“Consent” is a fundamental part of processing user data. It has a special place at the heart of digital privacy theory. Given the importance of consent, it shouldn’t be surprising that there’s plenty of legal wrangling over how it’s defined.
Most people are familiar with the basics of online consent. Indeed, “consent” is a fundamental part of processing user data. It has a special place at the heart of digital privacy theory.
Early privacy scholars like Alan Westin advocated for a “notice and choice” model of user privacy that’s still popular today. In this model, consent is the key that unlocks a processor or business’s ability to leverage user data.
Given the importance of consent, it shouldn’t be surprising that there’s plenty of legal wrangling over how it’s defined. In the past, simply visiting a website might have considered an implied form of consent, in other words, it suggested the website could use visitors’ data however they wished. That’s not the case any more.
Now, the gold standard for consent is called “informed consent.” Under GDPR, this means:
The CCPA’s “Do Not Sell” is an attempt at solving modern questions of online consent. Typically the user journey for managing consent preferences for a given company is long and circuitous. If a user wants to withdraw their consent regarding the selling of their personal data, they might have to visit multiple web pages and complete multiple different request forms, each of which would be processed by a different business department.
You can learn more about the CCPA’s “Do Not Sell” provision in our dedicated article.
One of the most discussed aspects of CCPA is the design of the “Do Not Sell” button. There’s been confusion over how the button should look because of ambiguity in the user choice. Do users check a box to say “Yes, do not sell my information”? Or un-check a box to say “No, do not sell my information”? Faced with calls for clarification from the public, the California Attorney General’s Office issues additional guidance on the button, including the below example of acceptable design:
The confusion around “Do Not Sell” interaction design -which wasn’t fully alleviated by the image above, speaks to the need to for clear guidance and ongoing dialog between privacy authorities and relevant business stakeholders.
Ethyca’s VP of Engineering Neville Samuell recently spoke at the University of Texas at Austin’s Texas McCombs School of Business about privacy engineering and its role in today’s digital landscape. Read a summary of the discussion by Neville himself here.
Learn more about all of the updates in the Fides 2.24 release here.
Ethyca’s Senior Software Engineer Adam Sachs goes through the thought process of creating Fideslang, the privacy engineering taxonomy that standardizes privacy compliance in software development.
Learn more about all of the updates in the Fides 2.23 release here.
Our Senior Software Engineer Dawn Pattison walks you through implementing data minimization into your business.
Learn more about all of the updates in the Fides 2.22 release here.
Our team of data privacy devotees would love to show you how Ethyca helps engineers deploy CCPA, GDPR, and LGPD privacy compliance deep into business systems. Let’s chat!Request a Demo