic litigation to enforce digital rights - where he was Program Director until July 2023. References: Romain Robert on LinkedIn EDPS Opinion on the Proposal for a Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content Sergio Maldonado, How the Digital Content Directive will break the GDPR NOYB Robert Bateman: Consent or Pay EDPB Guidelines 05/2020 on consent Giovanni Buttarelli (former EDPS), “Privacy 2030: A Vision for Europe” (IAPP)

⁠Dr. Laura Drechsler⁠, the researcher at KU Leuven, who addresses the issue of rights in international data transfers in her analyses talks about international data transfers, presented as a game changer for big tech companies. The episode is hosted by ⁠Dr. Joanna Mazur⁠, a DELab UW analyst and assistant professor at the UW Faculty of Management. Topics of the podcast include: - the definition of international data transfers, - ways of solving the difficulties of having to distinguish between personal and non-personal data, - the economic and social importance of solutions,- challenges faced by service users, - the grounds for lawful data transfers, - Schrems I and Schrems II cases, - evaluation of current solutions.

Il 22 novembre avremo l'opportunità di esplorare il Futuro della #Privacy in diretta con un ospite di eccezione: Max #Schrems.Insieme a #PrivacyForFutures in DIRETTA (di persona!) dagli studi di #CiaoInternet! parliamo dei temi cruciali legati al futuro del trasferimento dei dati personali e della privacy più in generale. Tutto questo alla luce delle importanti esperienze fatte dall'attivista nel contesto dei casi omonimi (Schrems I, II e… III?) presso la Corte di Giustizia Europea.Appuntamento per il 22 Novembre, in diretta alle ore 11.30, per parlare insieme del Futuro della Privacy!Questo show fa parte del network Spreaker Prime. Se sei interessato a fare pubblicità in questo podcast, contattaci su https://www.spreaker.com/show/2130193/advertisement

Dopo tre anni di incertezze, l'UE e gli USA hanno finalmente tirato fuori un nuovo accordo sulla condivisione dei dati, facendo tirare un sospiro di sollievo a giganti come Facebook e Google.Prima non c'erano accordi o, meglio, c'era il "Privacy Shield", ma è stato bloccato perché gli occhialuti dell'intelligence USA non riuscivano a tenere le mani a posto…Dopo un po' di tira e molla, e un ordine esecutivo Biden, che ha messo un po' di briglie alle sue agenzie di spionaggio, finalmente l'UE ha dato il via libera agli USA come paese con protezioni e garanzie sufficienti sui dati personali. Ma è davvero una buona notizia?No, anzi è solo mettere la polvere sotto il tappetoTutti i miei link: https://linktr.ee/br1brownFonti:La Commissione europea concede il terzo round ai trasferimenti di dati tra UE e USA presso la CGUEC'è un nuovo accordo per il trasferimento dei dati personali tra Unione Europea e Stati Uniti - Il PostTELEGRAM - INSTAGRAMSe ti va supportami https://it.tipeee.com/br1brown

Deze week in dasprive: Iemand eet Schrems de kaas van het brood: DPF nu al bij de rechter! Auto's registreren je sexuele activiteiten, volgens rapport van Mozilla Uw verplichte Dosis AI: NowJobs biedt automatische recrutering aan via… ChatGPT Belgische onderzoeksrechter zegt: om uw privacy te beschermen, moet ik m schenden Vlaamse wijkagent misbruikt al jarenlang… Continue reading 132 – Auto's zijn sextrackers, AI recruitment ook bij ons, Britten capituleren

Nach der ersten folgt nun die zweite Folge unserer zweiten Staffel. Diesmal wird es etwas "ernster" - das Thema Datenschutz, Cookies und Tracking ist in aller Munde. Doch was gilt es zu beachten?Wir sprechen mit dem IT-Anwalt Dr. Ulrich Höpfner über die Fallstricke bei einer Website & welche Themen er als Syndikusanwalt auf dem Tisch liegen hat. Weiterhin schauen wir uns an, auf was ein Entwickler - und auch Agenturen - bei einem Webprojekt achten sollten - und das ist mehr, als wir überhaupt dachten.Das und noch viel mehr, ab sofort in der Folge 2 der zweiten Staffel devslove.it - der Podcast!---Mit dabei: Dr. Ulrich Höpfnerhttps://www.hpp24.de/dr-ulrich-hoepfner/https://fulda.it-ip-anwalt.dehttps://www.linkedin.com/in/rechtsanwalthoepfner/---Begleitende Linkshttps://www.bfdi.bund.de/DE/Fachthemen/Inhalte/Europa-Internationales/Auswirkungen-Schrems-II-Urteil.htmlhttps://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schremshttps://www.baden-wuerttemberg.datenschutz.de/ueberblick-eu-u-s-privacy-shield/https://matomo.org---devslove.ithttps://de.linkedin.com/in/alexander-bürnerhttps://de.linkedin.com/in/dominik-laubehttps://podcast.devslove.ithttps://www.instagram.com/devslove.it---CreditsSchnitt: Treppenhaus, Benjamin Grimmeisen https://www.instagram.com/treppenhausstudioFotografie: Marcel Bürner, https://www.instagram.com/ma.burner

I juli skete det - EU har godkendt en dataoverførselsaftale mellem USA og EU efter flere års kamp. Først med Schrems-sagen. Så med Schrems 2. Og nu altså med en ny dataaftale mellem de to parter på hver side af Atlanten. Det er en aftale, der nu skal tryktestes. Kan det stå mål med retningslinjerne i GDPR? Og giver aftalen arbejdsro mellem det amerikanske og det europæiske marked, når vi det kommer til sikker datatrafik. Velkommen til tredje runde af snakken om dataoverførsler mellem USA og EU. Og velkommen for tredje gang til Tim Krarup Nielsen, partner hos DAHL Advokatfirma og Søren Sandfeld Jacobsen, professor og advokat hos Gorrissen Federspiel.

Shield 3 e google analitics - resta il blocco prima del consenso liberoSi puo' installare. Ma conviene, perdurando gli altri limiti ?

"Da kommt wieder das Rotkäppchen", sagen die Nachbarn, wenn Margarete Distelberger mit ihrem großen Korb zum Mathematikunterricht ausrückt. In ihrem Korb hat sie allerdings weder Kuchen noch Wein, sondern Holzwürfel, Knotenschnüre, Bälle oder Spezialdominos. Mit Hilfe vieler verschiedener Materialien macht Margarete Distelberger Mathematik "begreifbar". Brüche, Prozente, Mengenmaße und Textbeispiele sind dann sogar für mathematisch Traumatisierte kein Problem mehr. Über solche Aha-Erlebnisse freut sich die passionierte Mathematikerin und langjährige Lehrerin unendlich. Eine Sendung von Monika Fischer mit mathematischer Musik auf radio klassik Stephansdom.   Seminare mit Margarete Distelberger: Donnerstag, 6. Juli, 19 Uhr bis Sonntag, 9. Juli 2023, 13 Uhr Freitag, 20. Oktober, 19 Uhr bis Sonntag, 22. Oktober 2023, 13 Uhr jeweils in der GEA-Akademie in Schrems

Max Schrems sagt von sich, er sei so eine Art "Datenschutz-Micky-Maus": Seit Jahren gibt er dem Kampf für den Schutz privater Daten im Netz ein Gesicht und legt sich dafür immer wieder mit Konzernen und Institutionen an. Nun ist der Jurist und Aktivist in der neuen Folge des Wirtschaftspodcasts "Ist das eine Blase?" zu Gast und spricht darüber, was ihn antreibt, wer ihn und seine Organisation None of Your Business unterstützt und wie er mit Kritik umgeht. Anlass für das Gespräch ist die Rekordstrafe, die die irische Datenschutzbehörde ziemlich genau fünf Jahre nach Inkrafttreten der Datenschutzgrundverordnung gegen Meta verhängt hat und die auf eine Beschwerde Schrems' zurückgeht. 1,2 Milliarden Euro muss der Facebook-Mutterkonzern zahlen, weil er Daten seiner europäischen Nutzer in die USA transferiert hat; außerdem hat die Behörde dem Konzern fünf Monate Zeit gegeben, die Praxis zu beenden. Meta hält die Entscheidung für ungerechtfertigt und will sie anfechten. Im Podcast erneuert Schrems seine Kritik: Seit der Einführung der Datenschutzgrundverordnung (DSGVO) ignoriere Facebook sie "kunstvoll", die Plattform habe außerdem eine "sehr, sehr, sehr aggressive Art", auf Beschwerden zu reagieren. Die DSGVO sei zwar "im Prinzip nicht schlecht", sagt der Aktivist, "aber wir haben ein riesiges Durchsetzungsproblem". Zudem versuchten die Techkonzerne immer wieder, die Verantwortung für Datenschutzprobleme umzukehren und den Menschen zuzuschieben. Das sei "extrem zynisch", findet Schrems. "Wenn ich in einen Supermarkt gehe und nachher Brechdurchfall kriege, war das auch nicht meine Schuld, in den Supermarkt zu gehen und keine Abstriche des Apfels zu nehmen, sondern man geht davon aus, dass in der Produktion irgendwas danebengegangen ist und wird die Schuldigkeit dort suchen." Schrems hat mit seinen Beschwerden und Klagen schon zwei Abkommen zu Fall gebracht, die den Datenaustausch zwischen Europa und den USA regelten. Im Podcast kündigt er an, auch gegen das Nachfolgeabkommen vorgehen zu wollen, auf das sich die EU und die USA im Grundsatz bereits verständigt haben und das bald in Kraft treten könnte. "Das neue Abkommen wird ziemlich sicher beim Europäischen Gerichtshof landen", sagt Schrems. "Wir werden auch probieren, es möglichst schnell dorthin zu bekommen, einfach auch um Rechtssicherheit zu bekommen." In der 42. Folge des Wirtschaftspodcasts ist außerdem Meike Laaff zu Gast, Redakteurin im Digitalressort von ZEIT ONLINE. Im Gespräch mit den Hosts Ann-Kathrin Nezik und Jens Tönnesmann erläutert sie die Basics, was die DSGVO eigentlich ist und wie die Verordnung funktioniert.

Det händer ständigt nya saker inom juridik och lagstiftning som påverkar marknadsföring och e-handel. Och under 2022 hände det extra mycket. Under året fick vi både en ny konsumentköplag och uppdaterat konsumentskydd med en rad nya regler som vi måste ha koll på om vi jobbar med marknadsföring eller e-handel. Så jag bjöd in Agnes Hammarstrand till podden igen. För det här är ett av hennes expertisområden. Det här avsnittet är viktigt för alla marknadsförare som vill ha koll på nya regler och vad de innebär för hur vi jobbar med marknadsföring. Och extra viktigt för alla som jobbar med e-handel där det finns en rad uppdateringar. Inte minst kring hur prissänkningar, kampanjer och reor får kommuniceras. Agnes var med i avsnitt 66 där vi gick igenom vad marknadsföringslagen, cookies-lagen, GDPR och Schrems 2 innebär för digital marknadsföring. Allt är fortsatt aktuellt och det är väl värt en lyssning om du vill fräscha upp dina kunskaper på området. Om gästen Agnes Hammarstrand är advokat och partner på advokatbyrån Delphi. En affärsjuridisk byrå som är en av Sveriges ledande inom IT, tech, e-handel och marknadsföring. Det här är även Agnes expertisområde och hon har lång erfarenhet av att jobba med frågor kring digitalisering, IT, e-handel och marknadsföring. Och hon har byggt upp ett stort team som arbetar med detta. Agnes har dessutom fått en hel del utmärkelser som bland annat Årets Justitia och den advokat svenska advokater helst hade anlitat inom affärsjuridik. Om avsnittet Agnes och jag pratar i avsnittet om det viktigaste som har hänt kring juridik för marknadsförare och vad vi behöver ha koll på. Dels den nya konsumentköplagen och konsumentskyddet som trädde i kraft under 2022. Men också allt från Digital Services Act och Digital Market Act och hur dessa kommer påverka oss marknadsförare till kommande Tillgänglighetsdirektivet och vad det är. Du får dessutom höra om: Vad som nu gäller kring recensioner och omdömen Nya regler kring hur prissänkningar ska kommuniceras Vanliga missförstånd kring de nya reglerna Att digitala tjänster nu omfattas av konsumentköplagen Vad som händer kring Schrems 2 och Privacy Shield Och Agnes ger även en uppdatering kring vad som har hänt de senaste året kring GDPR samt vad hon fortfarande får många frågor kring. Plus en massa mer… Du hittar som vanligt länkar till allt vi nämnde här i poddinlägget. Efter länkarna finns också tidsstämplar så att du enkelt kan hitta olika sektioner i intervjun. Länkar Agnes Hammarstrand på LinkedIn Delphi webbsida Delphi aktiviteter/events/webinars Delphi Tech-blogg Nya Konsumentköplagen - Konsumentverket (artikel) Tuffare krav på marknadsföring och information samt hårdare sanktioner - Konsumentverket (artikel) Prisinformationslagen - Konsumentverket (artikel) Så ska EU öka konsumentskyddet - Europaparlamentet (artikel) Digital Services Act - EU (artikel) Digital Markets Act - EU (artikel) Rekordhög sanktionsavgift mot Meta efter överföring av personuppgifter till USA i strid med GDPR - Delphi (artikel) Nya tillsynsbeslut från Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten - Delphi (artikel) Juni Invoices - Buy Media, Pay Later Juni Capital for Cards Tidsstämplar [3:30] Agnes berättar om de stora sakerna som hände inom juridik under 2022 som påverkar marknadsförare och e-handlare. [6:04] Om vad den nya konsumentköplagen handlar om och den stora nyheten att den nu även täcker digitala tjänster och produkter samt innehåll. Inklusive tjänster där man betalar med sina personuppgifter. [9:28] Agnes berättar om det nya konsumentskyddet där det bland annat handlar om recensioner och prissänkningar. Och går bland annat igenom reglerna som nu gäller kring hur prissänkningar och reor får kommuniceras. [13:29] Går igenom lite gamla regler kring reor och pris som nu blivit mer aktuella för många. Samt vad marknadsförare och företag har missförstått kring reglerna.

Florian Scheuba präsentiert exklusiv ein von ihm gegebenes, aber nie erschienenes Kronen-Zeitungs-Interview über das wundersame Wirken von Hans-Peter Doskozil. Mit dem ehemaligen Krone-Chronik-Chef Schrems spricht er über systemische Korruption, selektive Leserbrief-Auswahl und ungenierte Machtausübung der Anzeigenabteilung. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast features the second half of my interview with Paul Stephan, author of The World Crisis and International Law. But it begins the way many recent episodes have begun, with the latest AI news. And, since it's so squarely in scope for a cyberlaw podcast, we devote some time to the so-appalling- you-have-to-laugh-to keep-from-crying story of the lawyer who relied on ChatGPT to write his brief. As Eugene Volokh noted in his post, the model returned exactly the case law the lawyer wanted—because it made up the cases, the citations, and even the quotes. The lawyer said he had no idea that AI would do such a thing. I cast a skeptical eye on that excuse, since when challenged by the court to produce the cases he relied on, the lawyer turned not to Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw but to ChatGPT, which this time made up eight cases on point. And when the lawyer asked, “Are the other cases you provided fake,” the model denied it. Well, all right then. Who among us has not asked Westlaw, “Are the cases you provided fake?” Somehow, I can't help suspecting that the lawyer's claim to be an innocent victim of ChatGPT is going to get a closer look before this story ends. So if you're wondering whether AI poses existential risk, the answer for at least one lawyer's license is almost certainly “yes.” But the bigger story of the week was the cries from Google and Microsoft leadership for government regulation. Jeffery Atik and Richard Stiennon weigh in. Microsoft's President Brad Smith has, as usual, written a thoughtful policy paper on what AI regulation might look like. And they point out that, as usual, Smith is advocating for a process that Microsoft could master pretty easily. Google's Sundar Pichai also joins the “regulate me” party, but a bit half-heartedly. I argue that the best way to judge Silicon Valley's confidence in the accuracy of AI is by asking when Google and Apple will be willing to use AI to identify photos of gorillas as gorillas. Because if there's anything close to an extinction event for those companies it would be rolling out an AI that once again fails to differentiate between people and apes.  Moving from policy to tech, Richard and I talk about Google's integration of AI into search; I see some glimmer of explainability and accuracy in Google's willingness to provide citations (real ones, I presume) for its answers. And on the same topic, the National Academy of Sciences has posted research suggesting that explainability might not be quite as impossible as researchers once thought. Jeffery takes us through the latest chapters in the U.S.—China decoupling story. China has retaliated, surprisingly weakly, for U.S. moves to cut off high-end chip sales to China. It has banned sales of U.S. - based Micron memory chips to critical infrastructure companies. In the long run, the chip wars may be the disaster that Invidia's CEO foresees. Jeffery and I agree that Invidia has much to fear from a Chinese effort to build a national champion to compete in AI chipmaking. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is building a new model for international agreements in an age of decoupling and industrial policy. Whether its effort to build a China-free IT supply chain will succeed is an open question, but we agree that it marks an end to the old free-trade agreements rejected by both former President Trump and President Biden. China, meanwhile, is overplaying its hand in Africa. Richard notes reports that Chinese hackers attacked the Kenyan government when Kenya looked like it wouldn't be able to repay China's infrastructure loans. As Richard points out, lending money to a friend rarely works out. You are likely to lose both the friend and the money.  Finally, Richard and Jeffery both opine on Irelands imposing—under protest—of a $1.3 billion fine on Facebook for sending data to the United States despite the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) two Schrems decisions. We agree that the order simply sets a deadline for the U.S. and the EU to close their deal on a third effort to satisfy the CJEU that U.S. law is “adequate” to protect the rights of Europeans. Speaking of which, anyone who's enjoyed my rants about the EU will want to tune in for a June 15 Teleforum in which Max Schrems and I will  debate the latest privacy framework. If we can, we'll release it as a bonus episode of this podcast, but listening live should be even more fun! Download 459th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

This episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast features the second half of my interview with Paul Stephan, author of The World Crisis and International Law. But it begins the way many recent episodes have begun, with the latest AI news. And, since it's so squarely in scope for a cyberlaw podcast, we devote some time to the so-appalling- you-have-to-laugh-to keep-from-crying story of the lawyer who relied on ChatGPT to write his brief. As Eugene Volokh noted in his post, the model returned exactly the case law the lawyer wanted—because it made up the cases, the citations, and even the quotes. The lawyer said he had no idea that AI would do such a thing. I cast a skeptical eye on that excuse, since when challenged by the court to produce the cases he relied on, the lawyer turned not to Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw but to ChatGPT, which this time made up eight cases on point. And when the lawyer asked, “Are the other cases you provided fake,” the model denied it. Well, all right then. Who among us has not asked Westlaw, “Are the cases you provided fake?” Somehow, I can't help suspecting that the lawyer's claim to be an innocent victim of ChatGPT is going to get a closer look before this story ends. So if you're wondering whether AI poses existential risk, the answer for at least one lawyer's license is almost certainly “yes.” But the bigger story of the week was the cries from Google and Microsoft leadership for government regulation. Jeffery Atik and Richard Stiennon weigh in. Microsoft's President Brad Smith has, as usual, written a thoughtful policy paper on what AI regulation might look like. And they point out that, as usual, Smith is advocating for a process that Microsoft could master pretty easily. Google's Sundar Pichai also joins the “regulate me” party, but a bit half-heartedly. I argue that the best way to judge Silicon Valley's confidence in the accuracy of AI is by asking when Google and Apple will be willing to use AI to identify photos of gorillas as gorillas. Because if there's anything close to an extinction event for those companies it would be rolling out an AI that once again fails to differentiate between people and apes.  Moving from policy to tech, Richard and I talk about Google's integration of AI into search; I see some glimmer of explainability and accuracy in Google's willingness to provide citations (real ones, I presume) for its answers. And on the same topic, the National Academy of Sciences has posted research suggesting that explainability might not be quite as impossible as researchers once thought. Jeffery takes us through the latest chapters in the U.S.—China decoupling story. China has retaliated, surprisingly weakly, for U.S. moves to cut off high-end chip sales to China. It has banned sales of U.S. - based Micron memory chips to critical infrastructure companies. In the long run, the chip wars may be the disaster that Invidia's CEO foresees. Jeffery and I agree that Invidia has much to fear from a Chinese effort to build a national champion to compete in AI chipmaking. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is building a new model for international agreements in an age of decoupling and industrial policy. Whether its effort to build a China-free IT supply chain will succeed is an open question, but we agree that it marks an end to the old free-trade agreements rejected by both former President Trump and President Biden. China, meanwhile, is overplaying its hand in Africa. Richard notes reports that Chinese hackers attacked the Kenyan government when Kenya looked like it wouldn't be able to repay China's infrastructure loans. As Richard points out, lending money to a friend rarely works out. You are likely to lose both the friend and the money.  Finally, Richard and Jeffery both opine on Irelands imposing—under protest—of a $1.3 billion fine on Facebook for sending data to the United States despite the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) two Schrems decisions. We agree that the order simply sets a deadline for the U.S. and the EU to close their deal on a third effort to satisfy the CJEU that U.S. law is “adequate” to protect the rights of Europeans. Speaking of which, anyone who's enjoyed my rants about the EU will want to tune in for a June 15 Teleforum in which Max Schrems and I will  debate the latest privacy framework. If we can, we'll release it as a bonus episode of this podcast, but listening live should be even more fun! Download 459th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

The European Union fined Meta a record $1.3 billion for privacy violations Monday. The EU ordered Meta to stop sending users' personal information to the United States by October. Meta owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) issued the fine. The punishment came after Meta continued to transfer Europeans' data beyond a 2020 EU court ruling that struck down an EU-U.S. data transfer agreement. The fine is the biggest since the EU's data privacy rules took effect five years ago. Meta promised to appeal and asked courts to suspend the decision. Earlier, the company had warned that its services could end for users in Europe.周一，欧盟因侵犯隐私而对 Meta 处以创纪录的 13 亿美元罚款。欧盟命令 Meta 在 10 月之前停止向美国发送用户的个人信息。Meta 拥有 Facebook、Instagram 和 WhatsApp。爱尔兰的数据保护专员 (DPC) 开出了罚单。惩罚是在 Meta 继续将欧洲人的数据转移到 2020 年欧盟法院的一项裁决之后，该裁决推翻了欧盟-美国。数据传输协议。这是自欧盟数据隐私规则五年前生效以来的最高罚款。Meta 承诺上诉并要求法院中止该决定。此前，该公司曾警告称，其服务可能会终止对欧洲用户的服务。The company said, “There is no immediate disruption to Facebook in Europe.” The decision applies to user information like names, email and IP addresses, messages, viewing history, location data and other information. The company uses the data for targeted online advertisements. Nick Clegg, Meta's president of global affairs, and Jennifer Newstead, the company's chief legal officer, released a statement. They said the decision was unjust and “sets a dangerous precedent for the countless other companies transferring data between the EU and U.S.” The decision is the latest development in a legal battle that began in 2013. At that time, Austrian lawyer and privacy activist Max Schrems filed a complaint about how Facebook used his data. His complaint came after former U.S. National Security Agency worker Edward Snowden's disclosure of online surveillance by U.S. security agencies. That included information that Facebook gave to the agencies the personal data of Europeans.该公司表示，“欧洲的 Facebook 不会立即受到干扰。”该决定适用于用户信息，如姓名、电子邮件和 IP 地址、消息、查看历史记录、位置数据和其他信息。该公司将这些数据用于有针对性的在线广告。Meta 全球事务总裁 Nick Clegg 和公司首席法务官 Jennifer Newstead 发表声明。他们表示，这一决定是不公正的，“为无数其他公司在欧盟和美国之间传输数据树立了一个危险的先例。”该决定是 2013 年开始的法律纠纷的最新进展。当时，奥地利律师和隐私活动家 Max Schrems 就 Facebook 如何使用他的数据提出申诉。他的投诉是在前美国国家安全局工作人员爱德华斯诺登披露美国安全机构的在线监控之后提出的。其中包括 Facebook 向这些机构提供的欧洲人个人数据信息。The EU has rules that require social media services to block speech that European officials consider harmful. Europe has passed several rules requiring policing of information and control of users' personal information. In 2020, the EU's top court struck down an agreement covering EU-U.S. data transfers called the Privacy Shield. The court said the measure did not do enough to protect Europeans from the U.S. government's electronic spying. Europe and the United States signed a deal last year on a different Privacy Shield that Meta could use. The agreement is awaiting approval from European officials.欧盟的规定要求社交媒体服务屏蔽欧洲官员认为有害的言论。欧洲已经通过了几项规则，要求对信息进行监管并控制用户的个人信息。2020 年，欧盟最高法院否决了一项涵盖欧盟与美国的协议。称为隐私盾的数据传输。法院表示，该措施不足以保护欧洲人免受美国政府的电子间谍活动。欧洲和美国去年就 Meta 可以使用的不同隐私盾签署了一项协议。该协议正在等待欧洲官员的批准。The DPC said it gave Meta five months to stop sending European user data to the U.S. It also gave the company six months to change its operations to stop transferring Europeans' user data to the U.S. If the new privacy agreement takes effect before these deadlines, "our services can continue as they do today without any disruption or impact on users," Meta said. Schrems thinks Meta has “no real chance” of getting the decision overturned. He said there is a good chance the new agreement could be struck down by the EU's top court.DPC 表示，它给了 Meta 五个月的时间来停止将欧洲用户数据发送到美国。它还给了该公司六个月的时间来改变其运营方式，以停止将欧洲人的用户数据传输到美国。如果新的隐私协议在这些截止日期之前生效，“我们的服务可以像今天一样继续，不会对用户造成任何干扰或影响，”Meta 说。Schrems 认为 Meta “没有真正的机会”推翻该决定。他说，欧盟最高法院很有可能否决新协议。"Unless U.S. surveillance laws get fixed, Meta will likely have to keep EU data in the EU,” Schrems said in a statement. Meta warned in its latest earnings report that, without a legal agreement for data transfers, it will stop offering its products and services in Europe. The social media company might have to carry out a costly and complex change to its operations if it has to stop sending user data to the U.S.施雷姆斯在一份声明中说：“除非美国监管法得到修复，否则 Meta 可能不得不将欧盟数据保留在欧盟。”Meta 在其最新的收益报告中警告说，如果没有数据传输的法律协议，它将停止提供其产品如果这家社交媒体公司不得不停止向美国发送用户数据，那么它可能不得不对其运营进行代价高昂且复杂的变革。

In this episode of Serious Privacy, Paul Breitbarth of Catawiki and Dr. K Royal of Crawford & Company talk with dr. Laura Drechsler, Research Fellow at the Centre for IT and IP Law (CITIP) at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. They discuss Laura's work on cross-border data transfers, comparing the decisions of the European courts and the guidance of the data protection authorities with the adequacy decisions that have been published by the European Commission. It is clear there is still a lot to learn from the past on how to do adequacy and other data transfers right.As always, if you have comments or questions, let us know - LinkedIn, Twitter @podcastprivacy @euroPaulB @heartofprivacy @trustArc and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Please do like and write comments on your favorite podcast app so other professionals can find us easier. The Leadercast PodcastThe fun way to grow you and your top talent.Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify As always, if you have comments or questions, find us on LinkedIn, Twitter @podcastprivacy @euroPaulB @heartofprivacy and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Rate and Review us! #heartofprivacy #seriousprivacy #privacy #dataprotection #cybersecuritylaw #CPO #DPO

In the last episode of Tech Law Bits for now Martin speaks about his own table topic. Co-moderator of this round will be Jessica Lee, partner at the law firm of Loeb & Loeb in New York. Our topic at the round tables and in this talk will be data transfer to the U.S. Jessica briefly introduces the content of President Biden's Executive Order and explains why this really is novel. Martin touches upon the European Data Protection Board's opinion on the Draft Implementing Decision of the European Commission on the adequate protection of personal data under the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. We will be discussing with the attendees of our round table why data transfers are crucial in technology transactions and how the issue comes into play. We will touch upon both the diligence before completion of the deal, as well as the potential migration of data post closing.

The future of personalized ads felt wildly uncertain when the Irish DPC's final decision on the Meta case came down. The decision sent Privacy Twitter into a frenzy over the implications: You can't bundle personalized ads into the contract for the service itself, the DPC said. At the same time, the EU and U.S. are still trying to shake hands on a new data-transfer agreement. Luckily, Phil Lee is a master of both topics, and he's here to talk you off the ledge.

Episodio tratto dal podcast gemello privacykit.itE' arrivato quello che Scorza, Garante Italiano, chiama terremoto digitale in grado di cambiare internet come la conosciamo.Se pensate che la sanzione a Meta riguardi solo le grandi aziende, vi sbagliate di grosso.E se pensate che i Garanti si fermino davanti alle diverse decisioni dei Tribunali (Consiglio di Stato in Francia) non e' corretto: il consenso deve essere libero; ma non e' possibile imporre il trattamento dei dati personali in cambio di servizi..Questo lo pensano i Garanti e con milioni di euro di sanzioni (l'ultima e' di settimana scorsa ad una azienda i Milano per tessere fedeltà e call center) lo ripetono.Questo episodio vi introduce all'approfondimento su www.privacykit.it/udemy che spiega a:aziendeprofessionisticollaboratoriche usano:newsletterpixel retargetingprofilazione all'interno di Google e Facebook o sui sitilanding pagesecommerceper profilare e vendere pubblicità.Dietro a tutto ancora una volta Schrems, ma per un altro tema.Non perdetevi l'episodio 30 (non 29) su www.privacykit.it/udemy

On 13 December 2022, the European Commission published the long-awaited draft adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, among podcast listeners also known as the Thingy. In this episode of Serious Privacy, Paul Breitbarth of Catawiki and Dr. K Royal of Outschool talk about the adequacy decision, and what they consider is missing from it. Resources:Draft Adequacy DecisionIAPP Privacy Shield - DPF comparisonODNI Redress ProcessExecutive Order 14086OECD Policy Framework on Digital Security As always, if you have comments or questions, let us know - LinkedIn, Twitter @podcastprivacy @euroPaulB @heartofprivacy @trustArc and email seriousprivacy@trustarc.com. Please do like and write comments on your favorite podcast act so other professionals can find us easier. 

The Cyberlaw Podcast leads with the legal cost of Elon Musk's anti-authoritarian takeover of Twitter. Turns out that authority figures have a lot of weapons, many grounded in law, and Twitter is at risk of being on the receiving end of those weapons. Brian Fleming explores the apparently unkillable notion that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) should review Musk's Twitter deal because of a relatively small share that went to investors with Chinese and Persian Gulf ties. It appears that CFIUS may still be seeking information on what Twitter data those investors will have access to, but I am skeptical that CFIUS will be moved to act on what it learns. More dangerous for Twitter and Musk, says Charles-Albert Helleputte, is the possibility that the company will lose its one-stop-shop privacy regulator for failure to meet the elaborate compliance machinery set up by European privacy bureaucrats. At a quick calculation, that could expose Twitter to fines up to 120% of annual turnover. Finally, I reprise my skeptical take on all the people leaving Twitter for Mastodon as a protest against Musk allowing the Babylon Bee and President Trump back on the platform. If the protestors really think Mastodon's system is better, I recommend that Twitter adopt it, or at least the version that Francis Fukuyama and Roberta Katz have described. If you are looking for the far edge of the Establishment's Overton Window on China policy, you will not do better than the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a consistently China-skeptical but mainstream body. Brian reprises the Commission's latest report. The headline, we conclude, is about Chinese hacking, but the recommendations does not offer much hope of a solution to that problem, other than more decoupling.  Chalk up one more victory for Trump-Biden continuity, and one more loss for the State Department. Michael Ellis reminds us that the Trump administration took much of Cyber Command's cyber offense decision making out of the National Security Council and put it back in the Pentagon. This made it much harder for the State Department to stall cyber offense operations. When it turned out that this made Cyber Command more effective and no more irresponsible, the Biden Administration prepared to ratify Trump's order, with tweaks. I unpack Google's expensive (nearly $400 million) settlement with 40 States over location history. Google's promise to stop storing location history if the feature was turned off was poorly and misleadingly drafted, but I doubt there is anyone who actually wanted to keep Google from using location for most of the apps where it remained operative, so the settlement is a good deal for the states, and a reminder of how unpopular Silicon Valley has become in red and blue states. Michael tells the doubly embarrassing story of an Iranian hack of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. It is embarrassing to be hacked with a log4j exploit that should have been patched. But it is worse when an Iranian government hacker gets access to a U.S. government network—and decided that the access is only good for mining cryptocurrency.  Brian tells us that the U.S. goal of reshoring chip production is making progress, with Apple planning to use TSMC chips from a new fab in Arizona.  In a few updates and quick hits: I remind listeners that a lot of tech companies are laying employees off, but that overall Silicon Valley employment is still way up over the past couple of years. I give a lick and a promise to the mess at cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which just keeps getting worse. Charles updates us on the next U.S.-E.U. adequacy negotiations, and the prospects for Schrems 3 (and 4, and 5) litigation. And I sound a note of both admiration and caution about Australia's plan to “unleash the hounds” – in the form of its own Cyber Command equivalent – on ransomware gangs. As U.S. experience reveals, it makes for a great speech, but actual impact can be hard to achieve.

The Cyberlaw Podcast leads with the legal cost of Elon Musk's anti-authoritarian takeover of Twitter. Turns out that authority figures have a lot of weapons, many grounded in law, and Twitter is at risk of being on the receiving end of those weapons. Brian Fleming explores the apparently unkillable notion that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) should review Musk's Twitter deal because of a relatively small share that went to investors with Chinese and Persian Gulf ties. It appears that CFIUS may still be seeking information on what Twitter data those investors will have access to, but I am skeptical that CFIUS will be moved to act on what it learns. More dangerous for Twitter and Musk, says Charles-Albert Helleputte, is the possibility that the company will lose its one-stop-shop privacy regulator for failure to meet the elaborate compliance machinery set up by European privacy bureaucrats. At a quick calculation, that could expose Twitter to fines up to 120% of annual turnover. Finally, I reprise my skeptical take on all the people leaving Twitter for Mastodon as a protest against Musk allowing the Babylon Bee and President Trump back on the platform. If the protestors really think Mastodon's system is better, I recommend that Twitter adopt it, or at least the version that Francis Fukuyama and Roberta Katz have described. If you are looking for the far edge of the Establishment's Overton Window on China policy, you will not do better than the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a consistently China-skeptical but mainstream body. Brian reprises the Commission's latest report. The headline, we conclude, is about Chinese hacking, but the recommendations does not offer much hope of a solution to that problem, other than more decoupling.  Chalk up one more victory for Trump-Biden continuity, and one more loss for the State Department. Michael Ellis reminds us that the Trump administration took much of Cyber Command's cyber offense decision making out of the National Security Council and put it back in the Pentagon. This made it much harder for the State Department to stall cyber offense operations. When it turned out that this made Cyber Command more effective and no more irresponsible, the Biden Administration prepared to ratify Trump's order, with tweaks. I unpack Google's expensive (nearly $400 million) settlement with 40 States over location history. Google's promise to stop storing location history if the feature was turned off was poorly and misleadingly drafted, but I doubt there is anyone who actually wanted to keep Google from using location for most of the apps where it remained operative, so the settlement is a good deal for the states, and a reminder of how unpopular Silicon Valley has become in red and blue states. Michael tells the doubly embarrassing story of an Iranian hack of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. It is embarrassing to be hacked with a log4j exploit that should have been patched. But it is worse when an Iranian government hacker gets access to a U.S. government network—and decided that the access is only good for mining cryptocurrency.  Brian tells us that the U.S. goal of reshoring chip production is making progress, with Apple planning to use TSMC chips from a new fab in Arizona.  In a few updates and quick hits: I remind listeners that a lot of tech companies are laying employees off, but that overall Silicon Valley employment is still way up over the past couple of years. I give a lick and a promise to the mess at cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which just keeps getting worse. Charles updates us on the next U.S.-E.U. adequacy negotiations, and the prospects for Schrems 3 (and 4, and 5) litigation. And I sound a note of both admiration and caution about Australia's plan to “unleash the hounds” – in the form of its own Cyber Command equivalent – on ransomware gangs. As U.S. experience reveals, it makes for a great speech, but actual impact can be hard to achieve.

Stephan Grynwajc is admitted as a lawyer in the EU, the UK, the US and Canada, having worked as a privacy practitioner and DPO in both Europe and North America for the last 20 years. His own law firm offers external DPO services to EU/UK and US/Canada-based companies. Stephan is also a partner specialized in international privacy at Outside GC, a bicoastal US law firm. Stephan publishes regularly on various privacy topics, including for the IAPP Privacy Advisor. He is also an Adjunct Professor on privacy and data protection at various universities. References: Privacy at the Crossroads: A Comparative Analysis of Regulation in the U.S., the EU and Canada Joe Biden's Executive Order Summary of Privacy laws in Canada Law Office of S. Grynwajc (and LinkedIn Page) Outside GC IAPP Privacy Advisor

Derek A. Lackey is Managing Director of Newport Thomson, a Privacy Agency based in Toronto. With more than 30 years of marketing, advertising and privacy experience, he is focused on data protection & privacy and its effect on the brand. Derek is the author of “CASL Compliance: A Marketer's Guide to Email Marketing to Canadians”, and looks to simplify the implementation of new data management practices within organizations.  This will be the first of two separate perspectives on the basic premises that make EU-US data transfers so difficult (in the aftermath of Joe Biden's Executive Order paving the ground for the Data Privacy Framework). We will also get a first impression of the Canadian scenario as an interesting blend of both approaches. References: Newport Thomson Derek A. Lackey on LinkedIn Joe Biden's Executive Order Max Schrems' first reaction to the EO CASL Compliance: A Marketer's Guide to Email Marketing to Canadians

Biden firma un Ordine Esecutivo. Tutto a posto col traffico dati attraverso l'Atlantico? Proprio no.

Dopo i seri problemi a cui abbiamo assistito negli ultimi mesi sui Trasferimenti Dati transfrontalieri alla luce del GDPR (compresa la spinosa questione Google Analytics), il Presidente degli Stati Uniti Joe Biden ha firmato un ordine esecutivo che potrebbe limitare la capacità delle agenzie di sicurezza nazionale americane di accedere alle informazioni personali dei cittadini nell'ambito di un accordo transatlantico di condivisione dei dati con l'Unione Europea.Il decreto fa seguito a lunghe trattative tra gli Stati Uniti e l'UE, dopo che nel 2020 la più alta corte aveva stabilito che Washington non proteggeva sufficientemente i dati europei quando venivano trasferiti oltreoceano. Le preoccupazioni dei giudici si sono concentrate sul fatto che i programmi di sorveglianza statunitensi non prevedevano misure adeguate per consentire ai cittadini europei di affrontare le modalità di raccolta dei loro dati da parte del governo.Ma è davvero una soluzione? Saranno tutele sufficienti? Quali i prossimi passi? E quali le problematiche permangono? E cosa dobbiamo fare nel frattempo?Di queste e altre questioni fondamentali per il futuro della Rete come la conosciamo parliamo in uno Speciale dedicato con Guido Scorza, membro del Collegio del Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali.Il Comunicato » https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/07/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs-executive-order-to-implement-the-european-union-u-s-data-privacy-framework/L'opinione di Schrems » https://noyb.eu/en/new-us-executive-order-unlikely-satisfy-eu-law»»»Io sono Matteo Flora, mi occupo di #Reputazione Digitale, la insegno in Università e faccio consulenza ad Aziende, Enti e Professionisti con le mie aziende.Vengo dalla Sicurezza informatica - ma vengo in pace - e qui con “Ciao Internet” ti racconto tre volte alla settimana come la Rete ci Cambia, come capirla e usarla al meglio per migliorare la tua vita e professione, non solo digitale.Se vuoi è il momento giusto per iscriverti - FALLO SUBITO - e se hai bisogno di ancora più spunti ci sono “2 Minuti di Internet”, la newsletter settimanale, ed il Gruppo e Canale Telegram per discutere assieme, trovi i link qui sotto.Le mie Aziende » http://matteoflora.com/#aziendeCommunity Telegram » https://mgpf.it/tgNewsletter e Corso Gratis » https://mgpf.it/nlFacebook » https://mgpf.it/fbPodcast » https://mgpf.it/pcPer contatti commerciali: sales@matteoflora.com

**Let us know what you think and fill out the form https://bit.ly/3MNtPzl, or email podcast@measurelab.co.uk to drop Dan and Dara a message directly.** --- DISCLAIMER: Neither we, or our podcast guest Rick Dronkers, is a lawyer or data privacy professional. We don't give any legal advice. This podcast should not be taken as legal advice. Please consult with a lawyer and a privacy legislation professional before taking any decisions. --- Quote of the episode from Rick: "It's good for us to realise Google Analytics makes them no money right. It all serves to get people in on the ad network, and that kind of conflicts with the privacy thing" Quote of the episode from Dan: "One of my nerdy pastimes is to go onto a website and see if their cookie banner even works, because everyone's got a cookie banner now" Quote of the episode from Dara: "If we just started from fresh today and we had no knowledge of what was there before, we'd probably find a way and we'd work quite comfortably within the legislation" --- This week Dan and Dara chat with Rick Dronkers to talk everything privacy - from compliance and GDPR, to Schrems and Google's stance. Rick helps them understand all the buzz arougn the recent 'GA is illegal' news and how (or if) GA4 can help address anything. Check out Rick over at Data to Value https://bit.ly/3Bmxwbm, Twitter https://bit.ly/3Uhxquy and LinkedIn https://bit.ly/3S3EusA. And make sure you listen to Rick's podcast Life After GDPR (after ours of course ;) ) - https://bit.ly/3qJccrU. Have a read through the "Q&A on the CNIL's formal notices concerning the use of Google Analytics" with links to all the CNIL pages on GDPR-compliant tools and how GA might be compliant with the use of server-side GTM - https://bit.ly/3UgBtXZ. Since the recording of this podcast, Rick published his article on "Fight, Flight or Freeze: Will you (continue) to use Google Analytics 4?" which is well worth a read - https://bit.ly/3S3jIta. In other news, Dan gets his Trek on, Dara goes mountaineering and Rick enjoys his creature comforts! Follow Measurelab on LinkedIn - https://bit.ly/3Ka513y. Intro music composed by the amazing Confidential - https://spoti.fi/3JnEdg6. If you're like waht we're doing here, please show some support and leave a rating on Apple, Spotify, or wherever really. The post #52 Talking privacy, GDPR and GA4 (with Rick Dronkers @ Data to Value) appeared first on Measurelab.

Google Analytics, Microsoft 365, Facebook Pixel: tutti servizi che si scontrano con il Trasferimento all'Estero. Una apocalisse che rischia di trasformare PER SEMPRE il panorama del web marketing.Ma da dove inizia tutto? Per quali ragioni? E come si esce da questa situazione?Un viaggio per spiegare l'opera di Max Schrems e di come ha distrutto via via le normative di trasferimento dati, in un video speciale, quasi una Lectio Magistralis, con Giuseppe Vaciago!Uno speciale da vedere e consigliare per capire cosa sta succedendo.00:00 - Introduzione02:44 - La Storia di Maximilian Schrems05:59 - Le PRIMA CAUSA di Schrems a Facebook per l'accesso ai dati 09:05 - Facebook prova ad assumere Schrems tramite Richard Allan 10:00 - La SCHREMS I sul Trasferimento di dati nel 2012 e la morte del Safe Harbour10:47 - Cosa c'entrano le rivelazioni di Edward Snowden con il Trasferimento Dati 15:38 - La SCHREMS II e la morte del Privacy Shield e delle Contractual Clauses23:25 - Perché ci è voluto così tanto per avere una azione?30:25 - Dopo SCHREMS II arriva NOYB e la Carica dei 101 Complaints34:46 - I tre scenari possibili ora ed il futuroAPPROFONDIMENTI- Il Nuovo Privacy Shield » https://youtu.be/SVpFQWJ-RZM»»»Io sono Matteo Flora, mi occupo di #Reputazione Digitale, la insegno in Università e faccio consulenza ad Aziende, Enti e Professionisti con le mie aziende.Vengo dalla Sicurezza informatica - ma vengo in pace - e qui con “Ciao Internet” ti racconto tre volte alla settimana come la Rete ci Cambia, come capirla e usarla al meglio per migliorare la tua vita e professione, non solo digitale.Se vuoi è il momento giusto per iscriverti - FALLO SUBITO - e se hai bisogno di ancora più spunti ci sono “2 Minuti di Internet”, la newsletter settimanale, ed il Gruppo e Canale Telegram per discutere assieme, trovi i link qui sotto.Le mie Aziende » http://matteoflora.com/#aziendeCommunity Telegram » https://mgpf.it/tgNewsletter e Corso Gratis » https://mgpf.it/nlFacebook » https://mgpf.it/fbPodcast » https://mgpf.it/pcPer contatti commerciali: sales@matteoflora.com

Jeden Morgen stellt der Timpel die berühmte Klugscheißerfrage - Heute hatte Klaus die Chance auf das begehrte Siegerhäferl und den Titel 88.6 Klugscheißer des Tages.

With the U.S. and Europe united in opposing Russia's attack on Ukraine, a few tough transatlantic disputes are being swept away—or at least under the rug. Most prominently, the data protection crisis touched off by Schrems 2 has been resolved in principle by a new framework agreement between the U.S. and the EU. Michael Ellis and Paul Rosenzweig trade insights on the deal and its prospects before the European Court of Justice. The most controversial aspect of the agreement is the lack of any change in U.S. legislation. That's simple vote-counting if you're in Washington, but the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clearly expected that it was dictating legislation for the U.S. Congress to adopt, so Europe's acquiescence may simply kick the can down the road a bit. The lack of legislation will be felt in particular, Michael and Paul aver, when it comes to providing remedies to European citizens who feel their rights have been trampled.  Instead of going to court, they'll be going to an administrative body with executive branch guarantees of independence and impartiality.  We congratulate several old friends of the podcast who patched this solution together. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, meanwhile, continues to throw off new tech stories. Nick Weaver updates us on the single most likely example of Russia using its cyber weapons effectively for military purposes—the bricking of Ukraine's (and a bunch of other European) Viasat terminals. Alex Stamos and I talk about whether the social media companies recently evicted from Russia, especially Instagram, should be induced or required to provide information about their former subscribers' interests to allow microtargeting of news to break Putin's information management barriers; along the way we examine why it is that tech's response to Chinese aggression has been less vigorous. Speaking of microtargeting, Paul gives kudos to the FBI for its microtargeted “talk to us” ads, only visible to Russian speakers within 100 yards of the Russian embassy in Washington. Finally, Nick Weaver and Mike mull the significance of Israel's determination not to sell sophisticated cell phone surveillance malware to Ukraine. Returning to Europe-U.S. tension, Alex and I unpack the European Digital Markets Act, which regulates a handful of U.S. companies because they are “digital gatekeepers.“ I think it's a plausible response to network effect monopolization, ruined by anti-Americanism and the persistent illusion that the EU can regulate its way to a viable tech industry. Alex has a similar take, noting that the adoption of end-to-end encryption was a big privacy victory, thanks to WhatsApp, an achievement that the Digital Markets Act will undo in attempting to force standardized interoperable messaging on gatekeepers.  Nick walks us through the surprising achievements of the gang of juvenile delinquents known as Lapsus$. Their breach of Okta is the occasion for speculation about how lawyers skew cyber incident response in directions that turn out to be very bad for the breach victim. Alex vividly captures the lawyerly dynamics that hamper effective response. While we're talking ransomware, Michael cites a detailed report on corporate responses to REvil breaches, authored by the minority staff of the Senate Homeland security committee. Neither the FBI nor CISA comes out of it looking good.  But the bureau comes in for more criticism, which may help explain why no one paid much attention when the FBI demanded changes to the cyber incident reporting bill. Finally, Nick and Michael debate whether the musician and Elon Musk sweetheart Grimes could be prosecuted for computer crimes after confessing to having DDOSed an online publication for an embarrassing photo of her. Just to be on the safe side, we conclude, maybe she shouldn't go back to Canada. And Paul and I praise a brilliant WIRED op-ed proposing that Putin's Soviet empire nostalgia deserves a wakeup call; the authors (Rosenzweig and Baker, as it happens) suggest that the least ICANN can do is kill off the Soviet Union's out-of-date .su country code.   Download the 400th Episode (mp3)    You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

With the U.S. and Europe united in opposing Russia's attack on Ukraine, a few tough transatlantic disputes are being swept away—or at least under the rug. Most prominently, the data protection crisis touched off by Schrems 2 has been resolved in principle by a new framework agreement between the U.S. and the EU. Michael Ellis and Paul Rosenzweig trade insights on the deal and its prospects before the European Court of Justice. The most controversial aspect of the agreement is the lack of any change in U.S. legislation. That's simple vote-counting if you're in Washington, but the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clearly expected that it was dictating legislation for the U.S. Congress to adopt, so Europe's acquiescence may simply kick the can down the road a bit. The lack of legislation will be felt in particular, Michael and Paul aver, when it comes to providing remedies to European citizens who feel their rights have been trampled.  Instead of going to court, they'll be going to an administrative body with executive branch guarantees of independence and impartiality.  We congratulate several old friends of the podcast who patched this solution together. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, meanwhile, continues to throw off new tech stories. Nick Weaver updates us on the single most likely example of Russia using its cyber weapons effectively for military purposes—the bricking of Ukraine's (and a bunch of other European) Viasat terminals. Alex Stamos and I talk about whether the social media companies recently evicted from Russia, especially Instagram, should be induced or required to provide information about their former subscribers' interests to allow microtargeting of news to break Putin's information management barriers; along the way we examine why it is that tech's response to Chinese aggression has been less vigorous. Speaking of microtargeting, Paul gives kudos to the FBI for its microtargeted “talk to us” ads, only visible to Russian speakers within 100 yards of the Russian embassy in Washington. Finally, Nick Weaver and Mike mull the significance of Israel's determination not to sell sophisticated cell phone surveillance malware to Ukraine. Returning to Europe-U.S. tension, Alex and I unpack the European Digital Markets Act, which regulates a handful of U.S. companies because they are “digital gatekeepers.“ I think it's a plausible response to network effect monopolization, ruined by anti-Americanism and the persistent illusion that the EU can regulate its way to a viable tech industry. Alex has a similar take, noting that the adoption of end-to-end encryption was a big privacy victory, thanks to WhatsApp, an achievement that the Digital Markets Act will undo in attempting to force standardized interoperable messaging on gatekeepers.  Nick walks us through the surprising achievements of the gang of juvenile delinquents known as Lapsus$. Their breach of Okta is the occasion for speculation about how lawyers skew cyber incident response in directions that turn out to be very bad for the breach victim. Alex vividly captures the lawyerly dynamics that hamper effective response. While we're talking ransomware, Michael cites a detailed report on corporate responses to REvil breaches, authored by the minority staff of the Senate Homeland security committee. Neither the FBI nor CISA comes out of it looking good.  But the bureau comes in for more criticism, which may help explain why no one paid much attention when the FBI demanded changes to the cyber incident reporting bill. Finally, Nick and Michael debate whether the musician and Elon Musk sweetheart Grimes could be prosecuted for computer crimes after confessing to having DDOSed an online publication for an embarrassing photo of her. Just to be on the safe side, we conclude, maybe she shouldn't go back to Canada. And Paul and I praise a brilliant WIRED op-ed proposing that Putin's Soviet empire nostalgia deserves a wakeup call; the authors (Rosenzweig and Baker, as it happens) suggest that the least ICANN can do is kill off the Soviet Union's out-of-date .su country code.   Download the 400th Episode (mp3)    You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

The Cyberlaw Podcast has decided to take a leaf from the (alleged) Bitcoin Bandits' embrace of cringe rap. No more apologies. We're proud to have been cringe-casting for the last six years. Scott Shapiro, however, shows that there's a lot more meat to the bitcoin story than embarrassing social media posts. In fact, the government's filing after the arrest of Ilya Lichtenstein and Heather Morgan paints a forbidding picture of how hard it is to actually cash $4.5 billion in bitcoin. That's what the government wants us to think, but it's persuasive nonetheless, and both Scott and David Kris recommend it as a read. Like the Rolling Stones performing their greatest hits from 1965 on tour this year, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon is replaying his favorite schtick from 2013 or so—complaining that the government has an intelligence program that collects some U.S. person data under a legal theory that would surprise most Americans. Based on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board staff recommendations, Dave Aitel and David Kris conclude that this doesn't sound like much of a scandal, but it may lead to new popup boxes on intel analysts' desktops as they search the resulting databases. In an entirely predictable but still discouraging development, Dave Aitel points to persuasive reports from two forensics firms that an Indian government body has compromised the computers of a group of Indian activists and then used its access not just to spy on the activists but to load fake and incriminating documents onto their computers.  In the EU, meanwhile, crisis is drawing nearer over the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the European Court of Justice decision in the Schrems cases. David Kris covers one surprising trend. The court may have been aiming at the United States, but its ruling is starting to hit European companies who are discovering that they may have to choose between Silicon Valley services and serious liability. That's the message in the latest French ruling that websites using Google Analytics are in breach of GDPR. Next to face the choice may be European publishers who depend on data-dependent advertising whose legality the Belgian data protection authority has gravely undercut. Scott and I dig into the IRS's travails in trying to implement facial recognition for taxpayer access to records. I reprise my defense of face recognition in Lawfare. Nobody is going to come out of this looking good, Scott and I agree, but I predict that abandoning facial recognition technology is going to mean more fraud as well as more costly and lousier service for taxpayers. I point to the only place Silicon Valley seems to be innovating—new ways to show conservatives that their views are not welcome. Airbnb has embraced the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), whose business model is labeling mainstream conservative groups as “hate” mongers. It told Michelle Malkin that her speech at a SPLC “hate” conference meant that she was forever barred from using Airbnb—and so was her husband. By my count that's guilt by association three times removed. Equally remarkable, Facebook is now telling Bjorn Lonborg that he cannot repeat true facts if he's using them to support the Wrong Narrative.  We're not in content moderation land any more if truth is not a defense, and tech firms that supply real things for real life can deny them to people whose views they don't like. Scott and I unpack the EARN IT Act  (Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act), again reported out of committee with a chorus of boos from privacy NGOs. We also note that supporters of getting tough on the platforms over child sex abuse material aren't waiting for EARN IT. A sex trafficking lawsuit against Pornhub has survived a Section 230 challenge.  Download the 394th Episode (mp3)  You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!   The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Friday night thoughts. Stay young. Stay foolish. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/calvincorreli/message