Data Protection

Abstract Connection Concept_jpg

This update focuses on how growing quantum sector investment in the UK and US is leading to the development and commercialization of quantum computing technologies with the potential to revolutionize and disrupt key sectors.  This is a fast-growing area that is seeing significant levels of public and private investment activity.  We take a look at how approaches differ in the UK and US, and discuss how a concerted, international effort is needed both to realize the full potential of quantum technologies and to mitigate new risks that may arise as the technology matures.

Quantum Computing

Quantum computing uses quantum mechanics principles to solve certain complex mathematical problems faster than classical computers.  Whilst classical computers use binary “bits” to perform calculations, quantum computers use quantum bits (“qubits”).  The value of a bit can only be zero or one, whereas a qubit can exist as zero, one, or a combination of both states (a phenomenon known as superposition) allowing quantum computers to solve certain problems exponentially faster than classical computers. 

The applications of quantum technologies are wide-ranging and quantum computing has the potential to revolutionize many sectors, including life-sciences, climate and weather modelling, financial portfolio management and artificial intelligence (“AI”).  However, advances in quantum computing may also lead to some risks, the most significant being to data protection.  Hackers could exploit the ability of quantum computing to solve complex mathematical problems at high speeds to break currently used cryptography methods and access personal and sensitive data. 

This is a rapidly developing area that governments are only just turning their attention to.  Governments are focusing not just on “quantum-readiness” and countering the emerging threats that quantum computing will present in the hands of bad actors (the US, for instance, is planning the migration of sensitive data to post-quantum encryption), but also on ramping up investment and growth in quantum technologies. Continue Reading Quantum Computing: Developments in the UK and US

This quarterly update highlights key legislative, regulatory, and litigation developments in the second quarter of 2024 related to artificial intelligence (“AI”), connected and automated vehicles (“CAVs”), and data privacy and cybersecurity. 

I. Artificial Intelligence

Federal Legislative Developments

  • Impact Assessments: The American Privacy Rights Act of 2024 (H.R. 8818, hereinafter “APRA”) was formally introduced in the House by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) on June 25, 2024.  Notably, while previous drafts of the APRA, including the May 21 revised draft, would have required algorithm impact assessments, the introduced version no longer has the “Civil Rights and Algorithms” section that contained these requirements.
  • Disclosures: In April, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) introduced the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024 (H.R. 7913).  The Act would require persons that create a training dataset that is used to build a generative AI system to provide notice to the Register of Copyrights containing a “sufficiently detailed summary” of any copyrighted works used in the training dataset and the URL for such training dataset, if the dataset is publicly available.  The Act would require the Register to issue regulations to implement the notice requirements and to maintain a publicly available online database that contains each notice filed.
  • Public Awareness and Toolkits: Certain legislative proposals focused on increasing public awareness of AI and its benefits and risks.  For example, Senator Todd Young (R-IN) introduced the Artificial Intelligence Public Awareness and Education Campaign Act (S. 4596), which would require the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with other agencies, to carry out a public awareness campaign that provides information regarding the benefits and risks of AI in the daily lives of individuals.  Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) introduced the Social Media and AI Resiliency Toolkits in Schools Act (S. 4614), which would require the Department of Education and the federal Department of Health and Human Services to develop toolkits to inform students, educators, parents, and others on how AI and social media may impact student mental health.
  • Senate AI Working Group Releases AI Roadmap: On May 15, the Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group published a roadmap for AI policy in the United States (the “AI Roadmap”).  The AI Roadmap encourages committees to conduct further research on specific issues relating to AI, such as “AI and the Workforce” and “High Impact Uses for AI.”  It states that existing laws (concerning, e.g., consumer protection, civil rights) “need to consistently and effectively apply to AI systems and their developers, deployers, and users” and raises concerns about AI “black boxes.”  The AI Roadmap also addresses the need for best practices and the importance of having a human in the loop for certain high impact automated tasks.

Continue Reading U.S. Tech Legislative, Regulatory & Litigation Update – Second Quarter 2024

On June 18, 2024, Louisiana enacted HB 577, prohibiting “social media platforms” with more than 1 million users globally from displaying targeted advertising to Louisiana users that the platform has actual knowledge are under 18 years of age and from selling the sensitive personal data of such users. The…

Continue Reading Louisiana Bans Targeted Advertising to Minors on Social Media Platforms

A federal judge in the Northern District of California recently dismissed a class action complaint accusing Google of unlawfully wiretapping calls to Verizon’s customer service center through its customer service product, Cloud Contact Center AI.  See Ambriz v. Google, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-05437 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2024).

Plaintiff Misael…

Continue Reading California Federal Court Dismisses Complaint Accusing Google of Wiretapping Customer Service Calls

An Illinois federal court has dismissed a proposed class action alleging X Corp. violated the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) through its use of PhotoDNA software to create “hashes” of images to scan for nudity and related content. The court held that Plaintiff failed to allege that the hashes identified photo subjects and therefore failed to allege that the hashes constituted biometric identifiers. Martell v. X Corp., 2024 WL 3011353, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 13, 2024).

BIPA prohibits private entities from collecting or capturing “a person’s or a customer’s biometric identifier or biometric information” without first obtaining the subject’s informed consent, among other requirements. 740 ILCS 14/15(b). BIPA defines “biometric identifier” as “a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry” and defines “biometric information” as any information “based on an individual’s biometric identifier used to identify an individual.” 740 ILCS 14/10.

In dismissing the complaint, the court agreed with X’s arguments that Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege (1) that the PhotoDNA software collects scans of facial geometry and (2) that the hashes identified photo subjects. First, the court rejected Plaintiff’s “conclusory” assertion that the creation of a hash from a photo that includes a person’s face “necessitates” creating a scan of facial geometry, saying, “The fact that PhotoDNA creates a unique hash for each photo does not necessarily imply that it is scanning for an individual’s facial geometry when creating the hash.” Id. at *2. The court distinguished Plaintiff’s allegation from those that withstood dismissal in a different case in which the plaintiff alleged that scans of photos “located her face and zeroed in on its unique contours to create a ‘template’ that maps and records her distinct facial measurements.” Id. at 3 (quoting Rivera v. Google Inc., 238 F. Supp. 3d 1088, 1091 (N.D. Ill. 2017)).Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Dismisses BIPA Suit Against X, Holding “Biometric Identifiers” Must Identify Individuals

On June 6, the Texas Attorney General published a news release announcing that the Attorney General has opened an investigation into several car manufacturers.  The news release states that the investigation was opened “after widespread reporting that [car manufacturers] have secretly been collecting mass amounts of data about drivers directly…

Continue Reading Texas Attorney General Opens Investigation into Car Manufacturers’ Collection and Sale of Drivers’ Data

On May 31, 2024, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed HB 1130 into law. This legislation amends the Colorado Privacy Act to add specific requirements for the processing of an individual’s biometric data. This law does not have a private right of action.

Similarly to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act…

Continue Reading Colorado Privacy Act Amended To Include Biometric Data Provisions

On Friday, April 26, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) voted 3-2 to issue a final rule (the “final rule”) that expands the scope of the Health Breach Notification Rule (“HBNR”) to apply to health apps and similar technologies and broadens what constitutes a breach of security, among other updates.  We previously covered the proposed rule, which was issued on May 18, 2023.

In the FTC’s announcement of the final rule, the FTC emphasized that “protecting consumers’ sensitive health data is a high priority for the FTC” and that the “updated HBNR will ensure [the HBNR] keeps pace with changes in the health marketplace.”  Key provisions of the final rule include:

  • Revised definitions:  The final rule includes changes to current definitions in the HBNR that codify the FTC’s recent position on the expansiveness of the HBNR.  Specifically, among other definition changes, the HBNR contains key updates to the definitions of:
    • “Personal health records (‘PHR’) identifiable information.”  In the final rule, the FTC adopts changes to the definition of PHR identifiable information that were included in the proposed rule to clarify that the HBNR applies to health apps and other similar technologies not covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations (collectively, “HIPAA”).  In the final rule, the FTC discusses the scope of the definition, noting that “unique, persistent identifiers (such as unique device and mobile advertising identifiers), when combined with health information constitute ‘PHR identifiable health information’ if these identifiers can be used to identify or re-identify an individual.”
    • “Covered health care provider.”  In the proposed rule, the FTC proposed adding a definition of “health care provider” to include providers of medical or other health services, or any other entity furnishing “health care services or supplies” (i.e., websites, apps, and Internet-connected devices that provide mechanisms to track health conditions, medications, fitness, sleep, etc.).  The final rule does not make substantive changes to this proposed definition but does contain a slight terminology change to “covered health care provider” to distinguish that term from the definition of “health care provider” in other regulations. 

Continue Reading FTC Issues Final Rule to Expand Scope of the Health Breach Notification Rule

On April 17, the Nebraska governor signed the Nebraska Data Privacy Act (the “NDPA”) into law.  Nebraska is the latest state to enact comprehensive privacy legislation, joining California, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Montana, Oregon, Texas, Florida, Delaware…

Continue Reading Nebraska Enacts Nebraska Data Privacy Act

On April 2, the Enforcement Division of the California Privacy Protection Agency issued its first Enforcement Advisory, titled “Applying Data Minimization to Consumer Requests.”  The Advisory highlights certain provisions of and regulations promulgated under the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) that “reflect the concept of data minimization” and provides…

Continue Reading California Privacy Protection Agency Issues Enforcement Advisory on Data Minimization