WPF is pleased to announce that Executive Director Pam Dixon's paper on the topic of collective privacy was selected for inclusion at the Privacy Law Scholars Conference from a large and highly competitive field. The paper is now available at the PLSC website as a confidential download for conference attendees. ...
The World Privacy Forum filed detailed comments regarding draft guidance on privacy and medical research to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The proposed guidance, Facilitating Understanding in Informed Consent, is related to consent for human subject research (medical research) and is particularly important. Currently, models of consent are in the process of going digital, which has created a number of challenging problems to solve. In the comments, WPF had several recommendations to improve consent and privacy.
Earlier this month, WPF attended a joint conference focused on the shifting dynamics of how the Common Rule that governs human subject research in the US will be interpreted amidst new technological shifts such as AI. The department of Health and Human Services is seeking to define what the next steps and new policy frameworks should be to ensure the Common Rule protects individuals in current and future research environments. Details on the presentations, conversations, and key takeaways in the post.
The World Privacy Forum (WPF) submitted comments on an important Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes modifications of the protection requirements for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment records. Currently, health records regarding treatment for Substance Use Disorders receive special protections under what is called Part 2 regulations , or, 42 ...
WPF is urging the National Institutes of Health to do more to properly advise the research community and to protect data subjects in its draft guidance on data management and sharing. WPF is asking for changes to the NIH guidance because in the US, much health research data in the hands of researchers is not subject to the privacy or security rules in HIPAA.
The Nuremberg Code, an extraordinary document around ethics and research on human subjects written after the research abuses that took place during World War II, is akin to a global Emancipation Proclamation for human research subjects. The Nuremberg Code's 10 principles remain a timeless rendering of thought on what should be in place prior to any entity conducting research on human subjects, and this code forms the philosophical foundation of a regulation in the US known as the Common Rule. We have written extensive comments on the US proposal that will update the Common Rule...
WPF urges FTC to focus on consumers' ability to control their digital exhaust and statistical parity for big data era At the FTC workshop on Big Data September 15, Big Data: Tool for Inclusion or Exclusion?, panelists including the World Privacy Forum discussed legal and ethical frameworks that are applicable ...
Big Data and its potential for inclusion and exclusion was on center stage this past September as the FTC held a day-long workshop with experts from industry, technology, privacy, civil liberties, and academia. World Privacy Forum's Executive Director Pam Dixon, a panelist at the event, spoke about Big Data and privacy, emphasizing several key points, including the need for statistical parity, fairness, and the need for keeping existing consumer protection regulation.
The World Privacy Forum filed comments with the U.S. Department of Commerce in response to its Request for Comments about big data, privacy, and the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. The White House Big Data report recognized that Big Data “raises considerable questions about how our framework for privacy protection applies in a big data ecosystem” and has the potential to “eclipse longstanding civil rights protections in how personal information is used in housing, credit, employment, health, education, and the marketplace.” This is among our concerns as well, and our comments focused on understanding big data's benefits while drawing attention to where there are significant privacy risks that need to be addressed.
The World Privacy Forum's recent public comments to the White House regarding Big Data focus on using a foundation of Fair Information Principles to address issues connected to bias, error, and privacy regarding big data as applied to vulnerable populations. The comments also discuss large medical research data sets, and ...
WPF filed comments with the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethics today urging the Commission to recognize the need for enhanced genetic privacy protections in a digital world. WPF noted that "The increasing identifiability of genetic data presents major privacy issues for research activities that must be acknowledged and addressed." WPF suggested four key ways that Certificate of Confidentiality programs could be enhanced for privacy protection, and urged the Commission to speak out about the importance of protecting patient privacy in research activities involving genetic information. "The Commission should advocate providing patients with reasonable controls over research uses of their data as electronic records develop and spread throughout the health care system." Public comments may be submitted to the Commission until May 25, 2012.
Common Rule | Health Privacy -- The World Privacy Forum filed extensive comments with the US Department of Health and Human Services about its proposed changes regarding the rules governing human subject medical research. In the comments, WPF noted that the HHS approach to privacy for research subjects was incomplete and did not use all Fair Information Practices. WPF strongly urged HHS to revise its proposal on a number of issues, including consent and the use of biospecimens in research. The World Privacy Forum is urging HHS to acknowledge that the realm of health data that is truly non-identifiable has shrunken remarkably, for example, biospecimens with DNA cannot be considered non-identifiable anymore. "In our comments, we are requesting that HHS give individuals the opportunity to make choices about the use of their own health data and specimens," said Executive director Pam Dixon. WPF also stated in its comments that "A central database with identifiable information about participants in human subjects research is a terrible idea." (See p. 21 of WPF comments.)
The World Privacy Forum filed extensive comments with the US Department of Health and Human Services about its proposed changes regarding the rules governing human subject medical research. In the comments, WPF noted that the HHS approach to privacy for research subjects was incomplete and did not use all Fair Information Practices. WPF strongly urged HHS to revise its proposal on a number of issues, including consent and the use of biospecimens in research. The World Privacy Forum is urging HHS to acknowledge that the realm of health data that is truly non-identifiable has shrunken remarkably, for example, biospecimens with DNA cannot be considered non-identifiable anymore. "In our comments, we are requesting that HHS give individuals the opportunity to make choices about the use of their own health data and specimens," said Executive director Pam Dixon. WPF also stated in its comments that "A central database with identifiable information about participants in human subjects research is a terrible idea." (See p. 21 of WPF comments.)
In response to a Request for Information (RFI) from U.S. federal agencies regarding the recently passed GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act), the World Privacy Forum filed a detailed response with suggestions on what aspects of GINA need clarification. The comments focus on a number of privacy issues the RFI raised, including model privacy notices and the issue of what the GINA statute calls "incidental collection" of genetic information. Currently, GINA states that some kinds of information are exempted from being considered as regulated for medical underwriting purposes. For example, medical information gleaned about patients for underwriting purposes from medical databases is regulated. But medical information gleaned about patients for underwriting purposes from, for example, marketing lists containing robust patient information may be unregulated if the law is not clarified in the regulatory process. The World Privacy Forum urged HHS and the Department of Labor to substantially clarify what constitutes "incidental collection," and urged the agencies to consider lists containing identifiable patient information to be considered in the same category as a "medical database."
Human Subjects Research Protection (OHRP) -- The World Privacy Forum filed comments with the Office of Human Research Protection urging the office to do more to protect the privacy of people who are subjects of research. The comments urge the OHRP to focus more attention on providing privacy-specific training for boards overseeing research, which are often weak in knowledge about the breadth of privacy issues in research. The WPF also voiced its strong support for certificates of confidentiality for research involving human subjects, stating that "nearly all research that involves identifiable health data or other personal data about individuals should have a certificate of confidentiality unless a researcher can state a substantive reason why a certificate is not appropriate for the study."
The collection of DNA material from 500,000 to 1,000,000 or more individuals as part of a large U.S. medical research project raises many challenging ethical, legal, and privacy issues. An advisory committee reporting to the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ( the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society) has published a detailed analysis of the issues such a project would raise in a draft report. The committee's final report and policy recommendations will be submitted to the Secretary of HHS. The World Privacy Forum has submitted public comments on the draft report; the comments include key policy recommendations. The Forum's recommendations include the need to provide protection from compelled disclosure of information, the necessity for a full-time project privacy officer with enforcement power, and the need for a far-reaching and robust privacy policy that exceeds the requirements of HIPAA, among other recommendations.