Online privacy

Verizon is pleased to release our Transparency Report for the second half of 2017. This is our ninth Transparency Report. As in the past, this report describes the different types of demands we receive and the types of data that we disclose in response to those demands. The number of demands that we have received each year continues to be fairly stable since we released our first report.

[Commentary] Where significant negative externalities are created, companies should be on the hook for the costs, just as an oil company is responsible for covering the costs of cleaning up a spill. The cost of the damage caused by election meddling is difficult to calculate. One possible solution is a two-strike rule: with the first strike, you fix the problem and, if possible, pay a fine; with the second strike, government regulators will change or remove the features that are being abused.

Tech giants are preparing for a stringent new set of data privacy rules in the region, called the General Data Protection Regulation. Set to take effect on May 25, the regulations restrict what types of personal data the tech companies can collect, store and use across the 28-member European Union. Among their provisions, the rules enshrine the so-called right to be forgotten into European law so people can ask companies to remove certain online data about them. The rules also require anyone under 16 to obtain parental consent before using popular digital services.

Facebook has won the backing of European Union courts after the European Court of Justice dismissed a potential class action lawsuit from Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems.  The EU’s highest court ruled that Schrems — a dogged campaigner against Facebook’s handling of users’ personal data — could not bring a consumer lawsuit on behalf of 25,000 Facebook users for alleged privacy breaches. Instead, the ECJ said Schrems could only file an individual case against Facebook for allegedly illegally handling data relating to his personal Facebook account in Austria.

Today more than 2.5 trillion images are shared or stored on the Internet annually—to say nothing of the billions more photographs and videos people keep to themselves. By 2020, one telecommunications company estimates, 6.1 billion people will have phones with picture-taking capabilities. Those are merely the “watching” devices that we’re capable of seeing.

California state lawmakers are angling for another fight with the Trump administration, this time to revive federal net neutrality rules that they say are crucial to a fair, open and free internet. 

Federal Trade Commission Acting Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen released a summary of the agency’s major accomplishments one year after being named to lead the agency.

Among the accomplishments:

[Commentary] What if Google posted your search history online? All of it, I mean—even the stuff you looked at years ago (or perhaps yesterday) in Incognito Mode. If that question doesn’t send a shiver down your spine, my guess is you’re probably not a Millennial. And to those Millennials who think that Incognito Mode truly protects your data by fully anonymizing your online browsing, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but—that isn’t really the case.

[Commentary] Communities across the United States are considering strategies to protect residents’ access to information and their right to privacy.

[Commentary] The rules and incentive structures underlying how attention and surveillance work on the internet need to change. But in fairness to Facebook and Google and Twitter, while there’s a lot they could do better, the public outcry demanding that they fix all these problems is fundamentally mistaken. There are few solutions to the problems of digital discourse that don’t involve huge trade-offs—and those are not choices for Mark Zuckerberg alone to make. These are deeply political decisions.