Popular misconceptions about health data protections fuel ignorance about just how much data related to disability and health can be freely exploited, shared, and sold for profit, with little recourse for those affected. Passed in 1996, the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (better known as HIPAA) imposes relatively strict protections on health-related data… but crucially, only if that data is held by medical providers and health insurers (or their service providers). HIPAA does not offer any protections at all for data (no matter how personal) held by most websites you visit, wearables you use, apps on your phone (think health and fitness apps, and yes, period tracking apps), any employer where you’ve ever worked or applied for a job, the gym where you work out, or the massive data brokers you probably don’t know about.
This year, Congress made history by advancing out of committee a bipartisan comprehensive privacy bill, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA). ADPPA aims to protect ordinary people from misuse and risky use of their data in a much wider range of contexts than HIPAA does, including through strong data minimization requirements placed on companies, rather than burdens placed on people.
For disabled people in particular, ADPPA offers heightened protections. ADPPA defines as “sensitive” any data that is or could be interpreted or perceived as relating to disability, or mental and physical health in general, including past, present, or future disabilities and any data that can be used to infer such information. Such sensitive data (and all categories of sensitive data) can be collected or used by a company only if it is strictly necessary to provide the service the person is requesting – which would mean no more data bonanzas where companies collect everything they can and monetize it later. Further, health and disability data would not be allowed as an input for targeted advertising.
ADPPA also rightly frames data-driven discriminatory practices as a civil rights issue – and designates several groups, including disabled people, as protected classes for the purpose of civil rights protections. The civil rights section of the ADPPA states that companies cannot engage in data practices that discriminate against, or make unavailable certain opportunities for, disabled people. Many of the examples of disability discrimination discussed earlier in this post and in other reports from CDT would not be allowed to exist under ADPPA because they discriminate against disabled people.
Given the strength of the disability protections in the ADPPA, over twenty-five disability rights and disability justice advocacy organizations recently joined in a letter urging Congress to retain these disability protections as ADPPA moves further through the legislative process.
Disabled people need and deserve autonomy and privacy over their lives and their data. Left unchecked, data-driven practices and algorithmic systems can and will continue to replicate, perpetuate, and exacerbate existing patterns of disability discrimination everywhere, from hiring to education to housing to policing. People with disabilities also deserve to understand their choices about what data they share with whom and about how their data is used – but under the current privacy regime, nondisabled and disabled people alike are subject to inaccessible, lengthy privacy policies and consent buttons that do little more than give the veneer of control without any of the substance. Congress must take decisive action to protect people’s privacy and autonomy, and the disability protections in the ADPPA are an important move in the right direction.
Not All Guardrails Are Created Equal: Comparing Content Safety and Copyright Filtering
As courts and policymakers work through questions about chatbot liability, they should be wary of analogies that flatten meaningful technical differences. Copyright filtering and safety intervention share real challenges around ambiguity and evasion, but they diverge in what each control must assess, how each manifests over the course of a conversation, and how much can be verified from the outside.
Talking Tech with Roy Austin & Alex Givens on The Future of AI Governance
In this episode of CDT’s Tech Talks, Roy L. Austin, Jr., inaugural director of Howard University School of Law’s AI Initiative, joins Alexandra Givens, President and CEO of the Center for Democracy & Technology, to discuss the challenges and opportunities shaping the future of AI.
CDT-led Coalition Calls for Transparency for White House AI Framework
CDT and Americans for Responsible Innovation led a broad, bipartisan coalition of over two dozen civil society groups in calling on the White House to release its Framework for review of frontier AI models.
Comment to House Financial Services Committee on Regulation of AI
CDT submitted comments on the application of current federal laws and regulations related to the use of AI in the financial marketplace and any proposed reforms to provide for an appropriately modernized and comprehensive federal financial AI framework.