Communications Law 2023

Facebook’s launch of Facebook Dating in EU delayed due to data protection concerns

Facebook’s dating service, Facebook Dating, has decided to delay launching in the EU after the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC), the national authority for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), expressed concerns with the recent notification of the launch and the failure to provide a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA).

Facebook Ireland only notified the DPC of the launch of Facebook Dating on February 3, only ten days prior to the intended launch date of February 13. Further, under the GDPR, controllers (as defined as “those involved in determining how and why personal data are processed”), are required to provide a DPIA. According to the DPC, a DPIA is required:

When a controller collects, stores, or uses (i.e. ‘processes’) personal data, the individuals whose data are processed are exposed to risks. These risks can range from personal data being stolen or inadvertently released and used by criminals to impersonate the individual, to worry being caused to individuals that their data will be used for unknown purposes. A DPIA describes a process designed to identify risks arising out of the processing of personal data and to minimise these risks as far and as early as possible. DPIAs are important tools for negating risk, and for demonstrating compliance with the GDPR.

Facebook did not provide a DPIA until the DPC visited the Facebook Ireland Offices on February 10. Currently, the DPC is awaiting follow-up responses from Facebook regarding the DPIA collected. When asked by TechCrunch why Facebook did not provide the DPIA in a timely manner, a Facebook spokesperson stated:

We’re under no legal obligation to notify the IDPC of product launches. However, as a courtesy to the Office of the Data Protection Commission, who is our lead regulator for data protection in Europe, we proactively informed them of this proposed launch two weeks in advance. We had completed the data processing impact assessment well in advance of the European launch, which we shared with the IDPC when they asked for it.

Facebook Dating was released in Canada and the US last fall and is an extension of the Facebook app. It’s free and differentiates itself from other dating apps due to the wider range of Facebook users as well as having more extensive data on those users. Facebook Dating finds potential matches by examining the location of the user, their preferences and even whether they have attended the same events as the user. Facebook hopes to adopt a more “dynamic” approach to dating apps with plans to integrate the use of stories as it appears on Instagram.

Privacy is especially a concern for dating app users, specifically because of the intimate data that is shared by users and collected by these companies. Recently, dating apps such as Tinder, Grinder, and OkCupid have been found sharing personal data to advertising partners, which has led to a formal investigation by the DPC on how this data is being handled and if it breaches GDPR.

For more information on Facebook Dating and other privacy concerns regarding dating apps:

Response to Facial Recongnition Technology and Canadian Law Enforcement

This was a very interesting post. I was also reading about the controversies surrounding facial recognition software.

Clearview’s Facial Recognition App Is Identifying Child Victims of Abuse by Kashmir Hill and Gabriel J.X. Dance. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/business/clearview-facial-recognition-child-sexual-abuse.html?searchResultPosition=4.

This article discusses how it is being used in law enforcement (including in Canada) to identify the victims of child sexual abuse. Specifically, Clearview allows officers to id victims in videos and photos that would not otherwise be identified. The officers are uploading “probe images” of children that have been victim of abuse onto a database. This information is stored forever by default on a database or the users of Clearview can have the information wiped after 30 days. The existence of such a database of sensitive information raises certain privacy concerns, particularly when law enforcement is reluctant to discuss the specifics of how it is being used to protect its investigative techniques. That being said, the Department of Homeland Security in the US has stated that the system is downloaded on law enforcement networks to prevent sharing to third parties and the data is not being shared to private parties.
Another issue with using this software is the potential inaccuracy of the match, especially with regard to children whose faces change as they age and where children photos are often not included as data sets to develop the algorithm.

Facial Recognition Moves onto a New Front: by David Elby
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/business/facial-recognition-schools.html
This recent article outlines the manner in which public schools have introduced facial recognition in Lockport NY for security purposes.

The public schools support the use of this software to identify persons of interests entering the schools including registered sex offenders in the area, ex-staff banned from the premises and other “credible threats.” It is also used to scan for and detect guns coming into the school.
If a person of interest were identified entering the school, this would send a signal to security personnel to potentially confirm the match and then to school administrators to take action.
If a gun were identified, both the police and the administrators would be notified and the police would directly respond if the administrators were not present to.
This system has recently been implemented after revising its privacy policy to protect student data but concerns remain due to false-identification. The system has been shown to have a racial bias and falsely identifies African Americans and Asian Americans 10 to 100 times more than Caucasians. The school also seeking to extend its list of persons of interest to include suspended students because most school shootings are committed by students. However, according to a law professor specialized in education and policy, this has been said to be problematic insofar as it places excessive scrutiny on such youth which could have a negative effect on them by making them more likely to enter the criminal justice system.

Facial Recognition Technology and Canadian Law Enforcement

A previous post dealt with facial recognition technology and its privacy implications. What some members of the class may be unaware of is that certain law enforcement agencies in Canada have begun to use facial recognition technology, and others are planning to implement it. Notably, the Calgary police department have been using facial recognition technology since 2014. The Toronto police department have tested out their own system. Edmonton and Saskatoon are considering implementing facial recognition technology. Montreal would not confirm whether they use facial recognition technology or not, and Halifax, Winnipeg and Vancouver say they do not. Further, the RCMP claims that they do not use the technology.

While the RCMP is subject to the federal Privacy Act, which regulates to what extent federal entities can collect, use, disclose and retain personal information, there is currently no provincial or municipal legislation which specifically addresses facial recognition. This has led to the concern that provincial and municipal police forces have unfettered access to and use of individual facial recognition data, and citizens are unsure of how such data is being used. One of the main concerns appears to be, without regulation, there is nothing to prevent a private company from entering the facial recognition space and beginning to compare mug shots with social media pictures. As we have seen in recent years, private companies often do not have individual privacy in mind when dealing with personal data.

On the other hand, Sgt. Gordon MacDonald of the Calgary police department is calling for a national database to ease identification. MacDonald says that this would be advantageous over bifurcated local databases because of Canada’s transient population. A national database would allow officers in any part of the country to match images of mug shots anywhere in Canada.

Many are calling on legislators to introduce regulation before facial recognition technology becomes more prevalent in law enforcement. Concerns over the technology led the European Union to consider a 5-year moratorium on the technology, which they have since backed away from (https://www.ft.com/content/ff798944-4cc6-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5). The question has become whether and how legislators can protect individual privacy through regulation on facial recognition technology, and whether the technology itself is worth the risk to individual privacy. Privacy has become a hot button issue in recent years and governments appear to be struggling to keep up with new technology and its impacts on personal privacy.

Here is a link to the CBC article this post is based on: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/facial-recognition-police-privacy-laws-1.5452749.

Here is a “Front Burner” podcast episode that discusses the issue in detail: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/putting-the-brakes-on-facial-recognition-technology-1.5437020

Group Presentation: February 11th, 2020

Our group will be presenting on Wearable tech and data privacy. This will takes us through a few topics including ongoing trends and developments in the field as well as governing privacy legislation in a few prominent jurisdictions. In order to get a little bit of background on the general topic, feel free to take a look at the follow links in order to see where the field is heading!

– https://www.cnet.com/news/from-a-blood-pressure-watch-to-sleep-tech-ces-2019-was-all-about-health-tech/
– https://time.com/see-the-wearable-tech-of-the-future/
– https://www.cnet.com/pictures/all-the-gadgets-for-getting-healthy-at-ces-2019/4/

Michael Geist interviews Janet Yale (Chair of the Broadcasting/Telecom Review Panel)

https://lawbytes.castos.com/podcasts/1553/episodes/episode-38-debating-the-broadcast-panel-report-a-conversation-with-btlr-panel-chair-janet-yale

I found this to be a frustrating episode.

– I don’t understand the choice to focus on Canadians having choice at the level of an individual online media provider. Why does choice of content and discoverability of Canadian content need to be satisfied within Facebook or within Netflix instead of on the internet generally? (@ 16:45)

– What is important about the traditional business model that has sustained traditional providers until now? (@ 21:45)

– Yale doesn’t adequately address the question about whether costs will trickle down. (@ 30:00-34:00)

– It seems that the panel adopted a very constrained notion of net neutrality, taking into account only the viewpoint of a consumer. (@ 34:30)

– Yale is unable to point to evidence that there is actually a discoverability problem for Canadian content. (@ 39:00)

First Responder Technologies – Canadian company using WiFi signals to prevent mass shootings

First Responder Technologies, founded by an ex-member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Kal Malhi, is changing the way our communities use wifi to combat the growing number of public attacks and mass shootings.

The technology uses commercial WiFi networks to identify concealed weapons. The product itself is a fence which acts as a WiFi antenna transmitter and receiver and would be placed around the perimeter of public buildings. The technology currently being developed would then be able to detect metals of certain sizes and shapes. If identified, the system would activate a camera installed to confirm the identity of the person (essentially to ensure it is not a police officer etc.)

The purpose of the fence is to provide law enforcement authorities with the knowledge of an attack before it even happens. This extra 10 to 15 seconds allowing local security or law enforcement to prepare, respond and diffuse the situation.

Here is a link to the companies website (https://www.firstrespondertech.com/) and an interview with their CEO (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=4QKz3l3E–Q&feature=emb_logo)

Academy Awards prohibit advertisements for guns, gun shows, ammunition…and feminine hygiene products

The Super Bowl and the highly anticipated ads the come with it are behind us, but companies are still vying for ad time at the next big event – the 92nd Academy Awards. According to Business Insider, a 30 second add during the awards costs approximately $2.6 million dollars (https://www.insider.com/surprising-facts-2020-oscars-academy-awards-ceremony-costs#nearly-a-third-of-this-years-nominees-are-women-the-highest-proportion-ever-18).

In the past, the show has been hosted by a number of comedians, many of whom have not shied away from controversial topics. However, the Academy has deemed certain advertising too controversial. Along with prohibiting advertising for “guns, gun shows, and ammunition” the Academy also banned advertising for feminine hygiene products and hemorrhoid remedies, including an advertisement for feminine hygiene products for new mothers. The Academy deemed an ad by Frida Mom too graphic. The ad depicts the difficulty of a postpartum mother using the bathroom, the reality all mothers face after giving birth.

Women are becoming more and more open about the realities of motherhood on social media. Celebrities like Chrissy Teigen and Amy Schumer received praise for sharing postpartum photos of themselves in hospital underwear and for discussing the impact motherhood has had on their bodies.

Even with this progress, mainstream media is not ready to portray basic realities of motherhood. The overall ban on advertising for feminine hygiene products demonstrates that discussing women’s health is still taboo.

See the full article (and the ad by Frida Mom) here: https://www.businessinsider.com/frida-mom-oscars-ad-postpartum-baned-because-too-graphic-2020-2?amp

The Cloud

News of the Week; February 12, 2020

Class 6 2020 Slides & Video – “The Roles of Communications & Content in Defining Justice, Sovereignty & Culture” + “Wearables, Smart Homes & Privacy”