Some people might say, “Of course it’s different: trading history is not protected expression; it is simply information about an economic transaction with no expressive value.” However, economic transactions offer a window into a person’s deepest thoughts and core values. Our purchases and sales of securities, particularly when aggregated together, are a rich form of value expression. They might express a view of how markets work, a determination on the efficiency of markets, expectations about the future, or even a moral philosophy. Investors’ trades may flow from a carefully crafted trading strategy based on a person’s education, careful data analysis, intuition, or market experience. People may trade to express their belief about how a company, industry, or nation will perform in the short- or long-term. People might sell stock because they fear a recession is coming or buy stock because they anticipate that the election of a particular candidate or party will bring a period of economic prosperity. An investor might buy shares of a movie company because she is sure a particular movie will be popular, shares of a technology company because he/she believes the company’s engineers are geniuses, or the shares of a cellphone provider because he/she believes a strategic merger is on the horizon.
According to SEC commissioner, Hester M. Peirce’s statement, we should not risk our freedom and privacy. If history is any guide, unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, the information contained in the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) is almost certainly just a matter of time.
Given these risks, the commissioner advise to eliminate the CAT, and if the Commission believes the program needs further improvement, it could enhance the current rules. The current regime provides the information needed, and incremental improvements to reduce delays and errors could make the commission investigations more efficient without sacrificing Americans’ liberty and privacy.
What if people will use smart contracts to buy shares and other securities? How will the SEC follow them? Does the SEC wants us to use smart contracts to get more privacy?
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s regulator responsible for data protection.
When you visit a website, some of the ads you see have been specifically selected for you. As the site was loading, the website publisher auctioned a space on the page you are viewing, and an advertiser bought it because it specifically wants to reach people like you. The process can involve many companies, and happens in milliseconds. Billions of online ads are placed on webpages and apps in this way every day.
The process – known as real time bidding – relies on the potential advertiser seeing information about you. That information can be as basic as the device you’re using to view the webpage, or where in the country you are. But it can have a more detailed picture, including the websites you’ve visited, what your perceived interests are, even what health condition you’ve been searching for information about.
Real-Time Bidding (RTB) is a set of technologies and practices used in programmatic advertising. It has evolved and grown rapidly in recent years and is underpinned by advertising technology (adtech), allowing advertisers to compete for available digital advertising space in milliseconds, placing billions of online adverts on webpages and apps in the UK every day by automated means.
According to the ICO report, While many RTB market participants place some controls on their processing and sharing of personal data, it’s become apparent that there are substantially different levels of engagement and understanding of how data protection law applies, and the issues that arise.
The report described number of concerns with the data protection practices within RTB, for instance:
- identifying a lawful basis for the processing of personal data in RTB remains challenging, as the scenarios where legitimate interests could apply are limited, and methods of obtaining consent are often insufficient in respect of data protection law requirements
- the privacy notices provided to individuals lack clarity and do not give them full visibility of what happens to their data
- the scale of the creation and sharing of personal data profiles in RTB appears disproportionate, intrusive and unfair, particularly when in many cases data subjects are unaware that this processing is taking place
It seems that more work needs to be done, in order to make sure our personal data is protected as expected.
Time and Google/Facebook good faith will tell if our digital platforms are Rockefeller/Carnegie alike.
According to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission report, there are issues to address and problems to be solved. Google/Facebook may need to read the report carefully, in order to protect their good business.
Google and Facebook are doing good service to all of us, but questions should be asked, and concerns should be resolved, since there is no perfection in life.
We are the guardians of our privacy, and it is up to us to determine how it will be used.
The data from the report can assist all of us in the future, for example:
- The activities most commonly reported by digital platforms users as being undertaken on a daily basis were looking for or reading online news (48%), streaming content (39%), watching or listening to news (31%) or creating and sharing content (31%).
- People who access news via digital platforms are also likely to access news in other ways.
- A little under three-quarters (72%) agreed or strongly agreed that for some digital platforms, a requirement of usage was allowing the platform to use any content uploaded or shared. There were differences in views of how Digital Platforms may use their information. In particular, less than half of digital platforms users agreed that:
Mobile and tablet apps would only ask permission to access things on a user’s devices that were required for the app to work (43% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement).
It seems that we will judge if the technology provided is good or bad. Even the best ice-cream shop has complaints, and when it comes to digital platforms there are many interests involve. Therefore, this case is tricky, and maybe that’s why decentralize and non-censorship system/s will gather more attraction in the future.
Please find below few stories worth reading (Chicago, Ill. introducing broker Fortune Trading Group, Inc, Telegram ICO, pump-and-dump classic story and the latest from Information Commissioner Office):
- NFA permanently bars Chicago, Ill. introducing broker Fortune Trading Group, Inc. from membership, bars its principal and associated person Jonathan Schuler from membership for five years, and orders Chicago, Ill. futures commission merchant Ironbeam, Inc. to pay a $100,000 fine – if you will read the full story (please find attached a link), you will understand that even if regulated entity promise you large profits, you should be skeptical. Moreover, if someone offers you large profits without mentioning the other scenarios, just stay away from the offer. Simple as that!!!
- Fake Website Scam Targets Aspiring Telegram ICO Investors – it is important to be aware that some fraudsters are using the Telegram ICO hypes to make quick profits.
- What is pump-and-dump? well, the attached story will provide an answer (it is a classic pump-and-dump case). You should really be careful with those Microcap Stocks trading. Microcap Stocks can be easily maneuver, and statscally they are more exposed to pump-and-dump schemes.
- ICO is also UK Information Commissioner Office initials. You should know that you can report about nuisance calls or any other issues related to your Data Protection.
You can review their Enforcement action on the attached link, and more about them in general in the attached link.
Please find an example for their latest Enforcement action:
Firm previously fined for making nuisance calls is prosecuted for continuing to break the law:
Direct Choice Home Improvements Limited had been fined £50,000 by the ICO in 2016 and was also issued with a formal Enforcement Notice, ordering it to cease contacting people registered with the Telephone Preference Service.
It continued to make unsolicited marketing calls, however, and so was prosecuted under the ICO’s criminal enforcement powers.
It’s good to know that something is being done in order to protect our right for It’s good to know that something is being done in order to protect our right for privacy.
Privacy is a worldwide/international disturbing issue.. In order to get back some more privacy, we need to see more enforcement actions by other countries or jurisdictions. It is a worldwide/international issue.
For example (please find attached a link for the newsletter):
Carphone Warehouse fined £400,000 after serious failures placed customer and employee data at risk
Carphone Warehouse has been issued with one of the largest fines by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), after one of their computer systems was compromised as a result of a cyber-attack in 2015. The company’s failure to secure the system allowed unauthorised access to the personal data of over three million customers and 1,000 employees.
Firms behind 44 million spam emails, 15 million nuisance calls and one million spam texts fined by the ICO
Four companies that disrupted people with nuisance marketing have been fined a total of £600,000 by the ICO. Barrington Claims Ltd based in Wales, Newday Ltd based in London, Goody Market UK Ltd based in Liverpool and TFLI Ltd based in Macclesfield broke the law by not having people’s agreement to be contacted by them.
Company, senior staff and private investigators fined over illegal trade in personal information
A firm of loss adjusters has been fined £50,000 for unlawfully disclosing personal data which had been obtained illegally by senior employees and rogue private investigators. A director and a senior member of staff at Kent-based Woodgate and Clark Ltd have also been sentenced to record financial penalties of £75,000 and £30,000 along with the private investigators involved. The case was part of an ongoing ICO investigation into allegations of a criminal trade in confidential personal information involving corporate clients suspected of using the services of rogue private investigators.
ICO executes search warrants related to millions of automated nuisance calls
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has searched two addresses in Nottingham as part of an investigation into a network suspected of making hundreds of millions of nuisance calls. ICO enforcement officers were joined by colleagues from the Claims Management Regulator and Nottinghamshire Police to execute a search warrant at an office building in the city. A house was also searched at the same time.