News Article · gpt-6-sol

Borderless Nature of Data Economy Creates Blind Spots for Data Privacy Laws Data protection laws give individuals the power to manage their personal data. Yet, determining where personal data is processed and preventing its misuse is practically impossible. Laws enacting data protection rights, like those in the European Union and California, require companies to communicate how they collect and utilize personal data and provide avenues for individuals to control that data. However, the reach of these laws is limited. Because of the variations in these laws, individuals may not have the same protections even if their situation is similar. For instance, an individual may have the right to have his personal data deleted, while another company may keep that data to fulfill their legal, security or business interests. Even if an individual exercises his right to have his data deleted, that data may remain with another company that is an business partner of the deleting company. Users rarely have a choice of the data services they use and often must utilize a particular service. Companies often utilize other companies to perform business functions and services and may give or sell users’ data to those companies. Users may not understand all the consequences of agreeing to a company’s terms and conditions. Users may not be able to completely eliminate the risks to their privacy, even if the company deletes data or discontinues a product. Company laws and policies guide the actions of the employees of that company. Employees of other companies that are not bound by the same laws may process an individual’s data in a manner that puts the individual’s privacy at risk. Notifying individuals of data misuses may allow individuals to take control of their data. Enforcing this may, however, prove challenging, as companies may change or adapt their businesses quickly. New technologies require new legal responses. AI may be able to uncover sensitive information from seemingly harmless data sets. Data brokers may merge data sets to create a comprehensive profile on an individual. Moreover, there may be exemptions to privacy laws that protect the confidentiality of data, particularly with respect to government agencies. Additionally, there may be other, unrelated laws, that regulate the same data. There are numerous provisions of privacy laws that offer individuals the ability to access, rectify, and/or limit the collection and/or use of their data. While these rights may be enforceable, individuals may be unable to control how their data is collected and/or used. The reality is that many technologies are designed to collect as much information as possible. The recognition of these issues is reflected in a recent shift in the privacy debate. There is increasing support for greater restrictions on the collection of information and required justifications for the use of data, especially by the organizations that collect and/or process the data. Until data privacy laws become more stringent, existing laws will assist individuals in protecting their information. There are, however, natural limits to the protection of information, especially as information becomes easier to create, transmit, and/or process.

Digital Privacy Laws Face a Borderless Data Economy Privacy laws can be important. But privacy is complicated and evolving quickly, and laws have their limits. For instance, laws often apply to data based on the location of the user, the location or type of data-holder, and other considerations. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and California’s privacy law give people some control over their data and require companies to tell users what data they’re collecting and why. They allow people to gain access to their data and request that it be deleted. But these rights apply in limited circumstances, and the right to deletion, for instance, might apply to your data with one company, but not others who may be allowed to retain some of your data for business, legal, or security reasons. Some laws do not apply to government agencies, or to certain industries that are regulated in other ways. Deleting your account with a major company is unlikely to delete all copies of your data. And, if consent is required, users often must “agree” to continue using services that are essential for school, work, or other aspects of everyday life. While companies are required to explain how they use people’s data, these terms can be challenging to understand and compare. Consent isn’t always meaningful if a company follows the law, but users don’t understand what can be learned from their purchases, browsing, or locations. Laws can be challenging to enforce, particularly against companies that offer services around the world, collect lots of different kinds of data, and continually change their technical systems. Larger companies are more likely to have legal teams and compliance budgets, making it difficult for regulators to ensure everyone’s playing by the rules. And, laws that impose fines for collecting and using data inappropriately generally only take effect after your data has been shared or leaked. Meanwhile, new technologies are making it possible to learn sensitive information from seemingly innocuous bits of personal data, especially through new AI applications. Privacy laws can be challenging to apply to brokers who buy and sell data from a variety of sources, making it hard for people to know who has information about them. And, products are often built to collect lots of data by default, which means that privacy rights don’t go very far on their own. That said, laws can be effective. Giving people more access to their own data, limiting what can be collected, and giving regulators more authority can all influence company decisions. Clearer laws that shift away from consent and place more responsibilities on companies to protect people’s data, justify its collection and use, and minimize and protect data can go further. Effective oversight and privacy-focused product design can help people feel more in control of their data.

**Privacy Laws vs Data** Digital privacy laws allow consumers to have more say over what companies know about them. But since so much of our information can flow through third parties and different entities these laws can be confusing to navigate and utilize. Legislation like the EUs GDPR and Californias privacy laws require companies to notify you what information they collect about you and allow you certain controls. Some controls may allow you to view or remove your information from that entity. But if you live in a certain state and are connected to an outside organization it may not apply. There can also be exceptions that apply to some situations. You may be able to have one company delete your information but not another company. And that company may still have your information. Some things require you to opt into collecting that information as well. You may have a right to know what information will be sold about you but that doesn't always let you know what someone can build from your information. It can also be hard to regulate companies that operate in this space. Sometimes companies will operate in many countries or sell to many companies. Companies with larger budgets can out spend other companies when it comes to regulation and lawsuits usually come after information has already been used or leaked. With new technologies these types of problems become even more complicated. AI can gather information from certain sets of data that would seem unrelated to someone. There are also third party brokers that can sell or buy this type of information. Its not to say that digital privacy laws aren't helpful. They allow you to gain information and control about what data is being collected from you. We just need to look at these laws and how we can apply them to technology and new businesses that may start to collect this information. Perhaps lawmakers can implement laws that help prevent us from needing to opt in or give companies more regulation. Either way digital privacy laws have helped us but there is only so much we can learn about the information others have on us.

**Digital Privacy Laws Face a Borderless Data Economy** Digital privacy laws promise users greater control of their data online but implementing and exercising these rights when data is spread across apps, advertisers, data brokers and governments is far from simple. Many countries including the EU and California have set out in laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation and the California Consumer Privacy Act what information companies have to disclose to consumers about their data practices and what rights consumers have over their personal information, such as the right to access, correction, deletion etc. Current data protection regimes differ as to the extent to which users have the right to have their data removed from different services. In most cases deleting data from one service does not lead to all copies of that data being deleted by third parties. But other factors also mitigate the impact of the consent granted in private and in public contexts, such as the lengthy notice of the terms of use of a service online, which are not always easy to compare with each other, and the various interests that can drive a person to access online a service which he/she/it needs for work, school or for many reasons of daily life. Additionally, it is challenging for governments to monitor rapidly evolving systems, in many cases spread over the world. Because companies with large legal and compliance departments have a heavy burden placed on them, smaller companies are at a disadvantage. By the time severe action is taken by authorities, data has already been collected and shared, and been compromised. New technologies are constantly being developed to process data about individuals. For example, the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze datasets comprising apparently innocuous information, raised fresh concerns regarding the processing of personal data. Meanwhile, data brokers who process thousands of datasets comprising a myriad of information about individuals may be unknown to the data subject and the scope of personal information held is not easily determinable. But all the rights and restrictions on the use of information now pledged to respect individuals’ privacy are of little use when the basic conditions for their effective exercise are not met, especially when information can multiply without bounds when digitized and spread among various services in the form of default settings designed to extract information in greatest quantity and of widest variety. The main debates today revolve around whether more emphasis should be put on placing more obligations on organizations to limit and protect data, as opposed to relying on individual rights and the need for consent in advance of the use of personal information. Digital privacy laws – even at their best – are a frail defence against information that travels far and fast, multiplying to disclose secrets that the donor never intended to be revealed.

Digital privacy laws can make personal information safer, but as data is shared between applications, advertisers, brokers, and governments, these protections might not always be clear, easily enforced, or easy to exercise. Recent legislation like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and California’s privacy laws provide a degree of access and control over personal information, but depending on where a person lives and works, protections can be inconsistent, broad, or entirely absent. Users of technology might face different rules from one service to the next and encounter varying levels of access to — or ability to remove — one’s information. Even when permission is necessary to use or share data, complicated language in privacy notices could make it hard to compare how information might be treated across companies, and a person might not have a practical alternative to agreeing if a service is needed to do one’s work or education. Meanwhile, law enforcement must navigate complicated technical issues and inconsistent rules when enforcing privacy laws, and the penalties for misusing information might well be easier for larger organizations to absorb than smaller ones. And with new technologies, there are growing concerns about how much inference made by artificial intelligence on data that seem innocuous in one context might become when combined with other data or presented out of context, and how much data aggregation occurs without people knowing which companies possess which information, beyond the protections offered by privacy laws. That is not to minimize the effect such laws have in providing access to information, limiting what companies can collect by design, and imposing penalties when rules are deliberately circumvented. But when it comes to personal information, legal rights to access and control are not the same as being able to exercise them, particularly when it comes to technology that offers little or no option but to share information freely in exchange for services. The growing focus of privacy laws is likely to turn to placing more responsibility on organizations to limit collections, protect what is necessary, and justify how information is used, rather than asking individuals to make choices about something as fundamental as location data, purchasing habits, or web browsing. For digital privacy laws, there is likely to be a long period of adjustment as laws clarify, companies adapt, and the rules around sharing information change dramatically, but the right to legal privacy is likely to remain a fundamental limitation on how much information technology companies can collect.

**Privacy Legislation Cannot Protect Against a Borderless Data Economy** The development of the concept of privacy legislation is based on the fact that it provides people with greater control over their personal information. However, in the context of exchange of data between apps, advertisers, brokers, and governments, the implementation of digital privacy legislation becomes quite complicated. For example, there are some rules and regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union and California's privacy legislation, which imply that all organizations should provide detailed information about the practices of processing information and grant people additional rights, including the right to request access and deleting of their data. The effectiveness of those regulations depends on the place of residence of a person and other organizational aspects. Thus, the patchwork of privacy legislation can cause the situation in which a person has unequal rights while using services of the same organization due to differences in regulation of those activities. In addition, the deletion of information from one service does not mean the deletion of all related information from other organizations. Furthermore, another aspect that restricts the development of privacy legislation is connected with the issue of consent. Privacy notice provides information about usage of personal information, however, it is difficult to compare notices. Moreover, people are forced to agree with the regulations because there is no alternative in many cases: people need an application in order to perform their tasks at work, in college, etc. Besides, there is a problem of enforcement of privacy regulations. First of all, regulators should investigate rapidly changing technical systems, sometimes it should be done even abroad. Large firms usually have additional legal teams and bigger budget for compliance of the rules. Penalties, however, do not stop violations, as they appear only after the collection or release of information. The development of new technologies complicates the enforcement of privacy legislation as artificial intelligence systems may provide conclusions about a person from the dataset that does not include personal information in isolation. It is also complicated for people to know who collects the information about them as there are data brokers, who collect information from several different sources. There are also some exemptions for governmental organizations and some sectors regulated according to other legislation. It does not mean that privacy legislation is useless because people have access rights, limitations on the data collection and penalties in case of violation of rules. Nevertheless, privacy legislation cannot provide privacy as the products are developed in a way that allows gathering information. The question arises whether privacy legislation should be based on people's consent and the obligations of organizations for the protection of personal information should be limited.

International Data Economy Challenges Digital Privacy Regulation Digital privacy laws offer individuals more ownership over their personal data. But when our data zips across apps, to advertisers, to brokers, to governments, those assurances are complex to exercise, complicated to uphold and tricky to decipher. Laws like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and California's privacy law obligate companies to tell you about their data use and to give individuals rights over that data, like being able to access or erase it. Whether the laws apply to you depends on your state, where the data is collected and who controls it. The result: some users may enjoy varying levels of protection for the same activity. An individual might be allowed to have their profile deleted by one provider but discover that another can keep that person's records for security, legal or commercial reasons. And deleting data from one service doesn't necessarily delete it from its partners. Another restriction is consent. Privacy notices can inform us of the intended use of data but they are lengthy and challenging to respond to. So, we often require a service to conduct business, go to school or even get through the day and "agree" can be less voluntary than you might think. Even when a business meets the requirements for disclosures, customers may not understand what can be deduced from their location, shopping or browsing activity. Enforcing the rules, too, will be difficult. Regulators must scrutinize high-tech systems that evolve rapidly and on an international scale. Bigger businesses often employ lawyers and compliance staff that their smaller counterparts cannot afford; and most consequences come long after the data has been collected or compromised. Unintended consequences New technology introduces new variables. AI can identify insights within datasets that on their own seem innocent. Data brokers have the power to pool data from various sources, making it difficult to know who knows what about you. Other privacy regulation have loopholes for government operations and in certain industries governed by separate regulation. That's not to say that privacy law is broken. Access controls, data minimization, and fining companies are powerful levers for transforming corporate incentives, and available to regulators. But rights alone are not enough to protect privacy when products are designed to default to high levels of data collection. The discussion is also beginning to shift, with some arguing that governments need to do less to seek individuals' permission and more to require organizations to collect less, protect data, and demonstrate that they have a good reason to process it. Stricter laws, regulatory capacity, and privacy by default will help close the gap between the rights people have and their online control. So, for the time being, the law is still in a position where it can keep a lid on digital privacy, with this simple limitation: Information can be transmitted, duplicated and uncovered in ways that the source might not want.

**Privacy Legislation Must Keep Up With An Unbordered Digital Information Exchange** Data protection laws were created to provide consumers greater control over their personal information. The problem is the data flows through numerous services (apps, advertisers, brokers and governments), and thus it is very difficult to determine both the requirements of these laws and the ways in which they can be enforced and/or exercised. As previously stated, some regulations (e.g., the EU's GDPR; CA's CCPA) establish the requirement for all companies to clearly state how they will utilize customer data and provide customers specific rights, i.e., the right to see/access and/or delete any data associated with each customer. However, there are many factors affecting the effectiveness of this regulation, specifically: - Where you live - Who has your data - What are the exceptions In fact, due to varying levels of enforcement across countries, states and provinces, the same activities can result in varying degrees of consumer protections. For example, one provider may allow a user to request deletion of a profile, while another entity may keep similar records for legitimate reasons (i.e., security/legally required/biz). Deleting information from one application/service provider also does not automatically eliminate the existence of duplicate copies of said deleted information maintained by other service providers with whom the original service provider shares data. Another challenge is obtaining consent. While a company may meet all disclosure obligations, providing the notice regarding how your data will be utilized can be lengthy and complex. As a result, most people have no alternative but to "agree" because the service is either required for their job/school/life etc. Thus, agreeing to terms of service may seem like a straightforward process to obtain user permission. Additionally, even if a service meets all notification requirements, users may still not fully comprehend what types of inferences may be drawn from their geographic location/purchases/web browsing history. Obtaining enforcement of consumer privacy laws is also problematic. First, investigators must examine rapidly evolving technical infrastructures that span international borders. Second, large corporations may possess resources (i.e., compliance attorneys/legal staff/compliance budget) that smaller businesses do not. Finally, the consequences typically occur after the data has already been collected/exposed. Technological advancements are creating additional challenges. AI systems can make determinations based on isolated datasets that appear harmless. In addition, data brokers can merge information from various sources to create profiles that make it difficult for users to determine what entities hold information about themselves. There are also carve-outs within many data protection regulations for government activity or other industries that operate pursuant to separate regulatory schemes. However, that does not mean that current data protection legislation has no effect. Consumer rights to access their own data/limits on data collection/fines for violations of those rights can influence how corporations conduct themselves and provide regulators with necessary tools to take action. Nevertheless, simply having legal rights to protect consumer privacy does not ensure that consumers will actually have that level of control when applications/services are designed to collect and store vast amounts of user generated data by default. Increasingly, the debate is focusing on whether legislators should prioritize reliance upon explicit consent by users and impose stricter fiduciary responsibilities upon organizations to reduce collection/minimize storage/data breaches and justify how they use the data. More clear guidelines/enforceable oversight/privacy-oriented design would help bridge the gap between the legal rights consumers enjoy on paper vs. their actual level of control online. At present, data protection laws remain an important safety net -- with one fundamental limitation: once information leaves the owner's hands, it travels/multiplies/reveals more than was originally intended.

In today's globalized economy, where information crosses national borders daily, digital privacy laws are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Because of this, it is likely that many countries will be forced to adapt their digital privacy laws so that they can effectively regulate how companies handle personal data. As digital privacy laws provide individuals with greater control of their personal information, it becomes increasingly difficult to comprehend, apply and enforce these protections because of the movement of data from app to app, advertiser to advertiser, broker to broker, government to government. Companies are required by rules like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and California's privacy legislation to disclose how they handle data and provide people with some rights (e.g., the right to access and/or delete information). But, their effectiveness varies depending upon a individual's location, the type of company holding the data and any exceptions that may be relevant. This type of fragmented protection means that a user could potentially request that a company delete their account, but then find out that the same company retains records pertaining to the account as part of legal, security, or business obligations. Additionally, removing your data from a single service will not guarantee that other companies affiliated with the service have deleted your data. The use of consent is also limited. While privacy notices explain how your data will be used, these documents are typically very lengthy and challenging to compare. Additionally, in many instances, people require a particular service for work, school, or other aspects of their everyday lives; therefore, selecting "agree" is less indicative of an actual decision than it initially appears. Furthermore, although a company complies with the requirements of disclosure, users may not comprehend what information can be derived from their locations, purchases, or browsing histories. Enforcement can be difficult as well. Agencies enforcing laws are required to inspect complex, rapidly changing technical systems; these systems may span multiple countries. Large organizations typically possess the resources to hire lawyers and budget for compliance, whereas smaller organizations do not. Additionally, most of the time penalties will occur after the data was either collected or made public. The introduction of new technologies adds to the existing pressures on individuals. For example, AI-based systems can analyze data that seems harmless when considered individually and make inferences based upon those analyses. Additionally, data brokers are able to compile data from various sources; therefore, it is difficult for individuals to determine what type of information other organizations possess regarding them. Finally, some of the existing privacy regulations include provisions which exclude government operations or industries which are regulated under separate regulatory frameworks. This isn't saying that privacy legislation isn't effective. It can help organizations behave differently through access rights, limits on how much data they can collect, and punishment for misusing that data; all while giving regulators options to take action. However, the use of law alone won't provide consumers with a right to privacy when companies design their products to collect large amounts of consumer data automatically. The focus is now shifting towards a decision about whether lawmakers can begin to focus less on each person's consent for the way their information is collected, and instead start placing larger requirements upon organizations to limit their collection of data, keep that data secure, and provide justification as to why they are using it. More clearly defined regulations, strong enforcement of those regulations, and designing products with privacy in mind will help to close the gap between what individuals have a right to do with their data in theory, and what they actually can control in practice. Currently, although digital privacy law is a critical form of protection, it has one major limitation; information can move around, proliferate and expose more about you than you originally intended.

Digital Privacy Law is up against an economy of information that is borderless. Digital privacy laws will give people greater access to their own information. However, while those data are in transit between apps, advertisers, brokers, and governments, those protections can be opaque, challenging to adhere to, and hard to assert. The European Union's GDPR and California privacy laws mandate certain rules for companies: It must tell people what it does with their data and provides some rights to access or delete. The extent to which they can reach depends on geographic location, the custodian of the data and exceptions. Due to this patchwork, users can have varying levels of protection for comparable activities. One company may be able to wipe out a profile, another organization might be able to hold onto related records for legal, security or business reasons. Nor does deletion from one service de facto mean deletion from its partners' services. A consent can be another restriction. A privacy notice might outline the ways in which information is being used, it can be lengthy, and sometimes hard to compare. However, often times, people require one and it may be a matter of work, school or daily life, so the act of “agreeing” is less of a meaningful gesture than it sounds. Even if a company observes the current rules about disclosure, consumers may not understand what information can be gleaned from their location, buying patterns or browsing history. They are difficult to enforce, too. Governments and other authorities have to keep abreast of evolving technical systems, sometimes even crossing national boundaries. For many larger companies, legal advice might be available and budgets made for compliance, but penalties tend to come long after the data has been gathered and/or released. Introduction of new technologies puts pressure on. In essence, AI systems have the ability to make sense of seemingly innocuous sets of data. Data brokers are also potentially able to consolidate information from several sources making it difficult for individuals to determine who are holding information about them. There are also exemptions for some privacy laws, for government activity or sectors that have their own law. However, that does not mean that privacy law doesn't work. If access rights, restrictions on data gathering and punishments for misuse are altered, this can help influence corporate conduct and provide regulators with the tools to intervene. However, if the products are created to collect a lot of information by default, then legal rights cannot guarantee privacy. There is growing focus on reducing reliance on individual consent and imposing greater responsibility on organisations to keep collection to a minimum, to protect data, and explain how data is used. Righter rules, better supervision and privacy-friendly design might help to bridge the chasm between people's rights in theory and their control in practice. At least for the time being, privacy law applies to digital communications as well, and it has some fundamental limitations: information that is given can be moved, copied and made available to others in ways that are unexpected by the giver.

The Borderless Data Economy That Gives Digital Privacy Laws the Allure but No Teeth Digital privacy laws give people new rights to control the use of their personal data. However, these protections may be hard to understand, enforce and exercise as data traverses between applications, advertisers, brokers and governments. Laws like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and California’s privacy law mandate companies to be transparent about their data practices, provide people with some rights (like the right to access or delete information), and require others. But their coverage is also determined by where someone lives and which organization owns the data, as well as other exceptions. The net result is that users may be left with differing protections for comparable conduct across sites. An individual might demand that one organization delete a profile, and find that another company can keep related records for legal, security or technical reasons. Removing data from the one service could also not remove copies held by its partners. Consent presents another limit. Privacy notices – which explain how information will be used, where it comes from and whom else it's shared with – can be lengthy and hard to compare. Since many people need a service for work, school or everyday life, the decision to "agree" is less resonant than it seems. Even in instances where companies adhere to disclosure rules, the average user will not understand extrapolations from their geography or purchase/ browsing history. Enforcement is challenging, too. Regulators need to go after technical systems that can evolve extremely fast, even across national borders. Big companies may have legal departments and budgets for compliance that small companies do not, and enforcement typically occurs after the data has been harvested or leaked. New technologies add pressure. AI systems can extrapolate from seemingly benign datasets. Data brokers also pull together information from various sources, so it is often not clear who knows what about you. A few privacy laws additionally provide exclusions for government movement or areas controlled by different necessities. That does not mean, however, that privacy legislation is not useful. Access rights, restrictions on data extraction and sanctions for abuse can alter corporate conduct and provide regulators with instruments for intervention. Unfortunately, even Qubit's idea of "privacy" as a legal right does not work easily in practice — that is particularly true when products are designed with the default purpose of collecting extensive information. The argument is becoming more focused on whether lawmakers should put less emphasis on asking individuals for permission and increase the obligations of organizations to minimize collection, protect data and provide justification on their use. To bridge the divide that separates what rights people have on paper from those they enjoy online, clearer rules and appropriate oversight are needed, coupled with privacy undergoing a process of design discipline. Digital privacy law continues to provide a fundamental protection that information can move through any number of vectors, but only with jurisdictional constraints: information travels and in many cases multiplies on the Internet — and even reveals things about the person who supplied it that they never meant to share.

**Digital Privacy Laws in a Borderless Data Economy** Digital privacy laws assure individuals of greater control over their private data. However, due to the data's travel across apps, advertisers, brokers, and governments, those laws may be complicated to comprehend, uphold, and implement. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and California's privacy acts necessitate companies to reveal their data practices and give individuals some rights such as the right to access and delete data. Still, the strength of these acts is determined by a person's location, the data holder, and any exceptions. Such a complicated situation results in users having different levels of privacy for activities that are almost the same. For instance, one can ask some firm to wipe out their profiles but notice that some other firm may keep the information due to legal or security reasons. Moreover, deleting data from one service does not mean that all the copies are removed from its partner firms as well. It must be noted that consent may be problematic. Although privacy notices provide details about how data is being utilized, these notices may be quite long, and even hard to compare. Moreover, individuals may have no choice but to agree with those notices. Even in case a firm provides disclosure, users may not comprehend how much information can be gathered from their location, purchases, or browsing activities. Moreover, law enforcement is very tough due to the speed of technology changes. Regulators are to understand technological processes that develop at a rapid rate and sometimes take place in different countries. Some companies have large teams of lawyers and money for compliance support, thus being ready for all kinds of penalties even before the fine arrives to a company. The new technologies increase pressure on the situation. For example, Artificial Intelligence can make inferences from datasets that seem innocent by themselves. Data brokers can gather information from different sources, as a consequence making it impossible for people to understand where their data is. Finally, some laws have restrictions concerning dealings with governmental departments or industries that follow different regulations. However, it does not mean that privacy laws do not work. Rights of access, limits to what data can be collected, and punishments for noncompliance can transform business processes and give power to regulators to act. However, even having those legal rights does not ensure effective privacy since technology is being used to increase data collection. The debate shifts from talking about the privacy laws effectiveness toward emphasizing the need of minimizing collection and making sure that information is kept safe.

**Digital privacy regulations are struggling because of a lack of territoriality associated with data.** So promises UK and EU’s digital privacy law: more control over data. However, it becomes difficult to both understand and exercise those protections as the information traverses between apps, advertisers, brokers and governments. Companies that are subjected to rules like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation or California’s privacy legislation have to report data practices and give people certain rights, including access to or deletion of information. But where a person lives, which organization holds the data and what exceptions apply all influence their reach. It is possible for users to have varying protection for similar activities because of the hodgepodge. One company may be requested by someone to remove a profile. It may happen that another company is permitted to retain records which are related for legal, security or business purposes. When you delete your data from one service, it may not be deleted from partners. Consent another limitation. Privacy notices can be long and hard to compare, even though they may explain how information will be used. A service is often needed for work, school or personal tasks. So, to “agree” to one seems to mean little. Even if a business adheres to the rules for disclosing data collection, users may not understand what can be inferred from their location, purchases or browsing. Implementing the law is hard. Technical systems that change rapidly, sometimes across national borders, should be investigated by regulators. Big companies might have legal teams and compliance budgets that smaller firms may not have while penalties usually arrive after data has already been harvested or leaked. Emerging technologies add pressure. Artificial intelligence systems can infer things from datasets that seem innocuous on their own. Data brokers are able to combine information from different sources which makes it hard for the people to know. Certain privacy regulations also include exceptions for governmental actions or areas covered by different guidelines. Privacy legislation is not ineffective after all. Regulators can effect changes in corporate behavior through access rights, limits on data collection and penalties for misuse. But even the most extensive legal rights cannot protect privacy when everything is designed to gather more information by default. More and more, the debate centers around whether lawmakers should need to rely less on consent and impose greater duties on organizations to limit collection, secure data and justify how they use it. With clearer regulations, proper oversight, and the right design, we could bridge the gap between people’s online experience and their theoretical rights. At the moment, we have the important protection of digital privacy law as we know it today. It has one basic limit, however. Information can travel and multiply. Other people can learn more from the information than the person who supplied it intended.

**Digital Privacy Laws Face a Borderless Data Economy** Digital privacy laws promise that people will have greater control over their personal information; however, since data is transferred between apps, advertisers, brokers, and governments, the protections offered can be hard to understand, enforce, and put into practice. Regulations such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and California's privacy laws require businesses to make their data practices known to the public and to grant individuals various rights, such as the right to access or delete their information. Yet the extent to which these regulations apply depends on the person's place of residence, the organization that holds the data, and the exceptions that are in force. The fragmented system can result in users receiving different levels of protection for comparable activities. It is possible for someone to request that one company delete a profile only to find that another organization is allowed to keep the related records for legal, security, or business reasons. Moreover, removing data from one service does not mean that copies held by its partners are also deleted. Consent also has its limitations. Although privacy notices can explain the way in which information will be used, these notices tend to be long and hard to compare. Since people usually need a service for work, at school or in their everyday lives, the decision to 'agree' is less significant than it seems. Even if a company complies with the disclosure rules, users may not understand what can be inferred from their location, purchases or browsing history. Enforcement is also a difficult task. Regulators have to look into technical systems that are constantly changing and at times span across national borders. Although large companies may have legal departments and compliance budgets that smaller ones do not, penalties are usually imposed after the data has already been gathered or made public. New technologies place pressure on people. Artificial intelligence systems are able to draw conclusions from datasets which seem harmless when considered on their own. Data brokers can combine information from a number of different sources, making it difficult for individuals to know which organisations hold details about them. Likewise, some privacy laws include exemptions for government activities or for sectors that are subject to separate regulations. It doesn't follow that privacy legislation is ineffective since rights to access information, restrictions on the amount of data that can be collected, and penalties for misuse are capable of altering corporate behaviour and provide regulators with means of taking action. Yet legal rights by themselves cannot ensure privacy when products are designed to collect large amounts of information by default. The discussion is now focusing on whether legislators should depend less on individual consent and instead impose greater obligations on organisations to reduce the amount of data they collect, to secure that data and to justify their use of it. More clear rules, effective supervision and a design approach that respects privacy could reduce the gap between the rights people have in writing and the control they actually have online. At the present time, digital privacy law is an important safeguard, although it has one basic limitation—information has the ability to spread, multiply and reveal more than the person who provided it had ever intended.