archive-org.com » ORG » P » PRIVACYINTERNATIONAL.ORG

Total: 465

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Analysis | Page 25 | Privacy International
    forces in US expanding use of drones Privacy in the developing world a global research agenda Civil servant admits British police grabbing location data of thousands of innocent people The National Pupil Database is not open data Blanket exemption from FOIA for the British FBI How will the Communications Data Bill affect you The draft Communications Bill is a wasted opportunity Why privacy is for everyone APEC developments March 2012

    Original URL path: https://privacyinternational.org/blog?page=24 (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Analysis | Page 26 | Privacy International
    FAQ The Communications Capabilities Development Programme Mass surveillance statistics PI s trip to Asia Do surveillance companies care about human rights Why Twitter has taken the wrong fork in the road Thoughts on Google s policy changes What does Twitter know about its users NOLOGS Norway will not divest investment in 2 billion surveillance portfolio Indian Parliamentary Committee trashes UID Bill A quick review of the draft EU Data Protection

    Original URL path: https://privacyinternational.org/blog?page=25 (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Analysis | Page 27 | Privacy International
    Donate BLOG APEC cross border privacy rules ready to party but will anyone come Another data protection authority says Facebook s facial recognition feature violates European data protection law Why we work on refugee privacy Sense in border politics A cloud for grown ups Council of Europe refuses to investigate biometrics privacy Alliance appeals to Council of Europe to address biometrics privacy APEC developments March 2011 Skype called on to

    Original URL path: https://privacyinternational.org/blog?page=26 (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Analysis | Page 28 | Privacy International
    data retention Privacy organisations praise vote of European Parliament on SWIFT data deal PI statement on proposed deployment of body scanners in airports UK government backs down on data sharing legislation after PI campaign PI advises Kyrgyzstan on internet privacy and surveillance Six year olds fingerprinted by Britain European Court rules against UK anti terrorism stop and search powers PI explains risks to UK census data inherent in outsourcing to

    Original URL path: https://privacyinternational.org/blog?page=27 (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Analysis | Page 29 | Privacy International
    SWIFT auditor has extensive ties to US government An open letter to the CEO of SWIFT on other covert programmes for access to financial data Canadian Supreme Court upholds DNA databank Innocent children s DNA retained on national database in the UK UK DNA database to grow dramatically under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 UK leads the way in development of a global DNA database UK DNA database includes the

    Original URL path: https://privacyinternational.org/blog?page=28 (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Court says GCHQ spied on human rights NGOs, acted unlawfully | Privacy International
    the most intimate details of our lives Make no mistake these internal failures will not be limited to just these instances Trying to pass off such failings as technical or significant changes in law as mere clarifications has become a tiring defence for those who know the jig is up The courts are helping to ensure that the sun is slowly setting on GCHQ s Wild West ways Now we need Parliament to step in to fix what should have been fixed a long time ago Shahzad Ahmad Country Director of Bytes for All Pakistan said The IPT s latest ruling is yet another reminder that legal justice mechanisms are a useful way of understanding how impunity thrives within different layers of the government s security apparatus These varying forms of impunity can range from internal laws to practice often masked under the hood of national security It is unfortunate that countries such as the UK which supposedly set standards for the rest of the world to follow often let their political insecurities prey on fundamental human rights causing exponential damage If positive change is to be brought about it is important to understand that no matter what the ruling utilising the rule of law to uncover injustice embedded within legal systems is a crucial process for paving the parliament s way towards making necessary amends for restoring human rights in the future FAQ What does the judgment say GCHQ spied on two human rights NGOs the South African Legal Resources Centre LRC and and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights EIPR GCHQ intercepted their communications and accessed them or selected them for examination but errors were made resulting in communications being held for longer than they should or selected for examination in breach of GCHQ s internal guidelines What is its significance This judgment reveals internal errors in GCHQ s systems that resulted in unlawful conduct The manner of the breaches suggests that it won t just have effected the claimants in this case but a wider range of groups and individuals At a time when people are trying to assess the level of accountability our spy agencies need this case suggests the problems are worse than many feared with the agency not even able to follow its own internal guidelines Why does GCHQ think it s ok to spy on human rights NGOs That is really a question for GCHQ Importantly the NGOs communications were not just caught up in the GCHQ dragnet but specifically targeted by the agency It suggests that there are few lines GCHQ isn t willing to cross Why was there no determination found as to eight of the claimants if mass surveillance is occurring The IPT is only required to reveal if a claimant has been the subject of surveillance if it concludes that surveillance was unlawful By making no determination as to Privacy International the IPT is not saying Privacy International has not been under surveillance but only that the IPT determined

    Original URL path: https://privacyinternational.org/node/601 (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Privacy and Data Protection under threat from EU Council agreement | Privacy International
    reasons below The European Commission had previously said that as an absolute red line standards would not be allowed to slip Joe McNamee Executive Director of European Digital Rights said This agreement is quite simply a brazen effort to destroy Europe s world leading approach to data protection and privacy The Council position is a mixture of reckless disregard for citizens fundamental rights and pandering to special interests that led to draft legislation where the number of exceptions is higher than the total number of articles in the previous Directive Equally citizens and consumers will lose effective control of their personal data as a result of this legislation and continuing illegal activity by businesses will remainunpunished Anna Fielder Board Chair of Privacy International said If the purpose of this reform was to strengthen people s control over their personal information and improve enforcement our governments have achieved the exact opposite The Council revisions to the draft data protection Regulations have done their best to disembowel some of the fundamental principles and further disempower individuals and their representatives by weakening rights Moreover any notion of harmonised predictable rules across the Union have gone out of the window in over a quarter of all the articles of this Regulation individual governments can develop their own rules KEY ELEMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT The proposal undermines purpose limitation The current text of the GDPR allows for the further processing of personal data for archiving purposes in the public interest or scientific statistical or historical purposes However it is unclear what those statistical and scientific purposes are Any large company that makes profit out of exploiting personal data could claim to be processing data for scientific purposes This loophole is broadened further still by the new and controversial text of Article 6 4 Further processing by the same controller for incompatible purposes on grounds of legitimate interests of that controller or a third party shall be lawful if these interests override the interests of the data subject The proposal m oves from data minimisation to non excessive data processing The proposed Article 5 c removes the obligation to keep processing to a minimum and weakens it to non excessive processing The Council amendment removes the obligation that the data s hall only be processed if and as long as the purposes could not be fulfilled by processing information that does not involve personal data This provides room for data controllers to process more data than necessary The grounds for processing are increasingly vague The legitimate interest justification for data processing without consent is the vaguest ground for processing offering a lot of scope for industry to process data if they can claim a legitimate interest in doing so Weaker redress and enforcement provisions Under the Council version organisations defending citizen and consumer interests can no longer complain to authorities or take judicial actions on behalf of many individuals whose privacy rights have been breached Data protection authorities do not have the resources to investigate every

    Original URL path: https://privacyinternational.org/node/597 (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Obscure surveillance laws "corrode democracy itself" says review | Privacy International
    including the Communications Data Bill be halted The report says no compelling operational case has been made for previous government proposals such as the Snoopers Charter and reiterates that any new proposals should be assessed with a strict evidence based approach as well as a rigorous assessment of lawfulness likely effectiveness intrusiveness and cost There can be no question of progressing proposals until such conditions are satisfied Judges not ministers should authorise warrants for the interception of communications Rejecting Foreign Office recommendations that judicial authorisation might disadvantage the UK because judges would refuse applications for surveillance that Ministers would otherwise green light Mr Anderson retorts that were it the case that Ministers might be tempted to issue warrants in circumstances where it is illegal to do so that would seem to me a strong argument in favour of judicial authorisation 14 57 Mr Anderson s proposals would add an additional and much needed layer of accountability to Britain s surveillance system requiring police and intelligence agencies to have their application for interception scrutinised and signed of by a judicial commissioner To replace extraterritoriality provisions of DRIPA that are an unsatisfactory substitute the long term goal must be a multilateral arrangement between states regulating access to information held across borders A further analysis of cross border information sharing was to have been provided in a separate report authored by Sir Nigel Sheinwald but was recently shelved by the Government Intelligence sharing should be properly regulated and prescribed by law Acknowledging there is no statute or code of practice governing how exchange of information between agencies should take place it is recommended that new legislation defines as clearly as possible procedures for the receipt and exchange of intelligence including an express prohibition on the use of foreign partners in any way that results in the circumvention of national legal standards The Government must expressly avow to the public and explicitly regulate intrusive surveillance capabilities such as hacking and computer network exploitation rather than maintaining a position of neither confirm nor deny This extends says Mr Anderson to techniques such as bulk collection and the use of bulk personal datasets which was challenged this week by Privacy International in a claim before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal An Independent Surveillance and Intelligence Commission should be established with the authority to notify individuals if their data has been subject to error and their right to take their case to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal The Investigatory Powers Tribunal should have it s powers extended to enable it to make declarations of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act there should also be a right of appeal on points of law from the Tribunal s decisions A notable absence from the report is any recommendation that the mass surveillance provisions of existing surveillance laws be rolled back in favour of targeted interception powers Privacy International believes that Mr Anderson was somewhat hamstrung in this respect being unable to pronounce on the proportionality of bulk interception measures while such

    Original URL path: https://privacyinternational.org/node/595 (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive



  •