Karl Wabst's Library tagged international →  View Popular, Search in Google

The Smart Meter resistance goes international, as Joshua Hart, of the California grassroots group Stop Smart Meters, joins forces with Canadian anti-Smart Meter activists, on the Bmadd Show on CJSF 90.1FM, in British Columbia, Canada.

Meter resistance international

"Attorney General Eric Holder is in Spain trying to revive a Bush-era
counterterrorism program that the U.S. views as a key tool in tracking terrorist
money transfers but European Union lawmakers reject because of civil liberties
concerns."

privacy International

ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) has concerned many consumer rights organizations for some time now. Given that it could easily affect criminal laws in many countries around the world, it’s not hard to see why there is demand for public disclosure and allow public debate in the matters. Still, to this day, ACTA is being negotiated behind closed doors by many countries around the world and now consumer groups want to, at least, have the negotiations disclosed to them.

When it comes to the privacy and surveillance debates, which are in various stages in different countries right now, many say that for national security concerns, further surveillance measures should be taken in the law books. Many policy makers want to know every detail of day-to-day communications of millions of people including who you talk to, when, how, where, and, with a warrant, what the contents of those messages are. Unsurprisingly, consumer rights groups have a problem with that. Meanwhile, when it comes to the highly secretive negotiations happening with ACTA, many consumer rights organizations want a clear indication on how the new international standard is forming and the contents of the legislation and to have such things disclosed to the public. Ironically, policy makers seem to have a problem with that.

ACTA Privacy Anti-Counterfeiting International

IT practices such as identity management, email and URL filtering, virus scanning and electronic monitoring of employees can get companies that do business globally into a heap of trouble if deployed without an understanding of global data privacy laws.

The warning was one of several alarms raised in a presentation on global privacy best practices by Gartner Inc. analysts Arabella Hallawell and Carsten Casper at the recent Gartner Risk Management and Compliance Summit in Chicago.

Always a thorny issue, the protection of personally identifiable information (PII) is made more complicated in a world where there is limited agreement on how best to do that.

According to the Gartner analysts, the world is divided into three parts when it comes to data privacy laws: countries with strong, moderate or inadequate legislation. The European Union, under the European Union Directive on Data Protection, possesses the strongest privacy regulations, followed by Canada and Argentina; Australia, Japan and South Africa have moderate to strong, recent legislation; laws in China, India and the Philippines are the least effective or laxly enforced.

The United States has the dubious distinction of occupying two categories -- the strong column, due to the 45 state breach notification laws on the books, and the weak column, because of the lack of a federal law.

Even among the three categories, nuances abound. Under the European Union Directive, member countries enact their own principles into legislation, and some laws (like Italy's) are more stringent than the directive's standards. Russia's very recent law is modeled after the strong EU laws, but how it will be enforced remains questionable. And in the U.S., state breach notification laws vary, with Nevada and Massachusetts proposing the most prescriptive data privacy legislation to date.

Privacy Security Law International

There is no denying that Google is a giant success. But its size has made the “do no evil” mantra all the more difficult for it to follow – and for some of us to believe.

Lately, it seems every new release and every new decision draws the ire of someone, be it politicians, privacy campaigners, or even villagers.

While the Google brand is certainly in better shape than many tech firms, its constant moves to control more and more of our data and information has some up in arms.

Privacy

Three recent announcements have drawn the attention of privacy campaigners in the UK – Latitude, Street View, and behavioural advertising.

Latitude is Google’s mobile tracking system. Sign up for it, add your friends, and you can all see exactly where each other is via your mobile phone signal pinpointed on a Google map. Handy if you’re bored and want to know who’s out and about, but the location tracking system could be frightening for a host of other reasons, some say.

Last month, Liberal Democrats Home Affairs spokesman Tom Brake filed an early day motion (EDM) asking the government to look into Latitude. Brake said: “This system poses an insidious threat to our hard-won liberties. 24-hour surveillance and a Big Brother society are new realities.”

But the heat was off Latitude after Street View was unveiled in the UK. The photo mapping system features street-level photos of 25 cities, offering a virtual tour of places such as London, Manchester and more. But some people aren’t so happy having their homes, cars and selves photographed and mapped – even with face and number plates blurred.

The backlash didn’t take long to start. Within a day, Privacy International was on the case, asking the Information Commissioner to shut the site down.

Privacy Google Latitude Street View International

The European Commission has prepared a set of questions and answers as well as a flowchart to help companies understand when they can and when they cannot send personal data abroad.

The European Union's Data Protection Directive protects the personal data of EU citizens from abuse and misuse. Organisations have a duty to protect it, and that means ensuring that it is not sent to countries with poor data protection.

The Directive says that data can be sent to another country "only if... the third country in question ensures an adequate level of protection".

Only a handful of countries have been deemed acceptable destinations for data by the European Commission. Those are Switzerland, Canada, Argentina, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the US, when the data's treatment is in the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles of the US Department of Commerce

The advice has been prepared by the Data Protection Unit of the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security at the European Commission. It is designed particularly to help small and medium sized companies to understand the law when it comes to transferring personal data outside of the European Economic Area (EEA).

The guidance points out that in order for a transfer to be legal, data has to be properly handled in the first place according to the data protection laws of the country where the processing organisation is established.

If the transfer is to a country not listed as having adequate data protections in place, a transfer can still take place, the guidance says, but only if "the data controller offers 'adequate safeguards with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and as regards the exercise of the corresponding rights'," says the guidance, quoting the Directive.

"These safeguards may result from appropriate contractual clauses, and more particularly from standard contractual clauses issued by the Commission," it said. "In the case of multinationals, the adoption

Privacy International EU Transfer Personal Data

Overview

Privacy is a fundamental human right. It underpins human dignity and other values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights of the modern age.[1]

Privacy is recognized around the world in diverse regions and cultures. It is protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in many other international and regional human rights treaties. Nearly every country in the world includes a right of privacy in its constitution. At a minimum, these provisions include rights of inviolability of the home and secrecy of communications. Most recently written constitutions include specific rights to access and control one's personal information. In many of the countries where privacy is not explicitly recognized in the constitution, the courts have found that right in other provisions. In many countries, international agreements that recognize privacy rights such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights have been adopted into law.

Defining Privacy

Of all the human rights in the international catalogue, privacy is perhaps the most difficult to define.[2] Definitions of privacy vary widely according to context and environment. In many countries, the concept has been fused with data protection, which interprets privacy in terms of management of personal information.

Outside this rather strict context, privacy protection is frequently seen as a way of drawing the line at how far society can intrude into a person's affairs.[3] The lack of a single definition should not imply that the issue lacks importance. As one writer observed, "in one sense, all human rights are aspects of the right to privacy."[4]

Privacy International Right Human Data Protection

An Italian judge on Wednesday gave the go-ahead to a case in which Google (GOOG) could be held responsible for content it hosts but does not produce.

The case centers on a 2006 video of four Italian youths taunting a child with Down syndrome. In the video, one of the youths incorrectly claims to be part of a small Down syndrome advocacy group called Vivi Down. The video was uploaded to the Google Video site, where it stayed for two months.

Prosecutors have filed charges against five Google executives, saying they were in violation of Italian privacy laws and of contributing to the defamation of Vivi Down.

At the heart of the case are two main questions: Should sites such as Google Video be held responsible for the content they host? And should such non-brick-and-mortar New Economy companies be subject to the laws in countries where they are not based?

"The outcome of this will be to determine how big companies like Google should be expected to act," said Raffaele Zallone, a former chief counsel for IBM's Italian offices and the attorney representing a woman seeking damages in a secondary case tacked onto the main charges.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Italy | Google Inc | International Bus. Machines | Milan | New Economy

Zallone, along with Milan prosecutors, the city's ombudsman and an attorney for Vivi Down, the advocacy group, say Google should have become aware of the offending video sooner and removed it sooner.

Guglielmo Pisapia, Google's lead attorney in the case, denies any wrongdoing and says Google could not have acted differently.

"Google did not produce the video, and when they received an official complaint, they removed it within five hours," said Pisapia, a former member of the Italian parliament. "If the argument is that they should have evaluated the video before it was posted, then that is a dangerous precedent."

Oliviero Rossi, an author and commentator on technology issues, says unusual cases that push the limits of the law as this one does are likely to become more common. "It's probably wro

Privacy International Law Google Italy Internet Content

Audio: [Security Insights podcast with CSO Senior Editor Bill Brenner] In the Jan. 6, 2009 edition, we look at the security implications of the PeaceTones Initiative, an effort to extend online legal representation to impoverished parts of the world.

Privacy Security Legal Information PeaceTones CSO International

The 2008 Annual report reviews PI's activities and goals for the past year, and discusses our sources of funding, and potential projects for the new year. In 2008 our core activities can be grouped into three domains: Advancing and Protecting Privacy and Transparency Rules, Engaging with International Institutions and Processes, and Monitoring Anti-Terrorism Policies and other forms of Exceptional Surveillance.

Privacy International 2008