By Aishwarya Jagani

A plan approved last month to set up a national network of public WiFi hotspots throughout India has raised widespread concerns from privacy and cybersecurity experts.

“I have no doubt that government agencies are also going to have full access (to this data), which could breach citizens’ data privacy — and this can be considered a risk to data security,” Viney Kumar, a New Delhi cybersecurity expert, told Digital Privacy News.

“While this is a great initiative, there are many risks associated with it,” he added. “If this isn’t rolled out in a planned, phased and secured manner then this may turn out to be a disaster as well.”

Eric Cole, a cybersecurity consultant and CEO at Secure Anchor Consulting in Ashburn, Va., said: “The biggest challenge with public WiFi is that it, by default, is typically unencrypted.”

By Matthew Scott

Last of two parts.

An effort to give consumers more protection over the use of their DNA was aborted last year when California’s Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) was vetoed in September by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

In a letter to the State Senate, Newsom argued that GIPA was too broadly written and risked “unintended consequences” that could “interfere with laboratories’ mandatory requirement to report COVID-19 test outcomes to local public-health departments, who report that information to the California Department of Public Health.”

California Senate Bill 980 proposed the most comprehensive DNA privacy protections of any legislation in the country, regulating how direct-to-consumer DNA testing companies could use, sell and share genetic information.

For the time being, Newsom apparently has decided that access to information that can safeguard the public health is more urgent than safeguarding individual’s privacy from law enforcement, insurers and marketers.

By Matthew Scott

First of two parts.

Debate over how DNA obtained by direct-to-consumer genetic-testing companies can be used likely will intensify after Blackstone, the New York private-equity firm, purchased Ancestry.com for $4.7 billion last month.

Privacy advocates told Digital Privacy News that, with the change of ownership, the 18 million people who willingly had given Ancestry.com their DNA could ultimately find that it had been used for purposes other than discovering family histories.

Those include being sold to law enforcement to help solve crimes, to pharmaceutical companies for DNA testing and to other companies for purposes that have not yet been realized.

Furthermore, the sale and resale of these companies raises concerns about who owns the rights to consumer DNA once it is submitted to a company for reasons unconnected to personal medical procedures.

By Robert Bateman

Social media app TikTok is facing a class-action lawsuit in the U.K., led by an unnamed 12-year-old girl who claims the app breached her privacy.

The High Court of England and Wales allowed the plaintiff, known only as “SMO,” permission to proceed anonymously in a hearing conducted last month.

Court documents revealed that the plaintiff was citing the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), an EU law adopted into U.K. law before Brexit. The law, passed in 2016, restricts how apps and other online services use children’s personal information. 

Under the GDPR, if online service providers want consent to process a child’s personal information, they must request it from a parent or guardian.

Hotel Chain Hacked After Huge Attack 

By Najmeh Tima

“What Happened?” is an occasional feature by Digital Privacy News that looks back on some of the tech industry’s biggest data breaches last year.

While Marriott International is awaiting a final decision from the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) over a 2018 hack at its luxury Starwood hotel chain, the company’s systems were breached nearly two years later, in January 2020.

The data that eventually was leaked involved the contact details, loyalty-account information, personal details, preferences and partnerships and affiliations of as many as 5.2 million guests in Marriott’s Bonvoy loyalty program.

In October, ICO fined Marriott $23.9 million for the 2018 breach of approximately 339 million records, including guests throughout Europe. 

How Companies Use Personalization to Leverage Our Surrendering of Data  

By Asa Hiken  

I was elated when, last month, Spotify released “Wrapped,” its annual year-in-review feature personalized to an individual user’s listening habits.  

But soon, it dawned on me: All those flashy stats on my favorite songs and hours logged are merely points of data that Spotify has collected, analyzed and gifted back to me in lustrous packaging. 

Though Spotify called it “one of the most anticipated moments of the year,” privacy experts call this product something else: “seductive surveillance.” 

So, what is the ultimate — or ulterior — objective behind Wrapped? And, how has Spotify seemed to convince the majority of its users that the collection of their data is not simply admissible, but exciting?

By Robert Bateman

An Austrian court has ruled that Facebook can process its users’ personal information without consent, owing to clauses in its terms of service.

Plaintiff Max Schrems, cofounder of Austrian nonprofit None of Your Business: European Center for Digital Rights (NOYB), argued that Facebook’s use of tracking cookies was unlawful without user consent and alleged that Facebook had not met the standard of consent required under GDPR.

Under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), data controllers like Facebook only may process personal information on one of six “legal bases,” including “consent” and “contract.”

Facebook countered that it had relied on a contract with its users and that it needed tracking cookies to meet its obligations under that contract, including providing a personalized social media platform and raising revenue to finance its business model. 

By Christopher Adams

Two cybersecurity firms reportedly have proven that software in Chinese-made drones compromise the privacy and security of drone operators.

A study last year by Synacktiv, a French information-technology security company, reached the initial conclusion on the Beijing drones, made by DJI — and its results later were validated by Grimm, a cybersecurity-infrastructure consultant based in Washington.

The Synacktiv analysis found that the software used to control the DJI drones possessed secret features, captured data from user devices and contained a forced-update feature that would allow the Beijing company to gain full control of a user’s smartphone.

The federal government basically has stopped using DJI drones out of national-security concerns — and a total ban on Chinese-manufactured drones and their software by the Trump White House seemed a possibility during the final weeks of the administration.

Meeting Planners See Information Bounty in Virtual Events From COVID

By Joanne Cleaver 

As a professional event planner and association manager, Annette Suriani is especially aware of privacy controls and exposure during online events. 

As executive director of the Association of Meeting Professionals (AMP) in Fairfax, Va., the group she manages is wrestling with these issues daily, on behalf of their clients and employers.

Like the rest of the conference-going world, AMP members are getting a grip on what privacy toggles suddenly are important as they navigate the previously unfamiliar world of online event-hosting and facilitating.

One thing’s for sure, though: Like the real world, the business of conferences requires data about participants from the moment they register to long after they leave.

By Robert Bateman

Tech giants Oracle and Salesforce are facing class-action lawsuits in the U.K. and the Netherlands over allegations that they are “misusing the personal data” of millions of people.

The legal claims relate to how the companies contribute to “real-time bidding” (RTB), a controversial advertising practice that involves the auctioning of personal data collected via web cookies and other tracking technologies.

The U.K. suit, led by privacy advocate Rebecca Rumbul, is seeking damages of approximately $13 billion, which would amount to about $650 for every U.K. internet user.

The parallel Netherlands case, led by the nonprofit Privacy Collective, is seeking approximately $19.5 billion.

By Robert Bateman

France’s data-protection authority has hit Google and Amazon with fines totaling $163 million over the tech giants’ use of tracking cookies online.

Google’s $121 million fine and Amazon’s fine of $42 million were imposed Dec. 7 by France’s Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL).

CNIL enforces privacy laws, such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), France’s Data Protection Act and the ePrivacy Directive, which sets the rules on cookies use across the EU.

According to Dec. 10 statements on CNIL’s website, Google and Amazon’s websites placed cookies on user devices without proper notice and without requesting consent.

By Jason Collins

Anyone who uses Instagram or Facebook knows that moment when you realize that something you were talking about has popped up as an advertisement on your feed.

Whether you find this expedient or creepy, you now have realized that your cellphone is listening to you.

While most of the blame for breach of privacy is laid on Apple, Microsoft and other big tech companies, a major player is being overlooked: Telecom giants are directly connected to personal information, since not only do they now provide phone access, but also mobile data and WiFi as well.