#63: From Clearview Controversies to Meta Mishaps: Sweden’s GDPR Wins, and Global Fines
09/13/24 • 58 min
In this episode, Jyri, Milla, and Pilvi walk you through the latest hottest tea in privacy and data protection. First, we turn our attention to the herald of doom itself: Clearview and the actions taken by the Dutch Data Protection Authority (fine of 30,5 million euros and then some). Will the Dutch DPA follow through with going after the management and inflict personal liability the managers or directors of Cleaview?
We also explore whether such a grim herald can have any positive aspects. The Dutch DPA suggests that the government could create its own version of Clearview, raising an important question. Should we, as a human society, pursue every technological capability simply because we can?
Next, we visit the herald of digital future and all things beautiful, that is of course Sweden. The Swedish data protection authority, IMY, has given out two fines for unfortunate use of Meta pixels by a pharmacy and a bank that led to leaking sensitive personal data to Meta. The cases have some meme aspects (legal said no) but also raise up important questions: what is the root cause? Could Meta’s way of enrolling in updates be the one to blame? What steps to take to ensure your organization’s compliance?
Then, we take a look at the latest blog by Anu Talus, the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman and the the Chair of the European Data Protection Board. She admires Sweden (don’t we all?), who seems to thrive under the GDPR rules whereas Finland’s Data Protection Authority remains under-resourced, raising concerns about its ability to support future demands. She distinctly calls out for the ability to fine the public sector also in Finland (one of the few countries where this isnt possible), and discusses the AI Act.
Lastly, we dive into a fast-paced Lightning RoundTM of key data protection developments. From the Belgian DPA’s crackdown on dark patterns in cookie consent to fines against Uniqlo by the Spanish DPA (AEPD), and a penalty for Vejen Municipality in Denmark over stolen school laptops, important actions are shaping the landscape. We also explore Liechtenstein’s insights on remote work and
This and much more (such as some tips on who to follow on LinkedIn) awaits behind the play-button!
Did you enjoy our show? Support us by buying us a coffee here: https://bmc.link/privacypod4u
We would love to get feedback – so please tag us, follow us, DM us, or send us traditional email:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PodPrivacy, #privacypod
Instagram: @privacypod
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tietosuojapod/about/
Email: [email protected]
Links:
Swedish Meta Pixel cases: https://www.imy.se/nyheter/sanktionsavgift-mot-avanza-for-overforing-av-personuppgifter-till-meta/
Anu Talus’ blog: https://tietosuoja.fi/-/tekoaly-hoi-missa-suomen-digistrategia-
Belgian DPA’s cookie case: https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/beslissing-ten-gronde-nr.-113-2024-van-6-september-2024.pdf
Vejen Municipality fine: https://www.datatilsynet.dk/afgoerelser/afgoerelser/2024/aug/endnu-en-kommune-indstillet-til-boede-for-manglende-kryptering
The DPA of Lichtenstein’s activity report for 2023: https://www.datenschutzstelle.li/application/fi...
In this episode, Jyri, Milla, and Pilvi walk you through the latest hottest tea in privacy and data protection. First, we turn our attention to the herald of doom itself: Clearview and the actions taken by the Dutch Data Protection Authority (fine of 30,5 million euros and then some). Will the Dutch DPA follow through with going after the management and inflict personal liability the managers or directors of Cleaview?
We also explore whether such a grim herald can have any positive aspects. The Dutch DPA suggests that the government could create its own version of Clearview, raising an important question. Should we, as a human society, pursue every technological capability simply because we can?
Next, we visit the herald of digital future and all things beautiful, that is of course Sweden. The Swedish data protection authority, IMY, has given out two fines for unfortunate use of Meta pixels by a pharmacy and a bank that led to leaking sensitive personal data to Meta. The cases have some meme aspects (legal said no) but also raise up important questions: what is the root cause? Could Meta’s way of enrolling in updates be the one to blame? What steps to take to ensure your organization’s compliance?
Then, we take a look at the latest blog by Anu Talus, the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman and the the Chair of the European Data Protection Board. She admires Sweden (don’t we all?), who seems to thrive under the GDPR rules whereas Finland’s Data Protection Authority remains under-resourced, raising concerns about its ability to support future demands. She distinctly calls out for the ability to fine the public sector also in Finland (one of the few countries where this isnt possible), and discusses the AI Act.
Lastly, we dive into a fast-paced Lightning RoundTM of key data protection developments. From the Belgian DPA’s crackdown on dark patterns in cookie consent to fines against Uniqlo by the Spanish DPA (AEPD), and a penalty for Vejen Municipality in Denmark over stolen school laptops, important actions are shaping the landscape. We also explore Liechtenstein’s insights on remote work and
This and much more (such as some tips on who to follow on LinkedIn) awaits behind the play-button!
Did you enjoy our show? Support us by buying us a coffee here: https://bmc.link/privacypod4u
We would love to get feedback – so please tag us, follow us, DM us, or send us traditional email:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PodPrivacy, #privacypod
Instagram: @privacypod
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tietosuojapod/about/
Email: [email protected]
Links:
Swedish Meta Pixel cases: https://www.imy.se/nyheter/sanktionsavgift-mot-avanza-for-overforing-av-personuppgifter-till-meta/
Anu Talus’ blog: https://tietosuoja.fi/-/tekoaly-hoi-missa-suomen-digistrategia-
Belgian DPA’s cookie case: https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/beslissing-ten-gronde-nr.-113-2024-van-6-september-2024.pdf
Vejen Municipality fine: https://www.datatilsynet.dk/afgoerelser/afgoerelser/2024/aug/endnu-en-kommune-indstillet-til-boede-for-manglende-kryptering
The DPA of Lichtenstein’s activity report for 2023: https://www.datenschutzstelle.li/application/fi...
Previous Episode
#62: Very mindful, very demure privacy summer
See how we get back to podcasting after the brat summer? Very demure, very mindful. We are not like these other podcasts, we don’t come back for the new season with a half-planned episode, we don’t use chatGPT to make notes, we don’t record too long episodes where half of it is just giggling–we’re very mindful, very considerate, very cutesy.
In today’s very considerate episode Jyri, Milla, and Pilvi walk you through the most interesting news from the summer, such as the mega fine of €13,9 million given by the the Czech Supervisory Authority to a cyber security company that shared data of 100 million data subjects to its subsidiaries in a not very mindful way. We also discuss the latest drama on the EU Commission’s Preliminary DMA Findings on Pay or Consent as well as Meta suing the EDPB that is very interesting, very cutesy.
We also take a look at the secret collaboration between Meta and Google to target ads at 13–17-year-olds and have a discussion on what’s the harm in this? Is it really a problem or are we just trying to hold on to a world that is not realistic? We are not like these other privacy people–we don’t just gush about this–we explore different perspectives and play devil’s advocate. Very mindful, very considerate, very demure.
These and much more in this episode where we do not try to play too much slightly off pitch on the hottest meme by the amazing @joolieannie , we’re very considerate, very funny, very cutesy, very mindful, and most certainly very demure.
Did you enjoy our show? Support us by buying us a coffee here: https://bmc.link/privacypod4u
We would love to get feedback – so please tag us, follow us, DM us, or send us traditional email:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PodPrivacy, #privacypod
Instagram: @privacypod
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tietosuojapod/about/
Email: [email protected]
Links:
Big fine in Czech:
EU Commission and Pay or Consent:
Meta and Google not very demure collaboration:
https://www.ft.com/content/b3bb80f4-4e01-4ce6-8358-f4f8638790f8
NOYB annual report
Annual_Report_2023_EN.pdf (noyb.eu)
Scraping and OpenAI:
Microsoft Word - 2024.08.02 FINAL OpenAI Complaint (2) (courtlistener.com)
Next Episode
#64: Large Language Models do not store personal data: the LLM discussion paper of Hamburg’s DPA with Dr. Markus Wünschelbaum
The world of privacy and AI shook and trembled when Hamburg's Data Protection Authority published its edgy discussion paper on Large Language Models (LLM). In a nutshell, they stated that LLMs do not store personal data and that this is in line with the CJEU’s views. Milla and Pilvi were honored and humbled (=overly excited with fangirl-hats on) to have Dr. Markus Wünschelbaum, Policy and Data Strategy Advisor at the Hamburg Data Protection Authority, to discuss what’s this all about. And what a discussion this ended up being!
Markus takes our (and your) hands and walks us all through the discussion paper’s key points and how the DPA ended up with this view: From the technical key points (it’s all about probabilities) all the way to the legal gymnastics and philosophy. On the other hand we also discuss what the result and impact would be if we would take the stance that LLMs do in fact store personal data and if that would actually make any sense. And what about NOYB’s complaint on OpenAI?
All this and much, much more awaits all our 6 listeners in this episode that you should not miss. After the recording our hosts needed a moment to gather themselves from all the excitement. We tried to be tough journalists but how can you not get excited about all this. We love DPAs with edgy action and hot tea to serve. Sorry about that. BUT IT WAS TOO FUN!
Did you enjoy our show? Support us by buying us a coffee here: https://bmc.link/privacypod4u
We would love to get feedback – so please tag us, follow us, DM us, or send us traditional email:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PodPrivacy, #privacypod
Instagram: @privacypod
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tietosuojapod/about/
Email: [email protected]
Links:
In German:
https://datenschutz-hamburg.de/news/hamburger-thesen-zum-personenbezug-in-large-language-models
In English:
If you like this episode you’ll love
Episode Comments
Generate a badge
Get a badge for your website that links back to this episode
<a href="https://goodpods.com/podcasts/privacypod-485355/63-from-clearview-controversies-to-meta-mishaps-swedens-gdpr-wins-and-73956616"> <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/goodpods-images-bucket/badges/generic-badge-1.svg" alt="listen to #63: from clearview controversies to meta mishaps: sweden’s gdpr wins, and global fines on goodpods" style="width: 225px" /> </a>
Copy