Group items tagged

An insurance company seeking to challenge the authority of Canada's privacy legislation and the privacy commissioner in an auto injury case will have to go to the Federal Court to make its case, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal has ruled. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Attorney General Canada, State Farm argued that Canada's privacy regime does not apply to surveillance tapes the insurer commissioned following a motor vehicle accident in 2005. In March 2005, Jennifer Vetter, insured by State Farm, was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Gerald Gaudet. State Farm subsequently hired a lawyer in anticipation of litigation by Gaudet against Vetter. The insurer also hired private investigators that conducted video surveillance on Gaudet. Gaudet filed a request under Canada's privacy legislation, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), that State Farm turn over to him the personal information it had compiled, including copies of the surveillance reports and tapes. State Farm went to the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench asking for "declaratory" relief on several issues. Among other things, the insurer asked for a court order declaring that PIPEDA did not apply to information obtained in a bodily injury damages claim. It also asked the court for an order confirming that the privacy commissioner had no right or authority to compel State Farm to turn over the documents. The privacy commissioner asked for a stay of proceedings in the New Brunswick court, arguing that the authority of the privacy commissioner was a matter for the Federal Court (which has jurisdiction over federal legislation such as the PIPEDA). The New Brunswick Appeal Court noted both the provincial and federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases about the constitutionality of federal legislation. But only the Federal Court could determine the outcome of a direct challenge to the authority of the p

"Imagine that you are vacationing and get a phone call from your neighbor telling you that your alarm just went off, but there is nothing you can do about it. You don't know what set it off and if it is just a fluke. You find yourself now wide awake, asking yourself why you got the alarm to begin with. For iPhone users, the solution to this kind of situation lies in an application provided by CAVU Mobile Surveillance Solution. This app allows you to view live footage taken from any security camera on your iPhone, transforming it into a portable advanced home security system. With the CAVU Mobile Surveillance Solution, the next time a neighbor calls to tell you that your alarm has gone off again, you can automatically see what is going on inside your house on our phone- no matter where you are. This application also lets you save footage on your phone, which is useful in case you need to show/reference the footage on the go. From your phone you can even control the position of the camera - providing you with multi-camera views. If you're thinking to yourself right now about how you wish you had been nicer to your neighbor, because then he/she would be more likely to actually call you to tell you that there is a good chance you're being robbed- stop. This iPhone app also allows for poor neighbor to neighbor relations. It provides a self sufficient, independent of any neighbor, surveillance system on your phone to tell your that there is suspicious action going on. For a cool $19.99 you can be your own FBI squad team, the C, the, S and the I in CSI Crime Scene Investigation, and most importantly, sure that your home is safe."

"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."

We've all heard the argument before: "Why should you worry about the government looking into your personal records if you have nothing to hide?" Daniel J. Solove, an associate professor of law at The George Washington University Law School, analyzes that argument in a recently published paper titled "I've Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy." Solove argues that "the question assumes faulty assumptions about privacy and its value." Those who make the "nothing to hide" argument fail to understand the chilling effect that surveillance has on public discourse, the fact that small bits of private data (which an individual may not object to being uncovered) when put together form a larger and more intimate profile (which an individual may object to), and the mistake of having one's profile mistakenly associated with a group that is labeled as threatening. Here's an excerpt from the paper, which was published in the latest issue of the San Diego Law Review: [T]he problem with the "nothing to hide" argument is that it focuses on just one or two particular kinds of privacy problems - the disclosure of personal information or surveillance - and not others. It assumes a particular view about what privacy entails, and it sets the terms for debate in a manner that is often unproductive. It is important to distinguish here between two ways of justifying a program such as the NSA surveillance and data mining program. First is to not recognize a problem. This is how the "nothing to hide" argument works. It denies even the existence of a problem. The second manner of justifying such a program is to acknowledge the problems but contend that the benefits of the NSA program outweigh the privacy harms. The first justification influences the second, for the low value given to privacy is based upon a narrow view of the problem. The key misunderstanding is that the "nothing to hide" argument views privacy in a particular way - as a

A National Security Agency eavesdropping program exceeded legal limits intended to safeguard privacy, and officials have taken steps to bring the intercepts program into compliance, the Justice Department said Wednesday. The department, in a statement, said problems with the NSA program were uncovered as the Justice Department and National Security Agency were conducting routine oversight of intelligence activities to ensure compliance with laws and court orders. Attorney General Eric Holder has sought court approval to renew the NSA program after instituting new safeguards. The House intelligence committee was informed of the compliance issues and is conducting an inquiry, a House congressional official said. The New York Times on Wednesday reported on its Web site that the program intercepted private email messages and phone calls of Americans. However, intelligence officials have described the program as primarily searching for information based on data about communications, such as email addresses, subject headers and the time a message or phone call was placed. The Justice Department said officials notified the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of the problems with the NSA program and took "comprehensive steps" to correct the matter. "The Justice Department takes its national security oversight responsibilities seriously and works diligently to ensure that surveillance under established legal authorities complies with the nation's laws, regulations and policies, including those designed to protect privacy interests and civil liberties," the department said.

Like this http://www.hdfilmsaati.net Film,dvd,download,free download,product... ppc,adword,adsense,amazon,clickbank,osell,bookmark,dofollow,edu,gov,ads,linkwell,traffic,scor,serp,goggle,bing,yahoo.ads,ads network,ads goggle,bing,quality links,link best,ptr,cpa,bpa. www.killdo.de.gg

At first glance, Chicago's latest crime-fighting strategy seems to be plucked from a Hollywood screenplay. Someone sees a thief dipping into a Salvation Army kettle in a crowd of shoppers on State Street and dials 911 from a cellphone. Within seconds, a video image of the caller's location is beamed onto a dispatcher's computer screen. An officer arrives and by police radio is directed to the suspect, whose description and precise location are conveyed by the dispatcher watching the video, leading to a quick arrest. That chain of events actually happened in the Loop in December, said Ray Orozco, the executive director of the Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communications. "We can now immediately take a look at the crime scene if the 911 caller is in a location within 150 feet of one of our surveillance cameras, even before the first responders arrive," Mr. Orozco said. The technology, a computer-aided dispatch system, was paid for with a $6 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security. It has been in use since a trial run in December. "One of the best tools any big city can have is visual indicators like cameras, which can help save lives," Mr. Orozco said. In addition to the city's camera network, Mr. Orozco said, the new system can also connect to cameras at private sites like tourist attractions, office buildings and university campuses. Twenty private companies have agreed to take part in the program, a spokeswoman for Mr. Orozco said, and 17 more are expected to be added soon. Citing security concerns, the city would not say how many cameras were in the system. Mayor Richard M. Daley said this week that the integrated camera network would enhance regional security as well as fight street crime. Still, opponents of Mr. Daley's use of public surveillance cameras described the new system as a potential Big Brother intrusion on privacy rights. "If a 911 caller reports that someone left a backpack on the sidewalk, wil

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.

""So many people in America think this does not affect them. They've been convinced that these programs are only targeted at suspected terrorists. … I think that's wrong. … Our programs are not perfect, and it is inevitable that totally innocent Americans are going to be affected by these programs," former CIA Assistant General Counsel Suzanne Spaulding tells FRONTLINE correspondent Hedrick Smith in Spying on the Home Front. 9/11 has indelibly altered America in ways that people are now starting to earnestly question: not only perpetual orange alerts, barricades and body frisks at the airport, but greater government scrutiny of people's records and electronic surveillance of their communications. The watershed, officials tell FRONTLINE, was the government's shift after 9/11 to a strategy of pre-emption at home -- not just prosecuting terrorists for breaking the law, but trying to find and stop them before they strike. President Bush described his anti-terrorist measures as narrow and targeted, but a FRONTLINE investigation has found that the National Security Agency (NSA) has engaged in wiretapping and sifting Internet communications of millions of Americans; the FBI conducted a data sweep on 250,000 Las Vegas vacationers, and along with more than 50 other agencies, they are mining commercial-sector data banks to an unprecedented degree."

It affects each & every US citizen in one way or another. Good video on privacy & security.

The European Commission started legal action against Britain on Tuesday for what the EU executive called a failure to keep people's online details confidential. EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding said the action related to how Internet service providers used Phorm (PHOR.L) technology to send subscribers tailor-made advertisements based on websites visited. Reding said Internet users in Britain had complained about the way the UK applied EU rules on privacy and electronic communications that were meant to prohibit interception and surveillance without the user's consent. "Technologies like Internet behavioural advertising can be useful for businesses and consumers but they must be used in a way that complies with EU rules," Reding said in a statement. "We have been following the Phorm case for some time and have concluded that there are problems in the way the UK has implemented parts of the EU rules on the confidentiality of communications," Reding said. She called on Britain to change its national laws to ensure there were proper sanctions to enforce EU confidentiality rules. Unless Britain complies, Reding has the power to issue a final warning before taking the country to the 27-nation EU's top court, the European Court of Justice. If it rules in favour of the European Commission, the court can force Britain to change its laws. (Reporting by Huw Jones, editing by Dale Hudson)

making best indexing in goggle and bing. RADJASEOTEA is a master of backlinks. You want indexing in goggle and bing. LOOK THIS www.fiverr.com/radjaseotea/making-best-super-backlink-143445

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.

Laws in Canada and other countries are increasingly helping technology force people to identify themselves where they never had to before, threatening privacy that allows people to function effectively in society, a new study has found. "What we're starting to see is a move toward making people more and more identifiable," University of Ottawa law professor Ian Kerr said Wednesday. His comments followed the launch of Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society, a book summing up the study's findings, at a public reading in downtown Ottawa hosted jointly with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Kerr led the study with University of Ottawa criminology professor Valerie Steeves. They collaborated with 35 other researchers in Canada, the U.S., the U.K., the Netherlands and Italy. The researchers reported that governments are choosing laws that require people to identify themselves and are lowering judicial thresholds defining when identity information must be disclosed to law enforcement officials. That is allowing the wider use of new technologies capable of making people identifiable, including smartcards, security cameras, GPS, tracking cookies and DNA sequencing. Consequently, governments and corporations are able to do things like: * Embrace technologies such as radio frequency identification tags that can be used to track people and merchandise to analyze behaviour. * Boost video surveillance in public places. * Pressure companies such as internet service providers to collect and maintain records of identification information about their customers. While Canada, the U.K., the Netherlands and Italy all have national laws protecting privacy - that is, laws that allow citizens to control access to their personal data - such legal protection does not exist for anonymity, Kerr said. "Canada is quite similar [to other countries] with respect to anonymity. Namely, it's shrinking here just as it is there.

During the past decade, rapid developments in information and communications technology have transformed key social, commercial, and political realities. Within that same time period, working at something less than Internet speed, much of the academic and policy debate arising from these new and emerging technologies has been fragmented. There have been few examples of interdisciplinary dialogue about the importance and impact of anonymity and privacy in a networked society. Lessons from the Identity Trail: Anonymity, Privacy and Identity in a Networked Society fills that gap, and examines key questions about anonymity, privacy, and identity in an environment that increasingly automates the collection of personal information and relies upon surveillance to promote private and public sector goals. This book has been informed by the results of a multi-million dollar research project that has brought together a distinguished array of philosophers, ethicists, feminists, cognitive scientists, lawyers, cryptographers, engineers, policy analysts, government policy makers, and privacy experts. Working collaboratively over a four-year period and participating in an iterative process designed to maximize the potential for interdisciplinary discussion and feedback through a series of workshops and peer review, the authors have integrated crucial public policy themes with the most recent research outcomes. The book is available for download under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Canada License by chapter below. Hard copies are available for purchase at Amazon & at Oxford University Press.

Is it a violation of privacy that should be banned or a tool necessary to keep the internet running? Canada's privacy commissioner has opened an online discussion on deep packet inspection, a technology that allows internet service providers and other organizations to intercept and examine packets of information as they are being sent over the internet. "We realized about a year ago that technologies involving network management were increasingly affecting how personal information of Canadians was being handled," said Colin McKay, director of research, education and outreach for the commissioner's office. The office decided to research those technologies, especially after receiving several complaints, and realized it was an opportunity to inform Canadians about the privacy implications. Over the weekend, the privacy commissioner launched a website where the public can discuss a series of essays on the technology written by 14 experts. The experts range from the privacy officer of a deep-packet inspection service vendor to technology law and internet security researchers. The website also offers an overview of the technology, which it describes as having the potential to provide "widespread access to vast amounts of personal information sent over the internet" for uses such as: * Targeted advertising based on users' behaviour. * Scanning for unlawful content such as copyright or obscene materials. * Intercepting data as part of surveillance for national security and crime investigations. * Monitoring traffic to measure network performance.

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

In a 4-to-3 ruling, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that the State Police violated a criminal suspect's rights under the State Constitution when it placed a GPS tracking device inside the bumper of his van without obtaining a warrant. The police had used the device to monitor the movements of the suspect, Scott C. Weaver, for more than two months. But the court ordered the evidence gathered from the device suppressed and ordered a new trial for Mr. Weaver. In three written opinions, the judges on the court debated the constitutional issues raised by the growing use of global positioning system technology as a tool of surveillance. The case could set an important precedent for state and local police agencies.

Climbing into his Volvo, outfitted with a Matrics antenna and a Motorola reader he'd bought on eBay for $190, Chris Paget cruised the streets of San Francisco with this objective: To read the identity cards of strangers, wirelessly, without ever leaving his car. It took him 20 minutes to strike hacker's gold. Zipping past Fisherman's Wharf, his scanner detected, then downloaded to his laptop, the unique serial numbers of two pedestrians' electronic U.S. passport cards embedded with radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags. Within an hour, he'd "skimmed" the identifiers of four more of the new, microchipped PASS cards from a distance of 20 feet. Embedding identity documents - passports, drivers licenses, and the like - with RFID chips is a no-brainer to government officials. Increasingly, they are promoting it as a 21st century application of technology that will help speed border crossings, safeguard credentials against counterfeiters, and keep terrorists from sneaking into the country. But Paget's February experiment demonstrated something privacy advocates had feared for years: That RFID, coupled with other technologies, could make people trackable without their knowledge or consent. He filmed his drive-by heist, and soon his video went viral on the Web, intensifying a debate over a push by government, federal and state, to put tracking technologies in identity documents and over their potential to erode privacy. Putting a traceable RFID in every pocket has the potential to make everybody a blip on someone's radar screen, critics say, and to redefine Orwellian government snooping for the digital age. "Little Brother," some are already calling it - even though elements of the global surveillance web they warn against exist only on drawing boards, neither available nor approved for use.

Names, credit card numbers, Social Security numbers: information Daron Breinholt did not go looking for, but found Thursday morning. He took out the trash from the shoe distribution center, where he works, in the warehouse section on Salt Lake's west side. "I was just throwing away some stuff (in a dumpster) , and it was chock full of medical records," said Breinholt. "There's everything in there from canceled checks to routing numbers. They could steal a lot identities. A lot of identities were in there." At least some of the records appeared to come from Mountain Medical Center, a chiropractic office that had been in the Murray area until some months ago. Dr. Randall Malin said through his lawyer that he did not throw away records. "It's news to him," said Attorney Robert Harrison. Salt Lake Police packed away perhaps twenty boxes of papers, and said they would protect the documents, as they dug into the matter. Surveillance video, which 2News has not been able to see, reportedly showed two people who drove up in a red pickup truck Wednesday afternoon, and unloaded the materials from a trailer.

The suggestion comes after a 12 month period in which the Government has admitted losing millions of personal records, including the entire child benefit database. Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, will tell MPs that its annual tracking survey has found a big jump in the way that people view loss of personal data, excessive surveillance, privacy intrusions and identity theft. Its survey of 1,000 people found 94 per cent of people ranked "protecting personal information" as their top concern, ranked equal with concerns about crime. Public awareness of access to their personal information held by public bodies has also jumped, from 74 per cent to 86 per cent between 2007 and 2008. Mr Thomas will say that part of the reason has been the 277 data breaches by public bodies, since HM Revenue and Customs said it had lost the personal details of 25 million families on the child benefit database in October 2007.

Privacy is Dead. Long Live Privacy? at the 2007 Battle of Ideas conference hosted by the Institute of Ideas.New technology seems to have changed the meaning of privacy, affording individuals the possibility of sharing details of their hitherto private lives in unprecedented ways, from personal blogs to picture sharing and even 'social bookmarking'. For many of us, divulging intimate details of our private lives via social networking websites like MySpace and Facebook has become the norm. But information and communication technologies have also facilitated surveillance and data gathering by government and big businesses. While in some contexts we seem so ready to give up our privacy, in others we seem increasingly anxious to protect it.To what extent are new technologies responsible for the death of privacy? Are privacy concerns simply technophobic, or are we right to worry about a loss of control over personal information? Have new technologies and our enthusiastic adoption of them actually transformed our notions of public and private, and blown apart the wall dividing the two? Why do we worry about Tesco monitoring what we buy, when, according to Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy: 'You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it'? - IoI

"As Congress makes headlines on healthcare and financial industry oversight reform, online data privacy watchdogs are hammering away behind the scenes on the Hill. A joint hearing on online and offline data collection scheduled for later this week, and a planned series of Federal Trade Commission data privacy events have advocacy groups from as far away as California visiting Washington to make sure their voices are heard. "What we're concerned about is the amount of surveillance and tracking going on without consumer consent," said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. Though often skeptical of government regulation, EFF recently joined lobbying groups including Center for Digital Democracy in recommending that Congress pass clear consumer privacy legislation. "