Can the CCPA Access Right Be Saved? Realigning Incentives in Access Request Verification

Rebecca Iafrati
{"title":"Can the CCPA Access Right Be Saved? Realigning Incentives in Access Request Verification","authors":"Rebecca Iafrati","doi":"10.5195/tlp.2020.232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The California Consumer Privacy Act access right has the potential to give Californians a level of control over their personal information that is unprecedented in the United States. However,  consumer privacy interests will be in peril  unless the access right is accompanied by an effective access request verification requirement. Requiring companies to respond to access requests when they cannot verify that the requestor is the subject of the requested data puts sensitive personal information at risk. Inversely, allowing companies to shirk their access request responsibilities by claiming that data is unverifiable diminishes consumers’ data control rights. Thus, in the context of access request verification policy, there is an inherent tension between privacy as confidentiality and privacy as control. The success of the access right, and thus all CCPA data control rights, hinges on an access request verification policy that successfully balances these competing privacy interests. The endemic identity theft caused by credit application verification systems demonstrates why such balancing cannot be wholly left to private companies. In the credit context, balancing has been driven by the profit maximization interests of businesses, which currently do not align with consumer privacy interests. Fortunately, several scholars have proposed methods for aligning these divergent interests. The strengths and weaknesses from these proposed solutions to identity theft provide a useful framework for building a system that incentivizes companies to prioritize consumer privacy when developing access request verification systems.","PeriodicalId":185385,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/tlp.2020.232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The California Consumer Privacy Act access right has the potential to give Californians a level of control over their personal information that is unprecedented in the United States. However,  consumer privacy interests will be in peril  unless the access right is accompanied by an effective access request verification requirement. Requiring companies to respond to access requests when they cannot verify that the requestor is the subject of the requested data puts sensitive personal information at risk. Inversely, allowing companies to shirk their access request responsibilities by claiming that data is unverifiable diminishes consumers’ data control rights. Thus, in the context of access request verification policy, there is an inherent tension between privacy as confidentiality and privacy as control. The success of the access right, and thus all CCPA data control rights, hinges on an access request verification policy that successfully balances these competing privacy interests. The endemic identity theft caused by credit application verification systems demonstrates why such balancing cannot be wholly left to private companies. In the credit context, balancing has been driven by the profit maximization interests of businesses, which currently do not align with consumer privacy interests. Fortunately, several scholars have proposed methods for aligning these divergent interests. The strengths and weaknesses from these proposed solutions to identity theft provide a useful framework for building a system that incentivizes companies to prioritize consumer privacy when developing access request verification systems.
CCPA的访问权还能保存吗?重新调整访问请求验证的激励机制
《加州消费者隐私法》的访问权有可能使加州人对自己的个人信息有一定程度的控制,这在美国是前所未有的。然而,除非访问权附有有效的访问请求验证要求,否则消费者的隐私利益将处于危险之中。要求公司在无法核实请求者是所请求数据的主体时对访问请求作出回应,会使敏感的个人信息处于危险之中。相反,允许公司以数据不可验证为由逃避其访问请求责任,会削弱消费者的数据控制权。因此,在访问请求验证策略的上下文中,作为机密性的隐私和作为控制的隐私之间存在固有的紧张关系。访问权限的成功,以及所有CCPA数据控制权的成功,取决于访问请求验证策略能否成功地平衡这些相互竞争的隐私利益。信用申请验证系统导致的普遍身份盗窃表明,为什么这种平衡不能完全留给私营公司。在信贷环境中,平衡是由企业的利润最大化利益驱动的,而这目前与消费者的隐私利益并不一致。幸运的是,一些学者已经提出了协调这些不同利益的方法。这些提出的身份盗窃解决方案的优点和缺点为建立一个激励公司在开发访问请求验证系统时优先考虑消费者隐私的系统提供了一个有用的框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信