WPF files comments on new FERPA student health privacy guidance

The World Privacy Forum filed comments to the US Department of Education regarding its student health privacy guidance published August 18, 2015. The World Privacy Forum supports the DoE guidance, which clarifies how universities and colleges are to handle sensitive student medical records in cases of non-medical litigation. The guidance notes that educational institutions should interpret FERPA in such a way so as to not release student health records to university attorneys or the courts in non-medical litigation.

Our comments also noted that the guidance is not legally binding because it relies on a very outdated FERPA regulation. Until FERPA is updated, the problems of student health data held under FERPA will remain.

Resources:

Read the comments (PDF, 5 pages)

See the original DoE draft guidance

Posted October 2, 2015 in Education privacy, Family Educations Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Health Privacy, Health Records, HIPAA, US Department of Education

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...