Transatlantic Privacy Perceptions (TAPP), Wave 5 (Autumn 2024)

TAPP is an interdisciplinary research project conducted at the Universities of Maryland (UMD) and Munich (LMU). The privacy landscape is shaped by diverse actors from academia, policy, law, technology, journalism, and civil society, making it challenging to unify perspectives across sectors, regions, and cultural contexts. The Transatlantic Privacy Perceptions (TAPP) Panel addresses this by surveying influential privacy experts across jurisdictions with differing regulations. This survey captures stakeholders´ attitudes toward digital privacy, focusing on current and future challenges in privacy policies and practices. The focus of Wave 5 of the Transatlantic Privacy Perceptions (TAPP) Panel is the Panel’s annual module on the current state and effects of privacy laws, regulations, and practices particularly those related to digital privacy - within the context of respondents’ respective countries of work. Respondents are asked to reflect on how these privacy frameworks influence their business operations, highlighting both challenges and areas of progress. Wave 5 repeats 15 questions from Wave 2, conducted in 2023. This longitudinal approach allows TAPP to track shifts in opinions and observe how the regulatory landscape and attitudes toward digital privacy may have evolved over time. Additionally, with the rapid developments in artificial intelligence (AI), additional questions about the EU AI Act to gauge how stakeholders are responding to this emerging regulatory framework are included. As AI continues to advance, understanding reactions to the EU AI Act is critical in assessing its perceived impact on innovation and privacy protection. During the survey period from 14 August 2024 to 11 September 2024 privacy experts who deal with privacy in the United States and/or Europe were interviewed in online interviews (CAWI). Respondents were selected through a deliberate selection process based on their visibility, recognizability and influence in the field. Professional interest in privacy-related topics or both a personal and a professional interest in privacy-related topics; privacy as part of work; evaluation of digital privacy laws and regulations in the U.S./ the EU/ the country (favor more strongly the rights and needs of businesses or of individual users, encourage or discourage innovations and development of privacy preserving practices and technologies in organizations); current digital privacy laws in the U.S./ the EU/ the country cover more areas than needed, fewer areas than needed, or all areas needed; the digital privacy practices required by (U.S. / EU / country’s) law are enforced; overall rating of today’s digital privacy laws and organizational practices in the U.S./ the EU/ the country; optimism or pessimism on development of digital privacy policies and organizational practices in the next few years; preferred level of digital privacy policy In the U.S./ EU (Federal vs. EU-level, state vs. EU member-state level); rating of different firm’s and organizations’ performance in protecting digital privacy (Apple, Google, Meta (including Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, Oculus), Amazon (including Echo/Alexa), Microsoft, Visa, Mastercard, country’s statistical agency, country’s tax authority, country’s social insurance authority); rating of organizations’ current digital privacy policies and practices in the country; optimism or pessimism that organizations’ digital privacy policies and practices in the country will move in the preferred direction; ranking of priorities for protecting people’s digital privacy (giving individuals control over their data, enforcing rules about how data is processed, stored and shared, designing and deploying privacy preserving technology, adapting privacy laws to respond to current technological developments, regulating how data is processed, stored and shared);opinion on the EU AI Act (will be more likely to enable or hinder AI innovation); respondent performs privacy-related activities as part of his paid job vs. as a volunteer or activist; years of experience on privacy issues; sector for privacy work (academia, government, journalism, law, non-profit/NGO/ Think Tank, Tech industry, non-Tech industry, volunteer/ activist); region of expertise: policy context the respondent is most familiar with when it comes to privacy issues (United States, Europe, other); reasons why the EU AI Act will hinder AI innovations (favoritism towards incumbents, increased compliance cost, burden on SMEs, slowed development, legal uncertainty); currently not covered important areas of digital privacy laws in the U.S./ the EU/ the country (protecting vulnerable groups, couldn’t be classified, transparency and control to users, obligations during data processing, regulating targeted advertisement, comprehensive privacy legislation, in AI and emerging technologies, enforcement and redress mechanism). Additionally coded: Respondent ID, response ID, wave; returning respondent (individuals who have participated in at least one wave of TAPP); response status; willingness to participate in future waves of the TAPP Panel; country of expertise.