Connect with us

Tech

Scope of US state-level privacy laws expands rapidly in 2025 | Computer Weekly

Published

on

Scope of US state-level privacy laws expands rapidly in 2025 | Computer Weekly


The number of individual US states with local data privacy legislation on their statute books has expanded rapidly in 2025, with nine more state laws coming into effect this year and three more states – Indiana, Kentucky and Rhode Island – slated to start enforcing their own rules on 1 January 2026, according to a report compiled by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP).

Since the introduction of the landmark California Consumer Privacy Act in 2020, politicians in state capitals across the US have eagerly taken up the data protection baton, with Colorado, Connecticut, Utah and Virginia all introducing comprehensive privacy laws in 2023; Montana, Oregon and Texas in 2024; and Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Tennessee this year.

A further 16 states are currently deliberating comprehensive privacy bills, including economic powerhouse states such as Massachusetts and New York.

The resulting report captures an in-depth picture of each of the separate state privacy laws, with the overall goal being to outline the contours of each state to offer more meaningful guidance to organisations. The IAPP has been actively tracking amendments to state privacy laws – Connecticut, Montana and Oregon all made changes his year to expand the scope of applicability, enhance consumer rights and put in place more business obligations around control and processing of personal data, for example.

Where to start?

Müge Fazlioglu, IAPP principal researcher, privacy law and policy, has been tracking these developments. She described an increasingly complex patchwork of compliance for organisations working in the US.

“The applicability of each US state privacy law can be assessed through a multistep process as each state law has a unique scope based on variety of thresholds,” she told Computer Weekly. “These thresholds are related to entity’s jurisdiction, revenue, volume of personal data processing and revenue derived from the sale of personal data.”

To dig deeper into the extent to which the laws differ, five different thresholds in the US now exist for processing resident’s personal data. These include no threshold in Nebraska and Texas; 25,000 or more unique consumers in Montana; 35,000 in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire and Rhode Island; 100,000 in California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregan, Utah and Virginia; and 175,000 in Tennessee. So, any organisation holding data on any Texas residents becomes subject to applicability, but they must hold data on 0.6% of the population of Maryland, or 3.3% of the population of tiny Delaware.

Then there are thresholds for the sale of personal data. Here, again, Nebraska and Texas are strictest, ruling that the control, processing or sale of any personal data is subject to state privacy laws, albeit with exemptions for small businesses. Meanwhile in California, organisations fall in scope if they control or process any personal data and derive 50% or more of their revenues from the sale of data. Colorado and New Jersey both include population thresholds again – 25,000 unique consumers or more, and in-scope organisations derive any revenue or discount on the price of any goods or services from the sale of personal data.

When it comes to exemptions, each of the 19 state laws excludes various entities and types of data held by them – most commonly, government agencies, non-profits and higher education institutions; and organisations already subject to national, sectoral legislation, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Differences again abound. For example, the laws of Colorado, Delaware, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey and Oregon do not exempt non-profits. California and Maryland do exempt non-profits but do not exempt higher education institutions, and so on. Nuances exist even here – Delaware, for example, exempts only some non-profits and its laws don’t apply to those than handle data held by non-profits working with victims of child abuse, domestic violence, human trafficking or sexual assault. Neighbouring Maryland exempts those that process or share personal data to assist first responders in emergency situations, or law enforcement investigating fraud or insurance-related crime.

When it comes to business obligations under state privacy laws, all states require regulated entities to provide consumers with privacy practice disclosure notices – California asks for this at the point of collection, and all bar Rhode Island and Utah impose minimisation and purpose limitations on the collection or processing of data. This typically restricts the collection, use, retention and sharing of consumer data to what is adequate, relevant and reasonably necessary. Most states – bar Iowa and Utah – require data protection impact assessments (DPIAs), but in Delaware, Indiana and Virginia, DPIAs are specifically required for targeted advertising, the sale of personal data or individual profiling.

Naturally, all states require consent for processing of sensitive data, but again they define varying categories of data as sensitive. Most state laws cover a standard dataset that will be familiar to most, classing children’s data, data on ethnic background, religion, and sexual orientation as sensitive. However, some states go further, with Maryland and Oregon also recognising information on national origin as sensitive, while five states – Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and Oregon – include data that might reveal an individual’s status as non-binary or transgender.

Maryland, meanwhile, has the only state level law that does not classify mental or physical health data as sensitive, whereas California ploughs a unique furrow and classes philosophical beliefs as a protected category, protecting existentialists, logical positivists, nihilists and stoics alike.

Finally, turning to consumer rights to access, correct and delete data held on them, things are a little simpler but there are still differences to account for. In all states consumers can access, correct and delete data – bar Iowa, where they cannot correct it; and Indiana, where they can correct it only if they have provided it in the first place.

Similarities to GDPR

Organisations operating out of the UK or European Union (EU), may be tempted to look to the practices and principles already established under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as a helpful guide to the growing labyrinth of rules, clauses and exceptions in the US.

However, Fazlioglu said that while the requirements of the various US regimes relating to consumer rights, data minimisation, purpose limitation of data collection and processing, and so on, might feel familiar to organisations that are already GDPR compliant at first glance, data privacy professionals should be wary of inferring too much from this, and it would be a grave error to rely too heavily on them.

“As we know in the world of privacy and digital governance, compliance work requires continuously mapping the current landscape, monitoring the changes, and making necessary updates and adjustments,” she said. “When it comes to the overlap of GDPR and the US state privacy laws, there’s a lot to identify, assess, translate and consider. There’s no simple checklist or formula to confirm alignment … Organisations need to examine the extent of each state privacy law and evaluate whether their existing practices are sufficient.”

Fazlioglu said that understanding the scope and specificity of each law, including the categories of sensitive data or how various terms such as “sale” are defined, is critical.

She said that while this may feel complex and daunting, the interaction between the various laws and domains and the GDPR may ultimately benefit consumers. “It encourages deeper attention to the crossroads of consumer protection and emerging technologies,” she said.

Federal laws a subject of debate

In parallel to the enacting of state-level legislation in the US, calls continue for Washington DC to introduce a federal privacy law. While British and European observers not steeped in US political tradition may naturally feel inclined to prefer a national data protection standard, this is not such a simple ask for the US federal system.

“It is preferable for some and not preferable for others,” said Fazlioglu. “For example, during discussions around the American Privacy Rights Act of 2024 and the American Data Privacy and Protection Act of 2023, we observed different reactions from various groups – some supported these bills to simplify the landscape, while others emphasised the risk of weakening the protections currently offered by state legislatures.”

The IAPP tracks developments in this regard, examining contentious issues such as bipartisanship, private right of action and preemption. Fazlioglu said it was difficult to predict whether or not a federal law could advance through US Congress, but by analysing prior attempts, it is possible to see that laws which include private right of action and preemption clauses can influence a bill’s ability to attract both Democrat and Republican support.

Fazlioglu added: “The  question is not only whether federal privacy legislation is preferable, but also whether such a law should function as a ceiling or a floor. Proponents of preemption argue that a federal law should serve as a ceiling – setting a uniform standard that overrides state laws. In contrast, supporters of preserving state privacy laws believe a federal law should act as a floor – a minimum standard that states can build upon.”

This is why, Fazlioglu said, it’s important to consider both state and federal privacy law developments in order to see the full picture. “I believe the state-federal dynamics influence each other. So, while it’s uncertain whether we’ll see a federal privacy law enacted, I expect continued discussions at both the intra-state level and between state and federal frameworks. Together, these conversations will continue to shape the US approach to privacy law and policy in the coming years,” she said.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tech

Save Up to 40% With These Acer Promo Codes and Discounts

Published

on

Save Up to 40% With These Acer Promo Codes and Discounts


Acer is one of the top largest PC manufacturers in the world, perhaps best known for its gaming line and budget-friendly options. If you’ve already got your eye on an Acer product like a laptop or monitor, and are shopping at the company’s online storefront, you should be using one of these Acer promo codes and coupons to save some cash on your purchase.

Save 40% on Accessories When You Build an Acer Bundle

If you’re buying from Acer, you’re most likely shopping for either a desktop PC or laptop. With this discount, you can get a really solid deal on accessories if you bundle it with a mouse, laptop bag, or headset. When you go to purchase a PC, just click “Build Bundle” and you’ll see some of the eligible options, all of which are reduced by 40%. The Nitro Mechanical Keyboard, for example, goes from $50 to just $30. That 40% is a real discount, too, as that same keyboard costs $50 on Amazon when I checked.

Beyond peripheral add-ons, you can also save 10% off Acer Care Plus extended service plans or McAfee LiveSafe antivirus subscriptions. You can bundle up to five products together to save the most money. If you’re headed off to college (or have a kid in the family), a bundle like this can get you everything you need for a gaming or studying setup on the go.

Shop Rotating Weekly Deals on Monitors and Gaming Gear

Acer’s PC gaming offerings come in either the flagship Predator brand or the budget-tier Nitro. Acer offers rotating weekly deals on everything from monitors to gaming laptops, some of which are my favorites that I’ve tested in their given category. The Acer Nitro V 16, for example, was a budget gaming laptop that I recommended quite a lot last year because of its incredible price. The one I tested was the entry-level version with an Nvidia RTX 5050 inside, but Acer has the RTX 5060 model in its own storefront. It’s $100 off right now at $1,200, which comes with 16 GB of RAM and a terabyte of storage. In fact, it’s only $30 more than the RTX 5050 model, despite offering a significant jump in gaming performance. These discounts are reflected right on the product pages, so there’s no promo code, discount code, or coupon code required.

Acer has a wide selection of monitors available, too, whether that’s a massive 49-incher or a more modest 27-inch gaming workhorse. One of my favorite discounts I saw right now was the Acer Nitro XV2, a 27-inch 1440p display with a 300 Hz refresh rate. It’s 44% off at the time of writing, bringing the price down to just $250. Because these discounts are swapped out on a weekly basis, it’s worth checking back to see if the product you’re eyeing has a new discount.

Select Customers Can Get 15% Off Their Purchase

Acer also offers a number of added discounts at checkout, including 15% off for students. Students will need to verify through Student Beans or SheerID. Because a lot of the devices Acer offers are budget-friendly, they can be attractive for students, and the extra 15% off is the icing on the cake.

We tested the Acer Swift 16 AI last year and really enjoyed the high-resolution, OLED screen and impressively quiet performance. Acer has the smaller version of this same laptop available, the Swift 14 AI, which is currently $150 off. You also might check out the Acer Chromebook Plus 514, a laptop we liked quite a bit when we reviewed it in 2024.

Acer offers this same 15% discount for active duty military, veterans, and their families. It also applies to healthcare professionals, which can be verified through its healthcare discount portal.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

AI Research Is Getting Harder to Separate From Geopolitics

Published

on

AI Research Is Getting Harder to Separate From Geopolitics


The world’s top AI research conference, the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems—better known as NeurIPS—became the latest organization this week to become embroiled in a growing clash between geopolitics and global scientific collaboration. The conference’s organizers announced and then quickly reversed controversial new restrictions for international participants after Chinese AI researchers threatened to boycott the event.

“This is a potential watershed moment,” says Paul Triolo, a partner at the advisory firm DGA-Albright Stonebridge who studies US-China relations. Triolo argues that attracting Chinese researchers to NeurIPS is beneficial to US interests, but some American officials have pushed for American and Chinese scientists to decouple their work—especially in AI, which has become a particularly sensitive topic in Washington.

The incident could deepen political tensions around AI research, as well as dissuade Chinese scientists from working at US universities and tech companies in the future. “At some level now it is going to be hard to keep basic AI research out of the [political] picture,” Triolo says.

In its annual handbook for paper submissions, issued in mid-March, NeurIPS organizers announced updated restrictions for participation. The rules stated that the event could not provide services including “peer review, editing, and publishing” to any organizations subject to US sanctions, and linked to a database of sanctioned entities. It included companies and organizations on the Bureau of Industry and Security’s entity list and those on another list with alleged ties to the Chinese military.

The new rules would have affected researchers at Chinese companies like Tencent and Huawei who regularly present work at NeurIPS. The database also includes entities from other countries such as Russia and Iran. The US places limits on doing business with these organizations, but there are no rules around academic publishing or conference participation.

The NeurIPS handbook has since been updated to specify that the restrictions apply only to Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, a list used primarily for terrorist groups and criminal organizations.

“In preparing the NeurIPS 2026 handbook, we included a link to a US government sanctions tool that covers a significantly broader set of restrictions than those NeurIPS is actually required to follow,” the event’s organizers said in a statement issued Friday. “This error was due to miscommunication between the NeurIPS Foundation and our legal team.”

Before they reversed course, the conference organizers initially said that the new rule was “about legal requirements that apply to the NeurIPS Foundation, which is responsible for complying with sanctions,” adding that it was seeking legal consultation on the issue.

Immediate Backlash

The new rule drew swift backlash from AI researchers around the world, particularly in China, which produces a large quantity of cutting-edge machine learning papers and is home to a growing share of the world’s top AI talent. Several academic groups there issued statements condemning the measure and, more importantly, discouraging Chinese academics from attending NeurIPS in the future. Some urged Chinese academics to contribute instead to domestic research conferences, potentially helping increase the country’s influence in relevant science and tech fields.

The China Association of Science and Technology (CAST), an influential government-affiliated organization for scientists and engineers, said Thursday that it would stop providing funding for Chinese scholars traveling to attend NeurIPS and would use the money instead to support domestic and international conferences that “respect the rights of Chinese scholars.”

CAST also said it will no longer count publications at the 2026 NeurIPS conference as academic achievements when evaluating future research funding. It’s unclear if the organization will reverse course now that NeurIPS has walked back the new rule.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Iranian Hackers Breached Kash Patel’s Email—but Not the FBI’s

Published

on

Iranian Hackers Breached Kash Patel’s Email—but Not the FBI’s


Handala’s second claim, however—that it hacked the FBI—seems, for now, to be fiction. All evidence points to Handala having breached Patel’s older, personal Gmail account. Widely believed to be a “hacktivist” front for Iran’s intelligence agency the MOIS, Handala suggested on its website that the emails contained classified information, but the messages initially reviewed by WIRED didn’t appear to be related to any government work. TechCrunch did find, however, that Patel appears to have forwarded some emails from his Justice Department email account to his Gmail account in 2014.

Handala, which cybersecurity experts have described to WIRED as an “opportunistic” hacker group whose cyberattacks and breaches are often calculated more for their propaganda value than their tactical impacts, has nonetheless made the most of Patel’s embarrassing breach. “To the whole world, we declare: the FBI is just a name, and behind this name, there is no real security,” the group wrote in its statement. “If your director can be compromised this easily, what do you expect from your lower-level employees?”

Handala Hackers Put $50 Million Bounty on Trump and Netanyahu’s Heads

For further evidence of Handala’s bombastic rhetoric, look no further than another post on its website earlier this week (we’re intentionally not linking to it) that offered a $50 million bounty to anyone who could “eliminate” US president Donald Trump and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “This substantial prize will be awarded, directly and securely, to any individual or group bold enough to show true action against tyranny,” the hackers’ statement read, along with an invitation to any would-be assassins to reach out via the encrypted messaging app Session. “All our communication and payment channels utilize the latest encryption and anonymization technologies, your safety and confidentiality are fully guaranteed.”

That bounty, Handala explained, was posted in answer to a statement about Handala published on the US Department of Justice website last week that offered $10 million for information leading to the identity or location of anyone who carries out “malicious cyber activities against US critical infrastructure” on behalf of a foreign government.

“Our message is clear: If you truly have the will and the power, come and find us!” Handala wrote in its response. “We fear no challenge and are prepared to respond to every attack with even greater force.”

In yet another post on its website this week, Handala also claimed to have doxed 28 engineers at military contractor Lockheed Martin working in Israel and threatened them with personal harm if they didn’t leave the country within 48 hours. When WIRED tried calling the phone numbers included in Handala’s leaked data, however, most of them didn’t work.

Apple says no device with its Lockdown Mode security feature enabled has ever been successfully compromised by mercenary spyware in the nearly four years since its launch. Amnesty International’s security lab head, Donncha Ó Cearbhaill, also says his team has seen no evidence of a successful attack against a Lockdown Mode–enabled iPhone. And Citizen Lab, which has documented several successful spyware attacks against iPhones, says none involve a Lockdown Mode bypass, while in two cases its researchers found the feature actively blocked attacks against NSO Group’s Pegasus and Intellexa’s Predator. Google researchers, meanwhile, found one spyware strain that simply abandons infection attempts when it detects the feature is enabled.

Lockdown Mode works by disabling commonly exploited iPhone features, such as most message attachment types and features like links and link previews. Incoming FaceTime calls are blocked unless the user has previously called that person within the past 30 days. When the iPhone is locked, it blocks connections with computers and accessories. The device will not automatically join nonsecure Wi-Fi networks, and 2G and 3G support is disabled. Apple has also doubled bounties for researchers who detect any Lockdown Mode bypass, with payouts up to $2 million.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending