Multimedia

Featured Video

  • Woody Hartzog: Control is not the privacy solution it's made out to be

    Speaking before the audience at the recent IAPP Data Protection Congress in Brussels, keynoter Woody Hartzog made a challenging assertion: "Control is the wrong goal for privacy by design, perhaps the wrong goal for data protection in general." But isn't control a central tenet of good privacy? It sure is. But it shouldn't be, the author of "Privacy’s Blueprint: The Battle to Control the Design of New Technologies" argued. While everyone emphasizes "control" of personal data as core to privacy, too much zeal for control dilutes efforts to design information tech correctly.

  • US academics recommend Australian-style paper ballots at elections

    In the digital age, the fact Australians still vote using paper and pencils might seem a bit quaint, or even out of date.

    But researchers both here and in the US say hand-written ballots are actually helping keep Australian elections secure.

    They're recommending the US go back to paper-voting, though that seems unlikely.

    And despite the evidence against electronic voting, the shift towards it is already underway here.

    Featured:

  • Encryption law changes will weaken the security of everyday Australians: expert

    We're yet to see the details of the deal between the Government and Labor which would allow the passage of laws to give police and investigators access to encrypted messages.

    That leaves one more day in this sitting of Parliament to get the laws through, after the Government claimed there was an urgent need to do so before Christmas.

  • Privacy’s Blueprint

    Design is one of the most important but overlooked factors that determines people’s privacy. Social media apps, surveillance technologies, and the Internet of Things are all built in ways that make it hard to guard personal information. And the law says this is okay because it is up to users to protect themselves ― even when the odds are deliberately stacked against them.

  • Facebook Increasingly Reliant on A.I. To Predict Suicide Risk

    "Law professor Ryan Calo, co-director of the University of Washington's Tech Policy Lab, says AI-based monitoring of social media may follow a predictable pattern for how new technologies gradually work their way into law enforcement.

    "The way it would happen would be we would take something that everybody agrees is terrible — something like suicide, which is epidemic, something like child pornography, something like terrorism — so these early things, and then if they show promise in these sectors, we broaden them to more and more things. And that's a concern.""

  • Who owns the results of genetic testing?

    DNA and genetic testing are big business. But there are real questions about privacy and about what happens to your genetic information after you get tested. Recently the DNA testing company 23andMe partnered with pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline to develop personalized drugs and research treatment for diseases like lupus and Parkinson's. Jen King, director of consumer privacy at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, told Molly Wood that, surprisingly, most people who take DNA tests don't think the data is all that personal.

  • DOJ Lawsuit Against California Raises Legal Questions Over Net Neutrality

    The U.S. Justice Department has sued California over its net neutrality law.

    California Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed the measure, which was in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to repeal net neutrality in 2017, which took effect this past June.

    To learn more about this lawsuit, The Show spoke with Barbara van Schewick, a law professor and director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School.

  • Riana Pfefferkorn: How are the boundaries of digital privacy shifting?

    Riana Pfefferkorn is a digital security expert and Cryptography Fellow at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. She says that we are living in the “Golden Age of Surveillance,” in which the growing ubiquity of data-rich smart devices has produced a fundamental tension between the rights of users to protect their personal data and the needs of law enforcement to investigate or prevent serious crimes.

Pages