Inadequate Privacy Protections Put Consumers at RiskFebruary 7, 2017 | Articles
A recent article in SnapMunk addresses some of the privacy concerns surrounding the proliferation of biometric technology and the inadequate legal protections afforded to consumers.
The author makes specific reference to CRMG case Vigil v. Take-Two Interactive, noting that cases like these leave consumers worried that "poor privacy rights make security impossible."
"Two gamers contended that they were not informed their facial recognition data, which was only collected after they opted-in to the personalization feature on NBA 2K15, was now Take-Two’s property in perpetuity. This, they argued, put their privacy at risk and potentially endangered their security—in a world where biometrics are being relied on more and more, having their face data in the wrong hands could mean trouble was afoot," writes contributor Daniel Guttenberg.
"The video game publisher won their case, the judge agreeing that there was no privacy violation under Illinois law. The gamers’ face data is now on Take-Two’s apparently unencrypted servers and may even be publicly available."
He goes on to recount the incredibly frustrating obstacles privacy advocates have met with when attempting to advance more stringent federal regulations on such sensitive technologies.
"In a meeting/working group held by the National Telecommunications & Information Administration in 2015, consumer advocacy and public interest groups met with trade representatives from various companies and industries interested in using biometric markers like facial recognition."
"Efforts to establish voluntary regulations on biometric collection and use stalled as soon as they started, though, when not a single trade rep would agree that an opt-in should be necessary to record anyone and everyone’s face for facial recognition purposes. The consumer and citizen groups walked out, and there hasn’t been so much as a budge in federal guidelines since."
Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP remains committed to holding firms accountable for consumers' privacy through litigation, as long as industry representatives refuse to allow for such necessary debate in Congress.
Read the full article in SnapMunk here.