"We need to be able to audit any and all data controllers and public authorities for compliance with information rights laws. People who steal others’ personal information need to face the
prospect of a prison sentence. And private contractors undertaking public functions should be no less transparent and accountable than their public sector equivalents. […] As well as having the powers
and the resources to do the job that is needed in this ‘Brave New World’ of both digital opportunities and digital threats, the Information Commissioner needs the guarantee of independence that comes from
a more formal relationship with Parliament than is the case at present. We value our involvement in Whitehall policy making, but to be an effective partner the ICO must be recognised as more than just
another nondepartmental public body."
"49. Effectively addressing the challenges related to the right to privacy in the context of modern communications technology will require an ongoing, concerted multi-stakeholder engagement. This process should include a dialogue involving all interested stakeholders, including Member States, civil society, scientific and technical communities, the business sector, academics and human rights experts. As communication technologies continue to evolve, leadership will be critical to ensuring that these technologies are used to deliver on their potential towards the improved enjoyment of the human rights enshrined in the international legal framework.
50. Bearing the above observations in mind, there is a clear and pressing need for vigilance in ensuring the compliance of any surveillance policy or practice with international human rights law, including the right to privacy, through the development of effective safeguards against abuses. As an immediate measure, States should review their own national laws, policies and practices to ensure full conformity with international human rights law. Where there are shortcomings, States should take steps to address them, including through the adoption of a clear, precise, accessible, comprehensive and non-discriminatory legislative framework. Steps should be taken to ensure that effective and independent oversight regimes and practices are in place, with attention to the right of victims to an effective remedy.”
"As Internet experts look to the future of the Web, they have a number of concerns. This is not to say they are pessimistic: The majority of respondents to this 2014 Future of the Internet
canvassing say they hope that by 2025 there will not be significant changes for the worse and hindrances to the ways in which people get and share content online today. And they said they expect that
technology innovation will continue to afford more new opportunities for people to connect. Still, some express wide levels of concern that this yearning for an open Internet will be challenged by trends
that could sharply disrupt the way the Internet works for many users today as a source of largely unfettered content flows."
"6.31 Technology has developed apace since the 1995 Data Protection Directive and its transposition in the United Kingdom in the Data Protection Act 1998. Information can no longer be truly
anonymous if it is shared. The law on anonymisation needs to be reviewed so as reflect a sliding scale of risk with regard to anonymous data. Thought should be given to whether similar balancing tests
should be applied to anonymised or pseudonymised data as to personal data, and what other considerations should be applied where information is to be used for purposes not directly related to the
individual concerned. Although much of this depends on legislation at the level of the European Union, a full law reform project could explore the scope for a more risk-based approach in dealing with data
that are de-identified but may nevertheless remain within the definition of personal data."
"29. This fast track legislation contains sweeping surveillance powers that will affect every man, woman and child in the UK. The Bill contains the powers for Government to continue to mandate the blanket retention of the communications data of the whole population for 12 months. This is in direct contradiction of a Court judgment which held that blanket indiscriminate retention of communications data breached human rights. The Bill also contains new and unprecedented powers for the UK Government to require overseas companies to comply with interception warrants and communications data acquisition requests and mandate overseas companies to build interception capabilities in to their products and infrastructure. These provisions will expand interception powers currently being challenged in the British courts appearing to enable the Government to issue interception warrants mandating mass surveillance outside of the United Kingdom."
"It is well known Google does not like the ECJ judgment and the suspicion is that Google is removing links and telling journalists that their scoops are no longer accessible to the public.
This provokes them to go ballistic, in print, and make wild claims of censorship; the last Sunday Times editorial on ‘The right-to-be-forgotten law is an ass’ is an example of the ill-informed outcome
which, sadly, Google appears to be encouraging. Such gamesmanship explains why I have decided to devote this (very long) blog to draft a procedure for Google to follow; I think it covers most of the
issues in a way that balances the conflicting interests. There might be nuances at the edges, but I think the approach is mainly correct. Anybody who can improve it, please make a comment."
"In the last few years, we’ve seen an unprecedented number of privacy battles being waged in state legislatures. Today we’re launching an interactive web map that shows the privacy laws in
place across the country on four of those issues: law enforcement access to electronic communications content, location tracking, automatic license plate readers, and domestic surveillance drones. If we
can address these four key issue areas, we’ll go a long way toward protecting privacy in the digital age. […] In the meantime, here is our interactive state of the states privacy map. If you click on
your state, you’ll find links to the actual laws or court decisions there. We encourage you to review the text or check out our blog for more information on just how protective the laws are in your
"The issue with the ECJ judgement isn’t European privacy law, or the response by Google. The real problem is the impossibility of an accountable, transparent, and effective censorship regime in the digital age, and the inevitable collateral damage borne of any attempt to create one, even from the best intentions. The ECJ could have formulated a decision that would have placed Google under the jurisdiction of the EU’s data protection law, and protected the free speech rights of publishers. Instead, the court has created a vague and unappealable model, where Internet intermediaries must censor their own references to publicly available information in the name of privacy, with little guidance or obligation to balance the needs of free expression. That won’t work in keeping that information private, and will make matters worse in the global battle against state censorship."
"As has been put forward by many experts in the field, public access to personal information in the WHOIS database is not fully consistent with international human rights law. National and
international data protection instruments establish high standards for accessing and processing personal information by third parties. [Governmental Advisory Committee] members have the responsibility to
protect the human rights of their citizens and should therefore make sure that ICANN includes provisions governing the disclosure and third party use of data."
"As this article discusses, a wave of recent scholarship examining how privacy has been experienced in East Asian cultures makes readily apparent that the universal need for privacy is felt
just as acutely in East Asian cultures as in Western cultures, with equally robust traditions and practices. Indeed, there is much in recent East Asian studies to suggest that Cohen’s postmodernist
notions of selfhood, as exemplified in East Asian culture and society, result in a more nuanced and thorough understanding of privacy. The East Asian experience also validates Altman’s conception of
privacy as a dynamic process of navigating one’s interpersonal boundaries, a universal human need to which virtually anyone of any society can relate regardless of whether the society is more or less
collectivistic than any other society. There is, quite simply, no discernible link between a culture’s tendency toward individualism or collectivism and the value it places on privacy. The rub is that,
while political liberalism is not necessary for an understanding of privacy, the East Asian experience suggests that the Kantian tradition is somewhat necessary for the rule of law, at least in the
traditional Western sense of the term. East Asia has a tradition of privacy, but not privacy rights. What is novel to East Asia is Western legalism, i.e., ‘the view that law and legal institutions can
keep order and resolve policy disputes,’ through a combination of ‘powerful courts, a dominant class of lawyers, and reliance in legalistic procedures in policymaking bodies.’"
"Overall, the Board finds that the protections contained in the Section 702 minimization procedures are reasonably designed and implemented to ward against the exploitation of information
acquired under the program for illegitimate purposes. The Board has seen no trace of any such illegitimate activity associated with the program, or any attempt to intentionally circumvent legal limits.
But the applicable rules potentially allow a great deal of private information about U.S. persons to be acquired by the government. The Board therefore offers a series of policy recommendations to ensure
that the program appropriately balances national security with privacy and civil liberties."
”[…] it is clear that all governments are faced with a set of complex, multi-faceted and interdependent challenges. Global challenges including poverty, inequality, climate change, peace and
security, are such that no single actor—let alone single government or single ministry—can effectively deal with them on their own. Effective collaboration among agencies across all levels of government
is essential, as it is with non-governmental actors, to ensure good governance and good development outcomes. Collaborative governance, underpinned by a well-functioning public administration, is crucial
to improving people’s lives. The public sector must deliver, equitably and efficiently, essential services that meet citizen needs, provide opportunities for economic growth, as well as facilitate citizen
engagement and participation in public policymaking and service delivery, so as to promote the empowerment and well-being of all people. E-government and innovation can provide significant opportunities
to transform public administration into an instrument of sustainable development. E-government is ‘the use of ICT and its application by the government for the provision of information and public services
to the people’ (Global E-Government Readiness Report 2004). More broadly, e-government can be referred to as the use and application of information technologies in public administration to streamline and
integrate workflows and processes, to effectively manage data and information, enhance public service delivery, as well as expand communication channels for engagement and empowerment of
"The government isn’t allowed to wiretap American citizens without a warrant from a judge. But there are plenty of legal ways for law enforcement, from the local sheriff to the FBI to the
Internal Revenue Service, to snoop on the digital trails you create every day. […] Here’s a look at what the government can get from you and the legal framework behind its power: […]"
"Since last summer, we’ve been fighting hard against a set of sweeping search warrants issued by a court in New York that demanded we turn over nearly all data from the accounts of 381 people
who use our service, including photos, private messages and other information. This unprecedented request is by far the largest we’ve ever received—by a magnitude of more than ten—and we have argued that
it was unconstitutional from the start."
"The FTC has brought enforcement actions addressing a wide range of privacy issues, including spam, social networking, behavioral advertising, pretexting, spyware, peer-to-peer file sharing,
and mobile. These matters include over 130 spam and spyware cases and more than 40 general privacy lawsuits."