Group items tagged

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]

January 26, 2009 - As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama made his position on abortion very clear. During his campaign, he stated that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act and that he opposed restrictions on Partial Birth Abortions. Now as President, Obama used the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision to reiterate his quite extreme position. Obama made several statements about "ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons...." However, his key statement appears to demonstrate an utter misunderstanding of the legal aspects of abortion, was that government "should not intrude on our most private family matters." An Associated Press subheader put it as "the ruling legalizing abortion represented a broader principle that government should not intrude on private family matters." Obama seemingly fails to understand three things about the "right to privacy." First, in that as far as it has been applied to abortion and contraception (Griswold vs. Connecticut); it is not a principle about "family matters." It is a principle purely about individual choice. Under Roe, no one else in the "family" has any say about the abortion decision. If the woman is not married to the father of the baby, he is not "family" anyway. Second, the right to privacy is not absolute. Third and most important, that under Roe, the "right to privacy" is secondary to two considerations about the unborn child: whether or not the unborn child is a "person," or at least "potential life." For these last two, we can turn to Roe itself. The "Right to Privacy" The majority opinion of Roe admits that, "The Constitution does explicitly mention any right of privacy." Majority author Harry Blackmun cites various past court decisions which recognize personal rights that are "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Since these private rights had been found to have extension to areas such as marriage, procreation, contraception

Enterprise role management is key in efficiently managing user access rights and enforcing access policies such as segregation of duties. Roles help companies group coarse- and fine-grained access rights (like access to and functionality within a financial accounts application) into groups, called enterprise roles. These enterprise roles map to job functions and are only allowed access rights that don't violate segregation of duties. For instance, a financial clerk role can't contain fine-grained access rights that allow someone in the role to access the accounts receivable and accounts payable parts of the financial application. The processes and tools necessary for effective role management consist of role mining and design (automatic discovery and management of roles based on existing access rights and entitlements data), role recertification (a process performed typically every six months when a business role custodian certifies what access rights should belong to a role), and access recertification (a process performed typically every 3-6 months to ensure all user access is understood and was granted in an audited way).

Many of us here in the United States believe our personal privacy is a Constitutional right. In fact, the word Privacy was not included in the US Constitution or in the Bill of Rights as originally passed.

The concept of privacy, or at least a few actions that relate to privacy were included in

We all like to think our privacy is absolute. But if your job involves working across borders, you'll want to talk about privacy as a matter of degree rather than as an uncompromising right. Why? Not only do you want to be seen as someone who can get things done globally, but you also may personally want to be part of advancing social objectives that are arguably as important as privacy. Have you ever had to re-architect your global rollout of PeopleSoft or Lawson because of European Union privacy concerns? Or adjust how your company offers technical support to medical products sold in Europe? Have you ever been part of acquiring a failing European company where the privacy of employee data was a final sticking point? If you've seen projects with obvious social benefit get held up by seemingly minor data-related questions, then you might have been running up against this notion of "nothing trumps privacy." It's a popular idea. The half-billion people of Europe do view privacy as a human right. And they're not the only ones. As one of the first acts of the UN, Eleanor Roosevelt and the U.S. delegation in 1948 lobbied for the global adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UNDHR), whose Article 12 states, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation." With Europe and the UN using absolute-sounding language to describe a right to privacy, it's no wonder we have all of these delayed and downsized corporate projects. People are legitimately concerned about our sometimes reckless march into the Information Age, and they want to put some brakes on it. But does privacy trump all foes? I can think of at least six other equally important social objectives that regularly put limits on privacy: 1. Personal health. We all want to stay healthy - even when we lose the ability to communicate and give consent. Emergency-room personnel need access t

Privacy rights are accepted and, generally, honored in Europe. The wealth - literally and figuratively - of personal information made available through the internet staggers the imagination. Staggering, too, is the prospect of privacy rights being trampled. EC Consumer Protection Commissioner Meglena Kuneva has a bone to pick with internet snooping. And she's launching an investigation into deep data mining. In an official statement (to be released March 31) she will outline concerns of vague and misleading 'term of use' for access to Web sites that can breach EC privacy rules. Commissioner Kuneva was born and raised in Bulgaria during a time when snooping on people was common, legal and nasty. The European Parliament (EuroParl) voted (March 27) overwhelmingly for recommendations in a report linking data surveillance, advertising and cybercrime. The report recommends safeguards for the privacy rights of internet users. The EuroParl called for "making use of existing national, regional, and international law." The MEPs raised the "imbalance of negotiating power between (internet) users and institutions." Internet users, said the MEPs, have the right to "permanently delete" personal details. Facebook's recent change in 'terms of use' allowing it to retain personal information brought a firestorm of criticism and the social networking portal backtracked. And the EC was watching. "It wasn't regulators who spotted the proposed change of terms at Facebook, it was one of the 175 million users," said Commissioner Kuneva's spokesperson Helen Kearns. Collecting and analyzing profile data is big business. It is "the new petroleum of the Internet world," said Ms Kearns, quoted in PC World (March 30). "If you are happy trading your data that's fine, but you should at least know how valuable it is." As Google and Microsoft have learned European Commission rules, unlike American rules, tend to set a low bar for compliance. The former pr

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.

Abortion has long been a misguided litmus test for the Supreme Court - but privacy rights?

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor's views on abortion and privacy rights are coming into the spotlight as attention turns to her confirmation. NARAL Pro-Choice America is urging senators to make sure Sotomayor is questioned on Roe v. Wade and privacy rights during her confirmation hearings. President Barack Obama is pro-choice, but Sotomayor's views are not known. The White House was asked yesterday if the president asked Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights. A spokesman says the president did not specifically ask that question. The discussion comes as supporters and opponents of Sotomayor's nomination are taking their message to the airwaves. A coalition of liberal groups has unveiled a television advertisement in favor of Sotomayor's confirmation touting her extensive resume, while a conservative group calling itself the Judicial Confirmation Network has put out its own ad, charging Sotomayor will push a liberal agenda based on her gender and racial background. The White House is hoping Sotomayor will get the green light before the Senate goes on recess in August. Republicans are signaling they will not delay Sotomayor's confirmation, but will scrutinize her legal philosophy and some of her past decisions as a judge.

One of the more interesting panel discussions at the IDC Cloud Computing Forum on Feb 18th in San Francisco was about managing the complexities of security, privacy and compliance in the Cloud. The simple answer according to panelists Carolyn Lawson, CIO of California Public Utilities Commission, and Michael Mucha, CISO of Stanford Hospital and Clinics is "it ain't easy!" "Both of us, in government and in health, are on the front-lines," Lawson proclaimed. "Article 1 of the California Constitution guarantees an individual's right to privacy and if I violate that I've violated a public trust. That's a level of responsibility that most computer security people don't have to face. If I violate that trust I can end up in jail or hauled before the legislature," she said. "Of course, these days with the turmoil in the legislature, she joked, "the former may be preferable to the later." Stanford's Mucha said that his security infrastructure was built on a two-tiered approach using identity management and enterprise access control. Mucha said that the movement to computerize heath records nationwide was moving along in fits and starts, as shown by proposed systems likeMicrosoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s Health Vault and Google (NSDQ: GOOG)'s Personal Health Record. "The key problem is who is going to pay for the computerized of health records. It's not as much of a problem at Stanford as it is at a lot of smaller hospitals, but it's still a huge problem." Mucha said that from his perspective security service providers in the cloud and elsewhere are dealing with a shrinking security parameter or fence, which is progressing from filing cabinets, to devices, to files, and finally to the individual, who under the latest Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rules has certain rights, including rights to access and amend their health information and to obtain a record of when and why their Protected Health Information (PHI) record has bee

The row over the changes Facebook made to its terms has thrown the light on the rights people surrender when they sign up to use a website. It is likely though that until the row over Facebook's Terms and Conditions went public, few people knew what rights sites claim over the content that their members upload and share. "Less than 25% of users are making a specific point of going to the privacy settings and making changes," said Simon Davies, head of digital rights group Privacy International. Most, he said, are so keen to get using a site after registering that they do not take time to learn what will happen to any data that they are surrendering. Only later do they go back and adjust what happens to their data. "A lot of sites do have strong privacy controls," said Mr Davies. Tweaking these settings can help cut down on how much of a person's data is distributed. "It can make a difference," said Mr Davies, "particularly if the default is set in terms of maximum information flow." Blogger Amanda French looked through the pages where sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube and others spelled out their policies with regard to the data that members upload. Although the wording was different, she found that sites such as MySpace, Yahoo, Google and Twitter explicitly backed away from claiming ownership over uploaded content. A brief survey of Europe's Top 5 social sites found a similar situation. The text of the terms available on the UK sites of Facebook, Bebo, MySpace, Friends Reunited and Windows Live all back away from claiming ownership. By contrast, she wrote, the changes Facebook made to its terms were "extraordinarily grabby and arrogant".

The enormous international focus on privacy is growing more urgent in the face of business and government pressure to get the economy moving again and restore trust in our most basic institutions. To help rebuild trust and bolster bottom lines in a down market, it pays to prioritize privacy. The time is right to make smart investments in an organization's privacy professionals-the experts in the eye of the storm that must work collectively to find the right solutions to privacy challenges. The IAPP, which now boasts 6,000 members across 47 countries, is convening its annual Privacy Summit in Washington DC from March 11-13, 2009-the largest and most global privacy event in the world. Attendees will have the unique opportunity to interact with privacy regulators from Canada, France, Spain, Israel, the UK, Italy, the U.S. and the experts who help shape their policies across 60 different educational and networking sessions. Keynote speakers include Frank Abagnale (of Catch Me if You Can fame), one of the world's most respected authorities on forgery, embezzlement and secure documents as well as internationally renowned security technologist Bruce Schneier. The Future of Privacy Forum will be strongly represented at this year's Summit. Jules Polonetsky and Chris Wolf will be co-presenting a session entitled Cheers & Jeers: Who is Doing Privacy Right and Who Deserves Detention. Jules and Chris will also cover Behavioral Advertising Secrets: What Your Marketing and IT Team Didn't Think You Needed to Know. Both topics should be big draws for the expected 1500 attendees at the Summit! It's this sort of event that advances our profession and helps privacy professionals work together to reclaim trust. Registration is open and we look forward to seeing you in DC.

The authorities in Brussels fired a warning shot across the bows of online advertisers today, signalling new rules to combat surfer profiling and breaches of privacy in the interests of commercial gain. In the strongest denunciation of the conduct of online advertisers, Meglena Kuneva, the European commissioner for consumer affairs, argued that personal data has become "the oil of the internet and the new currency of the digital world". She warned that surfers' privacy rights were being abused by the amassing of personal information and its supply to advertisers who targeted individuals who were often unaware of what was happening. "From the point of view of commercial communications the world wide web is turning out to be the world wild west. This could be very damaging," Kuneva told a meeting of industry professionals and analysts in Brussels. "Consumer rights must adapt to technology, not be crushed by it. The current situation with regard to privacy, profiling, and targeting is not satisfactory." The commissioner outlined European laws regulating the protection of privacy, commercial contracts, and countering discrimination, and indicated that the regulations were failing to keep up with the pace of developments on the internet. She called on the online advertising industry to come up with a voluntary code of conduct to protect consumer and privacy rights, but clearly signalled that the EU authorities would probably have to legislate to prevent abuses. The volume of personal data collected on the internet was growing exponentially and was increasingly being used for commercial purposes by tracking surfers' browsing habits, using cookies, and making the information available for individual profiling and targeting of consumers, she said.

You have an unlisted phone number, you guard your personal information, you shred your financial papers- so everything is private and safe, right? Would you be alarmed to know that even when you think things are private, a perfect stranger can look you up online, see your address, birth date, past addresses, and even see a photo of your home, down to the detail of your child's play set out in the back yard? Alarmed yet? You should be. Take a look at this website: www.zabasearch.com. Simply plug your name in, and you are likely to be surprised, and probably a bit distressed to see all the information that is readily available online. How could this happen? Easy. Virtually every major change in your life is recorded somewhere in a government document. When you are born, a birth certificate is issued. When you obtain a driver's license, get married, buy a house, file a lawsuit ' all of these events are recorded in public documents easily available to you and to others. Government records are intentionally public in order to enable citizens to monitor the government and to ensure accountability in our society. The challenge is to balance the public's right to information with the individual's right to privacy.

Perhaps Mark Z is surprised that people actually read terms of service. Arrogant twit. He's a multi-millionaire who cares about the little people (stage direction: Mark Z looks sincerely into web cam as he wipes away tear with hundred dollar bill). Perhaps the Tweens don't understand what social networking sites really sell; looks like some grown ups started asking where all their personal information is going and when it might inconveniently show up in some ad campaign.

A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. Many of us at Facebook spent most of today discussing how best to move forward. One approach would have been to quickly amend the new terms with new language to clarify our positions further. Another approach was simply to revert to our old terms while we begin working on our next version. As we thought through this, we reached out to respected organizations to get their input. Going forward, we've decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don't plan to leave it there for long. More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren't just a document that protect our rights; it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service. Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we'll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms. You have my commitment that we'll do all of these things, but in order to do them right it will take a little bit of time. We expect to complete this in the next few we

When you put out the trash, don't expect a constitutional right to privacy of the contents. The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled Thursday that police can sift through garbage if it has been set out at the edge of your property for municipal collection because "abandoned" goods do not trigger Charter of Rights and Freedoms protection.

A Constitutional History Lesson with David Bisno.Protection of individual rights from government abuse has been at the center of constitutional debates since the country's founding, but scholars and politicians have stopped short of claiming an explicit "right to privacy" until recently. Bisno, an M.D. turned "silver-haired scholar," discusses the history of privacy in the Constitution.

"A UN watchdog has called for a new international agreement on privacy following a review of the expanding global array of surveillance measures and databases advanced by governments in the cause of counter-terrorism. The special rapporteur on human rights, Martin Scheinin, said the UN should create a "a global declaration on data protection and data privacy" in response. His report, delivered to the UN's Human Rights Council, describes the expansion of watchlists, border checks, financial data sharing, interception of communications, biometrics and ID registers in recent years. "States no longer limit exceptional surveillance schemes to combating terrorism and instead make these surveillance powers available for all purposes," he added."

By now, many employees are uncomfortably aware that their every keystroke at work, from email on office computers to text messages on company phones, can be monitored legally by their employers. What employees typically don't expect is for the company to spy on them while on password-protected sites using nonwork computers. But even that privacy could be in jeopardy. A case brewing in federal court in New Jersey pits bosses against two employees who were complaining about their workplace on an invite-only discussion group on MySpace.com, a social-networking site owned by News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal. The case tests whether a supervisor who managed to log into the forum -- and then fired employees who badmouthed supervisors and customers there -- had the right to do so. The case has some legal and privacy experts concerned that companies are intruding into areas that their employees had considered off limits. "The question is whether employees have a right to privacy in their non-work-created communications with each other. And I would think the answer is that they do," said Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment expert and partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP in New York. The legal landscape is murky. For the most part, employers don't need a reason to fire nonunion workers. But state laws in California, New York and Connecticut protect employees who engage in lawful, off-duty activities from being fired or disciplined, according to a report prepared by attorneys at the firm Proskauer Rose LLP. While private conversations might be covered under those laws, none of the statutes specifically addresses social networking or blogging. Thus, privacy advocates expect to see more of these legal challenges. In February, three police officers in Harrison, N.Y., were suspended after they allegedly made lewd remarks about the town mayor on a Facebook account. The officers mistakenly thought the remarks were protected with a password, but city officials view

A court has handed Blockbuster a preliminary defeat in a potential class-action lawsuit filed as a result of its participation in Facebook's ill-fated Beacon ad program, which notified members about their friends' e-commerce activity. U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Lynn in Dallas ruled that the case could proceed in court even though Blockbuster's contract with users calls for any disputes to be heard by an arbitrator rather than in court, and also says that users waive their right to file a class action lawsuit. Lynn determined that Blockbuster's contract with users was "illusory" because the agreement said that movie rental store could change the terms and conditions at any time. A Blockbuster spokesperson declined to comment on the case or state whether the company will appeal. The decision is a blow to Blockbuster because individual consumers would have had a difficult time bringing cases one-by-one against the company. But the decision paves the way for attorneys to argue that all consumers affected by Blockbuster's participation in Beacon should be able to proceed as a class. Internet law expert Venkat Balasubramani said Lynn's decision invalidating Blockbuster's user agreement was potentially far-reaching because many Web companies reserve the right to make changes to their terms of service. "It seems broad and could have impact on the terms of service used by a lot of different companies," he said.

Stunned applicants filling out immigration forms are now being warned their personal information can be shared with the RCMP, national security and intelligence agents, and even foreign cops. The immigrants, many who arrive here from brutal regimes, are being told that they must sign a consent form or their requests will not be dealt with by federal immigration officials. One form, which was obtained by Sun Media, said the data can be shared with the Canada Border Services Agency, RCMP, Canadian Security Intelligence Service and foreign police. TARGET FRIENDS The information can be used to target friends or family members of those who say negative things about their homelands, said Jamal Kaker, of the Afghan Association of Ontario. "This will impact a lot of immigrants in many communities," he said yesterday. "This is scary because the information will get back to Afghanistan in no time." Toronto lawyer Guidy Mamann said it can be deadly for immigrants who give information that may be negative to their governments and are then refused by Canada. "The rights of these immigrants are being trampled," Mamann said. "All this was done under the radar without an announcement." He said foreign police -- some working for the worst regimes -- will be able to find out where their nationals who fled to Canada live and allegations they have leveled against their homelands. "All this information will now be shared," Mamann said. "The lives of immigrants and some Canadian citizens will become an open book." SIGN FORMS He said Canadian citizens are affected if they sign forms to sponsor a spouse or loved ones. "It's another nail in the coffin for civil rights in Canada," Mamann said. "Negative information against governments will now be open for sharing." Toronto lawyer Mendel Green called the changes troubling. "This is a serious breach of our privacy laws," he said. "It appears to be an excess of authority. Big Brother wants to watch our visitors." Federal immig