How to Ensure Privacy Compliance With Tracking Tools

Even without a state privacy law - New York is coming after your website tracking (and so can other states). Key points from a new advisory by the Office of the New York State Attorney General based on an investigation of websites: As we've been telling clients - Even without a state privacy laws, businesses’ privacy-related practices and statements are subject to a state's consumer protection laws that prohibit businesses from engaging in deceptive acts and practices. Mistakes to avoid: 🔹 Make sure that your cookie management tool does not leave uncategorized or miscategorized tags/cookies. 🔹 Make sure your cookie management tool works well with your tag management tool. (disabling tracking in one disables the other too). 🔹 Make sure your marketing or advertising tags work as described and DO NOT remain active even after visitors try to disable them using the sites’ privacy controls. 🔹 Ensure even tags that are hardcoded to the website get deactivated by the cookie management tool. 🔹 Do not rely on contract based restrictions like limited data use (LDU - Meta) or Restricted data processing (RDP - Google) in states where they don't actually work. 🔹 Before deploying a new tag, understand what data the tag collects and how the data may be used or shared. 🔹 Address NON cookie based sharing Things to do: Configuration of trackers: 🔹 Designate a qualified individual (or individuals) with appropriate training to be responsible for implementing and managing website-tracking technologies. 🔹 Before deploying a new tag or tool, or changing how an existing tag or tool is used, take appropriate steps (including active due diligence) to identify the types of data collected and how the data will be used and shared. 🔹 When deploying a new tag or tool, or changing use, ensure that it is appropriately categorized and configured. 🔹 Conduct appropriate testing (regularly and following a change) to ensure that tags and tools are operating as intended. 🔹 Conduct reviews on a regular basis to ensure tags and tools are properly configured Disclosure and interface: 🔹 Make sure that your representations on the website about privacy controls (whether express or implied through privacy controls configuration) are accurate 🔹 Avoid language that creates a misleading impression of how your website handles tracking and choice [Don't say "by clicking accept cookies" you accept - if the cookies deploy by default] 🔹 Ensure the user interface is not misleading - beware of dark patterns (e.g a faded gray color, and without any visual indication that the words could be clicked); ambiguous buttons. 🔹 If you can agree with a single click you should be able to opt out with single click. 🔹 Make the interface accessible (e.g. allow navigation of privacy controls with a keyboard to tab) 🔹 Don't use large blocks of text or complicated language #dataprivacy #dataprotection #privacyFOMO https://rb.gy/bei7cu

⚠️Privacy Risks in AI Management: Lessons from Italy’s DeepSeek Ban⚠️ Italy’s recent ban on #DeepSeek over privacy concerns underscores the need for organizations to integrate stronger data protection measures into their AI Management System (#AIMS), AI Impact Assessment (#AIIA), and AI Risk Assessment (#AIRA). Ensuring compliance with #ISO42001, #ISO42005 (DIS), #ISO23894, and #ISO27701 (DIS) guidelines is now more material than ever. 1. Strengthening AI Management Systems (AIMS) with Privacy Controls 🔑Key Considerations: 🔸ISO 42001 Clause 6.1.2 (AI Risk Assessment): Organizations must integrate privacy risk evaluations into their AI management framework. 🔸ISO 42001 Clause 6.1.4 (AI System Impact Assessment): Requires assessing AI system risks, including personal data exposure and third-party data handling. 🔸ISO 27701 Clause 5.2 (Privacy Policy): Calls for explicit privacy commitments in AI policies to ensure alignment with global data protection laws. 🪛Implementation Example: Establish an AI Data Protection Policy that incorporates ISO27701 guidelines and explicitly defines how AI models handle user data. 2. Enhancing AI Impact Assessments (AIIA) to Address Privacy Risks 🔑Key Considerations: 🔸ISO 42005 Clause 4.7 (Sensitive Use & Impact Thresholds): Mandates defining thresholds for AI systems handling personal data. 🔸ISO 42005 Clause 5.8 (Potential AI System Harms & Benefits): Identifies risks of data misuse, profiling, and unauthorized access. 🔸ISO 27701 Clause A.1.2.6 (Privacy Impact Assessment): Requires documenting how AI systems process personally identifiable information (#PII). 🪛 Implementation Example: Conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (#PIA) during AI system design to evaluate data collection, retention policies, and user consent mechanisms. 3. Integrating AI Risk Assessments (AIRA) to Mitigate Regulatory Exposure 🔑Key Considerations: 🔸ISO 23894 Clause 6.4.2 (Risk Identification): Calls for AI models to identify and mitigate privacy risks tied to automated decision-making. 🔸ISO 23894 Clause 6.4.4 (Risk Evaluation): Evaluates the consequences of noncompliance with regulations like #GDPR. 🔸ISO 27701 Clause A.1.3.7 (Access, Correction, & Erasure): Ensures AI systems respect user rights to modify or delete their data. 🪛 Implementation Example: Establish compliance audits that review AI data handling practices against evolving regulatory standards. ➡️ Final Thoughts: Governance Can’t Wait The DeepSeek ban is a clear warning that privacy safeguards in AIMS, AIIA, and AIRA aren’t optional. They’re essential for regulatory compliance, stakeholder trust, and business resilience. 🔑 Key actions: ◻️Adopt AI privacy and governance frameworks (ISO42001 & 27701). ◻️Conduct AI impact assessments to preempt regulatory concerns (ISO 42005). ◻️Align risk assessments with global privacy laws (ISO23894 & 27701).   Privacy-first AI shouldn't be seen just as a cost of doing business, it’s actually your new competitive advantage.

Are your #consentmanagement and #tagmanagement systems tripping you up? Many companies think they’re privacy-compliant just because they’ve implemented a Consent Management Platform (CMP) and connected it with their tag manager, like Google Tag Manager (GTM). But we often see misconfigured integrations that fire tags or pixels even when users opt out. That’s a major compliance risk and one reason why so many companies receive for plaintiff or regulator letters. Why does this mistake cause tags and pixels to activate incorrectly? Here are three reasons: 1. Timing Issues If your CMP loads after your tag manager, your tags may fire before consent is captured. Load your CMP early, ideally in the <head>. If you deploy GTM, you can use GTM’s Consent Initialization trigger to prevent GTM from acting before your CMP is ready. 2. No Consent-Based Tag Logic Tag managers doesn’t “understand” consent out of the box. You need to configure triggers based on the CMP’s consent categories (e.g., Performance, Advertising). 3. Unsupported Third-Party Pixels Older or non-compliant tags (e.g., legacy Meta Pixel) don’t respect Google Consent Mode in GTM. You must block or wrap them with custom logic. Privacy compliance isn’t just about having the right tools. The tools must be implemented properly individually and in combination. Otherwise, you may unintentionally violate data protection laws like GDPR, CCPA, or those of 18 other US states. You don’t need to be unsure. Let Boltive audits diagnose prohibited collecting and sharing of user data before plaintiffs or regulators do. If you're working on consent integrations and want to avoid these issues, happy to connect or share deeper implementation examples. #privacycompliance #dataprotection