Why reports of the death of privacy roles are greatly exaggerated, even as the job itself changes dramatically
This analysis draws from recent discussions in the privacy community, including insights from the film “Privacy People” and market trends in 2025-2026.
A new documentary called “Privacy People” looks back at how the privacy field got started and how the chief privacy officer role came about. One line sticks out: every time a new technology rolls out, someone declares “privacy is dead” and every time, they’re wrong.
That’s still true today. Privacy matters more than ever in a world where data collection is constant and surveillance is built into everything we do. But lately, headlines have shifted focus to the people doing the work. After a few big tech companies cut or downgraded their chief privacy officers last year, articles popped up asking if the role itself is on life support.
The real question isn’t whether privacy pros are disappearing. It’s whether the classic “privacy pro” job as we’ve known it for the last couple decades—is evolving into something broader, messier, and frankly more valuable.
Where It All Started
Back in 2007, the IAPP ran a fun contest: define a “privacy professional” in 75 words or less. The winning entry described someone who gets the tech, legal, and business sides of handling personal data—who can build a big-picture strategy that’s legal, secure, and ethical from collection to deletion, all while earning trust as a responsible steward.
That description still holds up. Companies need people thinking about these issues. But the ground has shifted. When those high-profile CPO roles vanished or got folded into larger teams, it wasn’t usually about devaluing privacy. It was about blending it into bigger conversations around data governance, AI ethics, or overall risk management.
The IAPP itself saw this coming. In 2024, they updated their mission to cover not just privacy but AI governance and digital responsibility too. The message was clear: personal data doesn’t exist in a vacuum anymore—it’s part of a much larger data ecosystem, especially with AI models hungry for training material.
AI Changes Everything
Artificial intelligence has sped up this blending. Privacy teams have long worked closest to engineers, running risk assessments that laws often require. Those processes—privacy impact assessments, data mapping, consent management—are ready-made for tackling wider data risks, including how AI systems are built and deployed.
That’s why many privacy pros now handle AI governance too. They’re in a strong spot to ask the tough questions: Is this data use fair? Accurate? Safe? But that expansion is pulling the role in new directions.
The Title Shuffle
Job titles are where the confusion shows up most. Reports like the 2025 Organizational Digital Governance study point to a rush to slap “AI” onto privacy roles—Chief Privacy and AI Officer, Head of Privacy and Responsible AI, and so on.
At the same time, some are dropping “privacy” altogether. It might be about chasing the AI buzz to seem cutting-edge. Or it could stem from worry that sticking with “privacy” makes you look stuck in the past, focused on a niche when data strategy is the real game.
Look at actual job postings and pay data, and the pattern is obvious. Roles that cover more ground—AI, ethics, cybersecurity, even product decisions—pay better. The JW Michaels 2025 compensation guide shows these expanded positions pulling 25-30% higher salaries, sometimes 35% or more at big global companies.
Reporting lines tell the story too. Most chief privacy officers now report to the general counsel. In smaller shops, the jobs merge entirely—someone moves from privacy lead to GC, or vice versa.
When the Title Means Everything and Nothing
Here’s the catch: when every role piles on extra duties, the old titles stop making sense. Chief Privacy Officer now often includes cybersecurity, data ethics, AI risk, e-discovery, vendor contracts you name it. Companies mix and match words like privacy, data, governance, AI, and ethics into whatever fits.
People call it the “kitchen sink” problem. A title that covers everything ends up describing nothing clearly. There’s no standard anymore. One company’s CPO might focus mostly on compliance; another’s handles billion-dollar AI strategy.
This spills down the ladder too. For the first time in 2025 data, general “counsel” roles paid more than “privacy counsel.” Privacy pros are moving into broader spots commercial counsel, product counsel where privacy is just one piece of a bigger job.
The market rewards scope. Wider responsibility means higher pay and influence.
From Gatekeeper to Business Enabler
The daily work has changed just as much. Old-school privacy reviews asked: Can we do this without breaking the law? Now they ask: What value are we missing by not using this data—and how do we unlock it safely?
Privacy teams aren’t just saying “no” anymore. They’re saying “yes, if we do it this way.” That shift explains why privacy roles overlap with chief data officers or responsible AI leads. The person who can balance risk with opportunity is worth more than someone who only spots problems.
It’s a move from pure defense—avoiding fines and breaches—to offense: using strong privacy as a competitive edge for innovation and trust.
Talking the Board’s Language
To climb higher, privacy pros have to speak in terms boards understand: money, risk, growth. Directors don’t want lectures on principles. They want numbers—how privacy saves cash, speeds products to market, builds customer loyalty, or opens new regions.
Strong programs deliver real returns: dodging multimillion-dollar fines, cutting breach cleanup costs, getting features out faster with privacy built in. Less tangible but just as real: trust that keeps customers coming back and regulators at bay.
The math is simple—show that your program’s value beats its cost. Pros who frame privacy as a driver of shareholder value, not just a cost center, become strategic players. Those who stick to compliance checklists risk getting sidelined.
Where This Leaves the Profession
Privacy work isn’t vanishing. There will still be chief privacy officers and dedicated teams, especially while laws keep piling up. But the standalone “privacy pro” as a narrow specialist? That’s fading.
The bigger question: Does the label matter? Can someone titled “Head of AI Governance” or “Chief Data Ethics Officer” protect privacy just as well if it’s part of a broader mandate?
Probably yes. Privacy principles don’t disappear—they get baked into larger strategies. But the inconsistency in titles and scopes makes it hard for newcomers to know what path to follow or for veterans to benchmark careers.
Maybe it’s time to redefine things again. The IAPP’s old contest nailed it in 2007. A new one could help sort out what the modern role looks like—whatever we end up calling it.
For now, the profession isn’t dead. It’s growing up, spreading out, and becoming more central to how companies handle data in an AI-driven world. That’s complicated, sure but it’s also a sign privacy is more alive than ever.
