One-Way-Mirror Society: What has been done by industry regarding privacy?

Report home | Read the report (PDF) | Previous section | Next section

The industry view of privacy has been officially articulated in a Recommended Code of Conduct for Consumer Tracking Methods that has been provided to the World Privacy Forum. The code of conduct is contained in full in Appendix A.

The code was created by members of POPAI, and took several years and went through several iterations. An early draft of the code of conduct contained a discussion of “passive consent” and active consent by consumers, among other issues. The final version outlines the technologies in use today, and lists those technologies in a general hierarchy of risk. For example, tracking a consumer’s path through a store is seen as a low privacy risk, but “Any method used to personally or uniquely identify consumers, when combined with loyalty program data, or 3rd party marketing data” is categorized as a high privacy risk.

The document represents an important first step in acknowledging the privacy issues inherent in the digital signage industry, however, the document does not begin to approach a point of reasonable tension between consumer interests and industry interests.

Roadmap: The One-Way-Mirror Society – Privacy Implications of the new Digital Signage Networks: VII. What has been done by industry regarding privacy?

Report home | Read the report (PDF) | Previous section | Next section

Posted January 27, 2010 in Behavioral Advertising, Consumer Privacy, Digital Signage, Facial Recognition, Future of Privacy, Online/Offline, Report: One Way Mirror Society, Retail Privacy, Uncategorized

Global Visualization of Countries with Data Privacy Laws, Treaties, or Conventions

Background and Methodology: The conceptualization and initial research for this...
New Report: Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools

We are pleased to announce the publication of a new WPF report, “Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools.” This report sets out a definition of AI governance tools, documents why and how these tools are critically important for trustworthy AI, and where these tools are around the world. The report also documents problems in some AI governance tools themselves, and suggests pathways to improve AI governance tools and create an evaluative environment to measure their effectiveness. AI systems should not be deployed without simultaneously evaluating the potential adverse impacts of such systems and mitigating their risks, and most of the world agrees about the need to take precautions against the threats posed. The specific tools and techniques that exist to evaluate and measure AI systems for their inclusiveness, fairness, explainability, privacy, safety and other trustworthiness issues — called in the report collectively AI governance tools – can improve such issues. While some AI governance tools provide reassurance to the public and to regulators, the tools too often lack meaningful oversight and quality assessments. Incomplete or ineffective AI governance tools can create a false sense of confidence, cause unintended problems, and generally undermine the promise of AI systems. The report contains rich background details, use cases, potential solutions to the problems discussed in the report, and a global index of AI Governance Tools.
National IDs Around the World — Interactive map

About this Data Visualization: This interactive map displays the presence...