Business
Privacy law violations: who investigates and what are the consequences?
Privacy law violations: who investigates and what are the consequences?
Eighty-five percent of American adults say they go online daily—and 31% say they’re online constantly—which is likely no surprise considering how much of our modern lives have become tethered to the internet. It’s not only the hours we spend scrolling through our social media feeds, checking email, and streaming music playlists. Many of the businesses and services we use to send money, sign documents, view bills, schedule doctor appointments, or check our bank statements store our information digitally long after we’ve logged off. To protect all the countless pieces of our digital lives stored online, on the cloud, and on computer servers, privacy laws are critical to deterring theft and safeguarding our confidential information.
To learn about the different privacy laws in the U.S., including what types of privacy they protect, who enforces them, and what consequences of their violations are, TripleBlind compiled a list of federal privacy laws and investigated who enforces them using a variety of government and academic sources.
When it comes to how the U.S. manages privacy, its management processes are very siloed—especially compared to how Europe protects privacy, for example. The European Union allows for the free flow of information among member nations under the General Data Protection Regulation, an umbrella law that governs nearly every form of personal data and sets strict requirements for the protection of all processing and personal data. The U.S. protects particular data types under specific circumstances, as reflected in most privacy acts passed.
The U.S. Constitution does not specify any provisions for privacy protection. Still, several constitutional amendments have been interpreted in legal decisions as bearing weight on various forms of privacy, including the Third Amendment’s protection of the privacy of one’s home and the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination, which also extends to the security of private information.
Legislation related to the issue of privacy protections is extensive in terms of what it addresses and what it does not. It can be challenging to understand precisely what type of privacy each act protects, which government entity or entities investigate violations of each act, and what consequences of violations of each act resemble.
Read on for a breakdown of privacy law and consequences for violations in the U.S.
Casper1774 Studio // Shutterstock
Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970
One of the earliest federal privacy laws to be passed, the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 protects personal financial information collected by credit agencies, tenant screening services, and medical information companies. In essence, it guarantees the privacy and accuracy of the information in consumer credit bureau files and empowers action in the event of inaccuracies.
The Federal Trade Commission is the government entity that enforces the FCRA, though the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is primarily responsible for rulemaking. Violations can come in many forms, including inaccurate debt reporting, failing to send poor credit rating notifications, disseminating credit reporting information without consent, and failing to provide a satisfactory process to prevent identity theft.
Such violations can result in various damages awarded, court costs, and attorney’s fees. Actual damages include those that resulted from a proven failure to act, or an action by an individual, business, or agency that brings harm; they are case-specific and thus have no limit. Statutory damages don’t require evidence to support them and have a compensation limit from $100 to $1,000. Punitive damages are awarded as punishment against an individual, business, or agency found in FCRA violation and are meant to deter the guilty party from further wrongdoing. All damage types are contingent upon willful and negligent FCRA violations.
Nirat.pix // Shutterstock
Privacy Act of 1974
The Privacy Act of 1974 prevents federal agencies from disclosing personal information they collect or control when not authorized. The act also requires that federal agencies publicly disclose their system of records in the Federal Register, which is the U.S. government’s official record. The act was ratified in response to concerns over how the creation and use of computerized databases impacted personal privacy; however, it is important to note that the act applies only to federal agencies and not to state or local agencies.
Many agencies share the duty of enforcing this act due to its range of protections, but the director of the Office of Management and Budget has the power to create guidelines for how agencies should follow the act. Penalties differ for violations of specific sections of the act and can be civil or criminal in nature, or both. In civil court, an individual can sue to have a record amended should an agency refuse to do so—and the individual can also have reasonable litigation costs paid by the government if the court so rules. An individual can also sue to have records produced in civil court. Should a court find that any agency has committed a violation intentionally or willfully, the court can award actual damages to the individual and the individual’s reasonable attorney fees.
Suppose a government agency employee or officer willfully and knowingly discloses personally identifiable information or deliberately maintains a records system without disclosing relevant details or even the system’s existence. In that case, they can be fined up to $5,000 and cited for a misdemeanor. Moreover, the same misdemeanor penalty can apply to anyone who willfully and knowingly requests the record of an individual from an agency under false pretenses.
REDPIXEL.PL // Shutterstock
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 is an anti-hacking law prohibiting unauthorized use of any protected device connected to the internet, including computers and smartphones. This act has been amended since its original ratification. It has come under scrutiny for what has been seen by some as vague language that allowed the law to be so broadly interpreted, it criminalizes everyday activities.
Fortunately, in June 2021, the Supreme Court narrowed the act, saying that the law should not apply to people using systems they’ve been allowed to access, as otherwise, a large number of everyday computer activities would, in effect, be criminal.
The Department of Justice enforces this act and recently updated its enforcement policy so that good-faith security research—accessing a computer solely with good-faith vulnerability or security flaw correction, investigation, or testing purposes—would not be charged. Within the DOJ, the FBI has primary investigative authority regarding cases involving foreign relations or national defense issues, foreign counterintelligence, restricted data, and suspicion of espionage. The Secret Service is also authorized to investigate instances of fraud.
The CFAA criminalizes unauthorized access of a computer or the obtaining of protected information by exceeding authorized access; extortion involving computers; intentional and unauthorized access to a computer that causes reckless damage; and any attempts to commit such offenses, even if ultimately unsuccessful. A first offense can result in a maximum of 10 years in prison; a second offense increases the sentence to 20 years.
fizkes // Shutterstock
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act enforces requirements on services online that are directed at and collect information from children younger than 13. Such services must provide specific parental controls and the ability to opt out, and must make their privacy policies available and easily accessible.
The Federal Trade Commission enforces the application of this act and investigates violations thereof—most recently turning its attention to online education tools. When a COPPA violation occurs, the violator could receive a fine of up to $43,280 per violation. This figure throws into stark relief the $170 million fine levied against Google in 2019 for COPPA violations on YouTube. The web service collected children’s personal information without consent and then used it to target these children with advertising.
Many companies have committed COPAA violations by improperly gathering children’s personal information over the years, including WW International and Kurbo Inc. in 2018, Musical.ly (TikTok) in 2019, We Heart It in 2020, HyperBeard in 2020, OpenX in 2021, and Recolor in 2021.
Surasak_Ch // Shutterstock
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires financial institutions to safeguard the public’s nonpublic personal information and provide their customers with an explanation of their information-sharing practices. It also mandates that consumers or customers can opt out of all information sharing. The act is enforced by several types of authorities, primarily the Federal Trade Commission; federal banking agencies, additional federal regulatory authorities, and state insurance oversight agencies are also responsible for enforcement.
Penalties for violations of the GLBA can include severe personal and financial consequences for employees and executives. For each violation, a financial institution can get a fine of up to $100,000. An institution’s directors and officers can face a fine of up to $10,000 or five years in prison (or both). Additionally, companies that violate this act will face a loss of confidence from their customers and increased exposure.
ldutko // Shutterstock
Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
The Health Information Portability and Accountability Act ensures the proper protection of individuals’ health information by setting disclosure and use standards. The Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for enforcing HIPAA privacy and security rules. The office investigates complaints and conducts compliance reviews per HIPAA standards.
Penalties for HIPAA violations can be levied as both civil and criminal. Civil penalties are a minimum of $100 per violation; if the same breach has occurred in multiple variations, this fine can reach $25,000. Such penalties are applied if an individual was aware of wrongdoing or is proven to have failed to exercise such due diligence as would have made them aware. Penalties do not apply in the absence of willful neglect or if the individual corrects the violation within 30 days of being made aware of it.
Criminal penalties are, of course, much stiffer. A willful violation bears a minimum fine of $50,000 up to a maximum of $250,000. Moreover, the guilty individual may have to pay restitution to any victims involved. Imprisonment is also possible. Prison terms can vary from up to one year in the case of criminal negligence to up to 10 years for violating HIPAA rules with malicious intent or for personal profit.
Canva
Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006
The Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act made it a criminal offense to engage in pretexting—using manipulation or false statements to obtain personal information—to acquire phone records from telecommunication companies. It not only prohibits a person from using fraudulent tactics to obtain phone data, but also makes it illegal to try accessing confidential phone data online or on computers. Selling and transferring phone records that were illegally obtained is also prohibited.
With the passage of the act, violators can incur fines or be sentenced up to 10 years imprisonment. Both of these penalties can also increase based on the severity of the crime: If the fraudulent activity had more than 50 victims or involved more than $100,000, fines can double and an additional five years could be added to a prison sentence. Another additional five years could be added if the fraudulently acquired phone records were used to commit violent crimes, crimes against law enforcement officers, or domestic violence.
This story originally appeared on TripleBlind and was produced and
distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.
You walk into a fast-food restaurant on your lunch break. You don’t see a cashier but instead a self-service kiosk, a technology that is becoming the new norm in eateries across the country. The kiosks usually offer customers a menu to scroll through and pictures of meals and specials with prompts to select their food and submit their payment in one place.
Self-service kiosks are big business. In fact, the market for self-service products is expected to grow from a $40.3 billion market value in 2022 to $63 billion by 2027, according to a report from BCC Research. Consumers do have mixed opinions about the kiosks, but about 3 out of 5 surveyed consumers reported that they were likely to use self-service kiosks, according to the National Restaurant Association. The technology, while expensive, can boost businesses’ bottom lines in the long run.
Task Group summarized the rise in digital ordering over the past couple of years, its acceptance among customers, and a cost analysis of adopting the technology.
Self-service kiosks—digital machines or display booths—are generally placed in high-traffic areas. They can be used for different reasons, including navigating a store or promoting a product. Interactive self-service kiosks in particular are meant for consumers to place orders with little to no assistance from employees.
The idea of kiosks isn’t new. The concept of self-service was first introduced in the 1880s when the first types of kiosks appeared as vending machines selling items like gum and postcards. In the present age of technology, the trend of self-service has only grown. Restaurants such as McDonald’s and Starbucks have already tried out cashierless technology.
From a business perspective, the kiosks offer a huge upside. While many employers are looking for workers, they’re having a hard time finding staff. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers struggled with a severe employee shortage. Since then, the problem has continued. In 2022, the National Restaurant Association reported that 65% of restaurant operators didn’t have enough workers on staff to meet consumer demand. With labor shortages running rampant, cashierless technology could help restaurants fill in for the lack of human employees.
The initial investment for the kiosks can be high. The general cost per kiosk is difficult to quantify, with one manufacturer estimating a range of $1,500 to $20,000 per station. However, with the use of kiosks, restaurants may not need as many cashiers or front-end employees, instead reallocating workers’ time to other tasks.
In May 2022, the hourly mean wage for cashiers who worked in restaurants and other eating establishments was $12.99, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Kiosks could cost less money than a cashier in the long run.
But how do the customers themselves feel about the growing trend? According to a Deloitte survey, 62% of respondents report that they were “somewhat likely” to order from a cashierless restaurant if given the chance to do so. The same survey reported that only 19% of respondents had experience with a cashierless restaurant.
What would it mean for society if restaurants did decide to go completely cashierless? Well, millions of positions would likely no longer be necessary. One report suggests 82% of restaurant positions could be replaced by robots, a prospect making automation appealing to owners who can’t find staff to hire.
Due to the ongoing labor shortage, employers have tried raising employee wages. Papa John’s, Texas Roadhouse, and Chipotle were among the restaurant companies that increased employee pay or offered bonuses in an attempt to hire and retain more workers. Meanwhile, some companies have decided to use technology to perform those jobs instead, so that they wouldn’t have to put effort into hiring or focus their existing staff on other roles.
Story editing by Ashleigh Graf and Jeff Inglis. Copy editing by Tim Bruns.
It’s well-documented that the surest, and often best, return on investments comes from playing the long game. But between stocks and real estate, which is the stronger bet?
To find out, financial planning firm Wealth Enhancement Group analyzed data from academic research, Standard and Poor’s, and Nareit to see how real estate compares to stocks as an investment.
Data going back to 1870 shows the well-established power of real estate as a powerful “long-run investment.” From 1870-2015, and after adjusting for inflation, real estate produced an average annual return of 7.05%, compared to 6.89% for equities. These findings, published in the 2019 issue of The Quarterly Journal of Economics, illustrate that stocks can deviate as much as 22% from their average, while housing only spreads out 10%. That’s because despite having comparable returns, stocks are inherently more volatile due to following the whims of the business cycle.
Real estate has inherent benefits, from unlocking cash flow and offering tax breaks to building equity and protecting investors from inflation. Investments here also help to diversify a portfolio, whether via physical properties or a real estate investment trust. Investors can track markets with standard resources that include the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, which tracks residential real estate prices; the Nareit U.S. Real Estate Index, which gathers data on the real estate investment trust, or REIT, industry; and the S&P 500, which tracks the stocks of 500 of the largest companies in the U.S.
High interest rates and a competitive market dampened the flurry of real-estate investments made in the last four years. The rise in interest rates equates to a bigger borrowing cost for investors, which can spell big reductions in profit margins. That, combined with the risk of high vacancies, difficult tenants, or hidden structural problems, can make real estate investing a less attractive option—especially for first-time investors.
Keep reading to learn more about whether real estate is a good investment today and how it stacks up against the stock market.
Wealth Enhancement Group
Stocks and housing have both done well
REITs can offer investors the stability of real estate returns without bidding wars or hefty down payments. A hybrid model of stocks and real estate, REITs allow the average person to invest in businesses that finance or own income-generating properties.
REITs delivered slightly better returns than the S&P 500 over the past 20-, 25-, and 50-year blocks. However, in the short term—the last 10 years, for instance—stocks outperformed REITs with a 12% return versus 9.5%, according to data compiled by The Motley Fool investor publication.
Whether a new normal is emerging that stocks will continue to offer higher REITs remains to be seen.
This year, the S&P 500 reached an all-time high, courtesy of investor enthusiasm in speculative tech such as artificial intelligence. However, just seven tech companies, dubbed “The Magnificent 7,” are responsible for an outsized amount of the S&P’s returns last year, creating worry that there may be a tech bubble.
While indexes keep a pulse on investment performance, they don’t always tell the whole story. The Case-Shiller Index only measures housing prices, for example, which leaves out rental income (profit) or maintenance costs (loss) when calculating the return on residential real estate investment.
Wealth Enhancement Group
Housing returns have been strong globally too
Like its American peers, the global real estate market in industrialized nations offers comparable returns to the international stock market.
Over the long term, returns on stocks in industrialized nations is 7%, including dividends, and 7.2% in global real estate, including rental income some investors receive from properties. Investing internationally may have more risk for American buyers, who are less likely to know local rules and regulations in foreign countries; however, global markets may offer opportunities for a higher return. For instance, Portugal’s real estate market is booming due to international visitors deciding to move there for a better quality of life. Portugal’s housing offers a 6.3% return in the long term, versus only 4.3% for its stock market.
For those with deep enough pockets to stay in, investing in housing will almost always bear out as long as the buyer has enough equity to manage unforeseen expenses and wait out vacancies or slumps in the market. Real estate promises to appreciate over the long term, offers an opportunity to collect rent for income, and allows investors to leverage borrowed capital to increase additional returns on investment.
Above all, though, the diversification of assets is the surest way to guarantee a strong return on investments. Spreading investments across different assets increases potential returns and mitigates risk.
Story editing by Nicole Caldwell. Copy editing by Paris Close. Photo selection by Lacy Kerrick.
This story originally appeared on Wealth Enhancement Group and was produced and
distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.
In today’s digital climate, consuming sports has never been easier. Thanks to a plethora of streaming sites, alternative broadcasts, and advancements to home entertainment systems, the average fan has myriad options to watch and learn about their favorite teams at the touch of a button—all without ever having to leave the couch.
As a result, more and more sports venues have committed to improving and modernizing their facilities and fan experiences to compete with at-home audiences. Consider using mobile ticketing and parking passes, self-service kiosks for entry and ordering food, enhanced video boards, and jumbotrons that supply data analytics and high-definition replays. These innovations and upgrades are meant to draw more revenue and attract various sponsored partners. They also deliver unique and convenient in-person experiences that rival and outmatch traditional ways of enjoying games.
In Los Angeles, the Rams and Chargers’ SoFi Stadium has become the gold standard for football venues. It’s an architectural wonder with closer views, enhanced hospitality, and a translucent roof that cools the stadium’s internal temperature.
The Texas Rangers’ ballpark, Globe Life Field, added field-level suites and lounges that resemble the look and feel of a sports bar. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Clippers are building a new arena (in addition to retail space, team offices, and an outdoor public plaza) that will seat 18,000 people and feature a fan section called The Wall, which will regulate attire and rooting interest.
It’s no longer acceptable to operate with old-school facilities and technology. Just look at Commanders Field (formerly FedExField), home of the Washington Commanders, which has faced criticism for its faulty barriers, leaking ceilings, poor food options, and long lines. Understandably, the team has been attempting to find a new location to build a state-of-the-art stadium and keep up with the demand for high-end amenities.
As more organizations audit their stadiums and arenas and keep up with technological innovations, Uniqode compiled a list of the latest tech advancements to coax—and keep—fans inside venues.
Jeff Gritchen/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register // Getty Images
Just Walk Out technology
After successfully installing its first cashierless grocery store in 2020, Amazon has continued to put its tracking technology into practice.
In 2023, the Seahawks incorporated Just Walk Out technology at various merchandise stores throughout Lumen Field, allowing fans to purchase items with a swipe and scan of their palms.
The radio-frequency identification system, which involves overhead cameras and computer vision, is a substitute for cashiers and eliminates long lines.
RFID is now found in a handful of stadiums and arenas nationwide. These stores have already curbed checkout wait times, eliminated theft, and freed up workers to assist shoppers, according to Jon Jenkins, vice president of Just Walk Out tech.
Billie Weiss/Boston Red Sox // Getty Images
Self-serve kiosks
In the same vein as Amazon’s self-scanning technology, self-serve kiosks have become a more integrated part of professional stadiums and arenas over the last few years. Some of these function as top-tier vending machines with canned beers and nonalcoholic drinks, shuffling lines quicker with virtual bartenders capable of spinning cocktails and mixed drinks.
The kiosks extend past beverages, as many college and professional venues have started using them to scan printed and digital tickets for more efficient entrance. It’s an effort to cut down lines and limit the more tedious aspects of in-person attendance, and it’s led various competing kiosk brands to provide their specific conveniences.
Kyle Rivas // Getty Images
Mobile ordering
Is there anything worse than navigating the concourse for food and alcohol and subsequently missing a go-ahead home run, clutch double play, or diving catch?
Within the last few years, more stadiums have eliminated those worries thanks to contactless mobile ordering. Fans can select food and drink items online on their phones to be delivered right to their seats. Nearly half of consumers said mobile app ordering would influence them to make more restaurant purchases, according to a 2020 study at PYMNTS. Another study showed a 22% increase in order size.
Many venues, including Yankee Stadium, have taken notice and now offer personalized deliveries in certain sections and established mobile order pick-up zones throughout the ballpark.
Darrian Traynor // Getty Images
QR codes at seats
Need to remember a player’s name? Want to look up an opponent’s statistics at halftime? The team at Digital Seat Media has you covered.
Thus far, the company has added seat tags to more than 50 venues—including two NFL stadiums—with QR codes to promote more engagement with the product on the field. After scanning the code, fans can access augmented reality features, look up rosters and scores, participate in sponsorship integrations, and answer fan polls on the mobile platform.
Boris Streubel/Getty Images for DFL // Getty Images
Real-time data analytics and generative AI
As more venues look to reinvigorate the in-stadium experience, some have started using generative artificial intelligence and real-time data analytics. Though not used widely yet, generative AI tools can create new content—text, imagery, or music—in conjunction with the game, providing updates, instant replays, and location-based dining suggestions
Last year, the Masters golf tournament even began including AI score projections in its mobile app. Real-time data is streamlining various stadium pitfalls, allowing operation managers to monitor staffing issues at busy food spots, adjust parking flows, and alert custodians to dirty or damaged bathrooms. The data also helps with security measures. Open up an app at a venue like the Honda Center in Anaheim, California, and report safety issues or belligerent fans to help better target disruptions and preserve an enjoyable experience.
Story editing by Nicole Caldwell. Copy editing by Paris Close. Photo selection by Lacy Kerrick.
This story originally appeared on Uniqode and was produced and
distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.
-
Business4 months agoSkill-based hiring is the answer to labour shortages, BCG report finds
-
Business5 months agomesh conference goes deep on AI, with experts focusing in on training, ethics, and risk
-
Events4 months agoThe Northern Lights Technology & Innovation Forum comes to Calgary next month
-
People4 months agoHow connected technologies trim rework and boost worker safety in hands-on industries
-
Events5 months agoNavigating innovation, privacy policies, and diversity in a tech-driven world