Thursday, November 8th 2018

Intel Drafts Model Legislation to Spur Data Privacy Discussion

Intel Corporation released model legislation designed to inform policymakers and spur discussion on personal data privacy. Prompted by the rapid rise of new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), Intel's model bill is open for review and comment from privacy experts and the public on an interactive website. The bill's language and comments received should provide useful insight for those interested in meaningful data privacy legislation.

"The collection of personal information is a growing concern. The US needs a privacy law that both protects consumer privacy and creates a framework in which important new industries can prosper. Our model bill is designed to spur discussion that helps inspire meaningful privacy legislation," said David Hoffman, Intel associate general counsel and global privacy officer.

Data are the lifeblood for many critical new industries, including precision medicine, automated driving, workplace safety, smart cities and others. But the growing amount of personal data collected, sometimes without consumers' awareness, raises serious privacy concerns.

People need assurances that information that is shared - both knowingly and unknowingly - will be used in beneficial, responsible ways, and that they will be appropriately protected. The U.S. needs a comprehensive federal law to create the framework in which companies can demonstrate responsible behavior.

Intel's model data privacy bill aims to bring together policymakers and others in a transparent and open process that helps drive the development of actual data privacy legislation. Intel has launched a website where interested parties can review and comment on the model bill. Company leaders believe input will help to promote the development of constructive data privacy legislation in Congress.

Privacy is an important and ongoing issue in our data-centric world. In a white paper published last month, Intel's Global Privacy team laid out six policy principles for safety and privacy in the age of AI, one of the technical domains that has significant privacy implications. These principles summarized here were among the factors that influenced Intel's draft legislation:
  • New legislative and regulatory initiatives should be comprehensive, technology neutral and support the free flow of data.
  • Organizations should embrace risk-based accountability approaches, putting in place technical or organizational measures to minimize privacy risks in AI.
  • Automated decision-making should be fostered while augmenting it with safeguards to protect individuals.
  • Governments should promote access to data, supporting the creation of reliable datasets available to all, fostering incentives for data sharing, and promoting cultural diversity in data sets.
  • Funding research in security is essential to protect privacy.
  • It takes data to protect data: Algorithms can help detect unintended discrimination and bias, identity theft and cyber threats.
Let your voice be heard. Weigh in on Intel's draft privacy legislation.
Add your own comment

4 Comments on Intel Drafts Model Legislation to Spur Data Privacy Discussion

#1
lexluthermiester
The wording of this bill is flawed. I like the EU's way of doing things which gives individuals near complete control over whether or not data is collected and stored, and if allowed by an individual, control of how and when it's used. We need that level of strict control over our personal data here in North America.
Posted on Reply
#2
Ware
Why should we care what Intel thinks about this?
I want legislation by people that actually care about personal privacy.
Should read "Lawyers that work for Intel Draft Legislation to protect corporations from lawsuits".
Looks like a bunch of stuff to protect corporations from states and individuals when they loose all your info.

"Limitation - In promulgating rules under this Act, the Commission shall not require the deployment or use of any specific products or technologies, including any specific computer software or hardware."
Can't actually require any level of security.

"Safe Harbor - A covered entity shall not be subject to the civil penalties described in Sections 6(b)(3) or 6(b)(5)(A)"
Can't touch this! As long as a corporate officer certifies in writing to the Federal Trade Commission that we "conducted a thorough review" and it "does not reveal any material non-compliance".

"Civil Actions - In any case in which the attorney general of a State...has reason to believe that a covered entity has violated provisions of this Act, the State may bring a civil to impose a civil penalty in an amount that is not greater than $16,500 per individual"
Can't be punished much.

"Authority To Grant Exclusions - The regulations prescribed under this paragraph may include such additional exclusions from this Act as the Commission considers consistent with the purposes of this Act."
Open ended.
Posted on Reply
#3
R-T-B
"Ware said:
Why should we care what Intel thinks about this?
I want legislation by people that actually care about personal privacy.
Should read "Lawyers that work for Intel Draft Legislation to protect corporations from lawsuits".
Looks like a bunch of stuff to protect corporations from states and individuals when they loose all your info.

"Limitation - In promulgating rules under this Act, the Commission shall not require the deployment or use of any specific products or technologies, including any specific computer software or hardware."
Can't actually require any level of security.

"Safe Harbor - A covered entity shall not be subject to the civil penalties described in Sections 6(b)(3) or 6(b)(5)(A)"
Can't touch this! As long as a corporate officer certifies in writing to the Federal Trade Commission that we "conducted a thorough review" and it "does not reveal any material non-compliance".

"Civil Actions - In any case in which the attorney general of a State...has reason to believe that a covered entity has violated provisions of this Act, the State may bring a civil to impose a civil penalty in an amount that is not greater than $16,500 per individual"
Can't be punished much.

"Authority To Grant Exclusions - The regulations prescribed under this paragraph may include such additional exclusions from this Act as the Commission considers consistent with the purposes of this Act."
Open ended.
I'm with you. The idea IN CONCEPT is good. The motive of the instigator? Questionable.
Posted on Reply
#4
RichF
"Ware said:
Why should we care what Intel thinks about this?
It's called PR.

Corporations are designed to enrich the rich. Confusing people with deceptive emotional appeals (marketing) makes that happen.

PR continues for the same reason spam e-mail does. Enough people are duped to make it profitable.
Posted on Reply