Privacy Please
Tune into "Privacy Please," where hosts Cam and Gabe engage with privacy and security professionals around the planet. They bring expert insights to the table and break down complicated tech stuff everyone can understand.
Privacy Please
S5, E198 - Honoring Privacy Pioneers: The Guardians of Digital Rights and Debating SEC Oversight
Celebrate the unsung heroes of privacy with us! Privacy Please's own Cameron Ivey and Gabe Gumbs tip their hats to the vanguards like Debbie Reynolds and Nishant Bhajaria, praising their unwavering dedication to our digital rights. We're not just talking shop; we're honoring the innovators who keep our data safe and our futures secure. From discussing the annual Privacy Week to giving a shout-out to those leading the charge, you'll feel the passion behind the pixels in protecting your personal information.
Ever wonder if the watchdogs can watch themselves? We tackle the heated debate around the SEC's own data mishaps and whether they should be dishing out advice on data protection. Gabe doesn't pull any punches, defending the regulatory body with the kind of fervor that'll have you rethinking your stance on oversight. Listen in for a nuanced look at the complexities of privacy advocacy in the corporate and regulatory spheres – it's more than just a black-and-white issue.
Alrighty then, ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to privacy, please. Cameron Ivy here hanging out with Gabe gums Gabe, how you doing man.
Speaker 2:I am so well. I appreciate you asking. How are you?
Speaker 1:doing, doing good. It's another Monday. What does that mean? It's privacy. I think you froze, I froze, maybe Fix it. It's probably.
Speaker 2:What is it? It's a privacy week.
Speaker 1:Well, it just passed. I think privacy day was like Saturday or something. That's right, that's right, my bad.
Speaker 2:That's bad. So hell jumping right in. We should probably cover a couple things from that now. I mean it's where we're a privacy show, we talk security to her security show. We should talk about all those things today and we got like three topics on on the dock today. We're gonna hit them fast because it's reaction. Mondays, reaction number one privacy week. What's your reaction? A privacy week? My reaction yeah, I thought it was great. Yeah, yeah, you guys nominated some special folks in the community. Any special shout outs?
Speaker 1:Yeah, a lot of good ones that have been on the show before, but you know Debbie Reynolds, data diva. Everybody knows her. I would imagine you got Nishant Bajario. He's a director of engineering over there at Facebook. Who else did we have K Royall Violet? Like Jeff Jokish, I'm blanking out anybody else.
Speaker 2:I don't recall, I don't recall. I know I saw your, your, your homies that transcend, nominate a few other Community folks too. So congratulations and shout out to everyone in the privacy community Celebrate and privacy week last week, doing all the good work Yeoman's work, yeah, the various deities work of getting the good word on privacy out there. So I just wanted to make sure we covered that topic first off.
Speaker 1:Yeah, absolutely. It's good to kick that off for the first time and obviously you see how that grows over the over the years and Get some other other new people in there that are doing great work in the privacy community, so it's good stuff.
Speaker 2:So we had two of the topics for reaction. Monday, the first one was an article regarding the SEC and its ability to protect its own data Should it be trusted to protect yours if they can't protect their own?
Speaker 1:It's pretty simple answer, I think, but it's a little more complicated than just a yes or no.
Speaker 2:I'm gonna go with the. I'm gonna go with yes or no on this one. This is a straw man argument. That's just nonsense. Yes.
Speaker 1:Yes, I can't scare crew.
Speaker 2:Yeah, like yes, I can and will trust them to protect it. And here's why because if there isn't at least one entity doing so, then who the hell is? Because the organizations themselves have proven that they have a perverse incentive to not necessarily do so. Many of them are equally understaffed or under budgeted by design, a default, and they struggle with those things themselves. So, yeah, the SEC has a difficult job and sometimes their job Didn't get done as well as even they would like it to have been done.
Speaker 2:But I feel like this argument is pure bunk, asking the question like it's not like the SEC Doesn't exist and it's not like it hasn't had significant, significant I'm just gonna use the word failures and even governing itself as well as members of its own community. You know, you can look no further than say, you know the Ponzi schemes with made-off, etc. And people like freaking bitchin about it. So the SEC is not without its problems. But I'll be darned if the question is should they Be giving us any advice and how to protect their data? I'm like I've seen the advice for many of the rest of you and and yeah, no, I'm actually I'm going to side with the, as you see, on this one like yeah, no, it is. It is actually about and I'm not a big government guy, a regulation guy, none of those things.
Speaker 2:I think those, I think those things are problematic. Tread lightly. No-transcript. Yeah, no, bugger off with that argument of should they be able to? I get it. It's a provocative headline and that's why it was written that way. So it got the desired reaction out of me and a reaction Monday.
Speaker 1:I'm reacting good, I hope you. I don't know if you noticed and this is a shout out to any of our listeners that aren't a part of Privacy Pulse Community, which was started by Transcend. Fun enough, but it's just. It's a great community, almost 500 people. If you wanna join, let me know. I'll send you an invite to it. Great community of privacy professionals. I actually posted that question in the chat this morning, gabe. What did they say? I just I haven't gotten a response yet, but I'm interested to see if someone comes in with some of the same heat that you are, which is great.
Speaker 2:Let's monitor that one, and I definitely wanna update this thread when we post it with it. Yeah, A bit of quick heat, though, because it's a Monday and we like to punch hard and get out here in a reaction Monday. So the second topic Florida. Everyone loves Florida advances a law banning children under 16 from using social media. So again.
Speaker 1:I saw another state did it recently too. This is gonna trickle.
Speaker 2:This. So again, this goes right back to that regulation and oversight and big brother thing and the government. And, first of all, is this even a privacy issue? I mean, I think the easiest answer to this is it is. Privacy is very much driven by security, personal security and business security. It is driven by those things. One requires that that information stay private, such that you can be safe from the knowledge that others can abuse it. Right, like, because I think a lot of people get all abstract well, what's the harm if they know? Safe from the harm of abuse of that data?
Speaker 2:It is again self-evident at this point that these organizations, social media ones in particular, that they are perversely incentivized to exploit the privacy of people on their platform when those people are under the age of 16 and barely even able to understand the implications that their own actions may have on them 20 years from now.
Speaker 2:I don't know if this legislation has gone too far or not far enough, but I'll tell you, having zero oversights on it I think is nonsense. And I equally can't think of what is lost. If you said everyone on the 16 can't be on social media, like I don't know what is lost, I think nothing is actually lost. We're not saying they can't be on the internet or can't access Wikipedia or encyclopediacom or whatever that or do like research or chat. You'd be like no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We're talking about this technology stack that we've studied well enough to know that there's actual psychological and social harm that occurs as just a byproduct of normal use and abuse of those platforms. So on another reaction Monday, I say to hell with that nonsense, bring on said regulation.
Speaker 1:Well, I don't really know what they're. I haven't dug into the article, but I don't know if they like. I think it's gonna be just as important for the parents to regulate their devices, having timers or something. No, doubt, no doubt yeah cause, like you can, literally, if you're a 10 year old to a 16 year old, you're gonna be smart enough to say that you're older than 16.
Speaker 2:You could figure out how to get around it, yeah, and I think it's just as easy, as is it?
Speaker 1:really just gonna be like are you 17?
Speaker 2:No, this is, you know, this is about those platforms making sure they do their due diligence now with enforcing hey, wait a second, that's okay, that's supposed to be in here. It's like a liquor store. I like sure I can go. Yeah, yeah, id, sure I can. But whose job is it to make sure? Senate, right, like no, no, no, no, this to bring it on, bring it on digital liquor store Look where are those at?
Speaker 1:They're on uber eats game. Thanks, want to pay extra for someone to deliver alcohol to you, fake facts?
Speaker 2:Well, let's say for the going out and getting it if you you've had past your limit, of course, that's true, but you just shut it that they should put a breathalyzer on you, breeze.
Speaker 1:I think you just become a fan of cannabis. And there is yeah, yeah, yeah, I know they say it there it is.
Speaker 2:Where's the uber eats for the cannabis? It's in California. It's in California.
Speaker 1:That's true. Oh, you, all you on the West Coast, you're living it right now.
Speaker 2:They've got that delivery service. Anyway that's, that's my overreaction. We might cover some more of this in a in a block cast, but we'll definitely cover these topics in the privacy pulse community as well. To one gets more reactions there. Get folks pulled into our our Monday overreactions and get some community overreactions. I don't happen. I think I'm overreacting today. Today I think I'm being relatively level-headed, which is weird. Yeah, considering I'm pushing for actual regulation and backing the SEC like I don't know what the hell's going on.
Speaker 1:But all that little even keeled over here.
Speaker 2:All of that out, I'm not no my friends.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we're out of here. I appreciate you Give us your thoughts. See you guys next week. Peace.
