Spying violates privacy

The BBC online report that the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe have found that cyber spying violates individuals’ right to privacy and could be used only in exceptional cases.

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has rejected provisions adopted by the State of North Rhine-Westphalia that allowed investigators to covertly search PCs online. In its ruling, the court creates a new right to confidentiality and integrity of personal data stored on IT systems; the ruling expands the current protection provided by the country’s constitutional rights for telecommunications privacy and the personal right to control private information under the German constitution.In line with an earlier ruling on censuses, the judges found that the modern digital world requires a new right, but not one which is absolute ­ exceptions can be made if there is just cause. The judges did not feel that the blanket covert online searches that North Rhine-Westphalia’s (NRW) provisions allowed fell under that category; rather, these searches were found to be a severe violation of privacy.

The court explained that strict legal provisions apply for covert online searches of PCs, as with exceptional cases of telephone tapping or other exceptions to the right to privacy. Specifically, the judges say that private PCs can only be covertly searched “if there is evidence that an important overriding right would otherwise be violated.” (via Heise Online).

Here is the ruling in German.

The Future of Reputation

Daniel J. Solove has written what seems to be an interesting book The Future of Reputation: Gossip, rumor, and privacy on the Internet. The topic of Internet reputation is fascinating and was one of the earliest discussions. The basic premise is that our reputation is our greatest asset but as an asset it is not our own – it is in the hands of everyone else. So what happens when someone messes up that reputation?

A nice touch is that the book is available online for download and licensed under Creative Commons (BY-NC). Check out the table of contents:

Chapter 1. Introduction: When Poop Goes Primetime

Part I: Rumor and Reputation in a digital world

Chapter 2. How the Free Flow of Information Liberates and Constrains Us

Chapter 3. Gossip and the Virtues of Knowing Less

Chapter 4. Shaming and the Digital Scarlet Letter

Part II: Privacy, Free Speech, and the Law

Chapter 5. The Role of Law

Chapter 6. Free Speech, Anonymity, and Accountability

Chapter 7. Privacy in an Overexposed World

Chapter 8. Conclusion: The Future of Reputation

Eight hours

Eight hours lecturing in two days. My mind is going, my feet hurt, my throat is raw… This is why lecturing is a cool sport.

No energy left for real blogging so I will leave you with this picture of another sign I saw in Brussels…

2228545035_982e389a69.jpg

picture fundamental right by Klang (CC by)

the sign is intriguing since it this was the only fundamental right they seemed to feel the need to inform the passers by about…

Privacy International Ranking 2007

Privacy International has released its Privacy Ranking for 2007 (28/12-2007).

privacy2007.jpg

The picture is a detail of the report’s privacy map. Where black is the worst, pink/purple is bad, red is not good and so on. Privacy International writes about its own report:

The most recent report published in 2007, is probably the most comprehensive single volume report published in the human rights field. The report runs over 1,100 pages and includes 6,000 footnotes. More than 200 experts from around the world have provided materials and commentary. The participants range from eminent privacy scholars to high-level officials charged with safeguarding constitutional freedoms in their countries. Academics, human rights advocates, journalists and researchers provided reports, insight, documents and advice…The new 2007 global rankings extend the survey to 47 countries (from the original 37) and, for the first time, provide an opportunity to assess trends.

The report shows that the situation is worsening. Read the report here.

Trust no-one

The question of trust is a difficult one. The decision to trust must be made taking into consideration both now and by calculating future probabilities into the equation. Unfortunately the users of the users of Hushmail, a longtime provider of encrypted web-based email made the wrong decision.

The main selling point of Hushmail was it’s encryption which would guarantee privacy and security to the user.  Hushmail markets it’s service by saying that “not even a Hushmail employee with access to our servers can read your encrypted e-mail, since each message is uniquely encoded before it leaves your computer.”

Unfortunately such promises are rarely true. In an article in Wired:

A September court document (.pdf) from a federal prosecution of alleged steroid dealers reveals the Canadian company turned over 12 CDs worth of e-mails from three Hushmail accounts, following a court order obtained through a mutual assistance treaty between the U.S. and Canada. The charging document alleges that many Chinese wholesale steroid chemical providers, underground laboratories and steroid retailers do business over Hushmail.

I have no sympathy for the drug dealers but it is important to realize that relying on free services provided by companies will never ensure a reliable infratructure – when placed under stress the private company has an obligation to make a profit, not to protect non-paying users.

Tracking Schoolchildren with RFID

It’s strange that everyone sings the praise of RFID and the main struggle seems to be how to implement the technology in as many places as possible. The Register reports that a UK school is piloting a monitoring system designed to keep tabs on pupils by tracking RFID chips in their uniforms.

According to the Doncaster Free Press, Hungerhill School is testing RFID tracking and data collection on 10 pupils within the school. It’s been developed by local company Darnbro Ltd, which says it is ready to launch the product into the £300m school uniform market.

As Bruce Schneier points out the scheme is not difficult to thwart – simply ask a friend to carry the chipped uniform into class. Despite this, the dream of using technological surveillance seems to blind people of their lack of efficiency and reliability.

The real cost is the actual lack of integrity, the high potential for abusing the system and the fundamental shift in attitude which we are pushing on the children in the project. They are being taught (indoctrinated) that technology should be used as a surveillance tool. Asking the teachers to remember their names would apparently be too much to ask for.

Microsoft Spyware Patent

Rejås writes that Microsoft has applied for a patent for a Spyware application. Spyware is a program, system or infrastructure that monitors the activities of computer users. Most Spyware is used to build up profiles in order to create efficient direct marketing. Similar systems have been patented earlier by Claria (formerly Gator).

For more information about the ills of Spyware you can read Spyware – the ethics of covert software, an article I wrote a few years ago. There is lots of good stuff written about Spyware so this is more a place to start.

Impossible Solutions

Like many European countries Sweden has arrived at the sensible conclusion that female genital mutilation is wrong. Male mutilation (circumcision) is still permitted. Sweden has criminalized female circumcision but the problem is how to enforce such a prohibition.

The first easy step is to ensure that hospitals, medical facilities and doctors do not perform the procedure. The next step is also reasonably easy to achieve and that is to prevent “amateurs” from performing the procedure.

The problem arises when attempting to prevent parents from taking their children abroad and carrying out the mutilation. Every so often a bright eager politician or spokesperson states loudly that certain groups of parents should not be allowed to take their children out of Sweden or that if they do then the children should be examined upon their return.

Fortified and justified with horrific images of mutilated females such cries often receive a great deal of nodding and concerned humming from the largely uninformed public. Such suggestions however are, despite their good intentions, fraught with harsh consequences for society at large and the individuals involved.

First there is the inherent racism of singling out specific groups due to their ethnic background. No matter how finely tuned the mechanism – This is racism plain and simple. Second there is a level of child abuse in the actual examination. No matter if the brutal act has been carried out or not – examining a young child in this way (either to just check or to secure evidence) is a form of child abuse. This can often be compounded by the fact that the young child may not understand what the (well intentioned) medical team is attempting to do. Third the effect of checking unwilling and possibly terrified people in this manner does not have a good effect on any of those involved.

In a recent case in Sweden the Discrimination Ombudsman is now claiming damages for a family whose ten-year-old daughter was subjected to such an examination after the family returned from a trip to Africa. As it turns out the girl had not been circumcised but everyone involved has simply assumed that this was the case based upon the ethnic background of the family. They were all found guilty and had to prove their innocence.

Preventing female circumcision is an important task but it must be balanced against the social costs that mistakes such as these entail.

It isn't a violation if you know…

Here is another nomination for the category of dumb people. The principal of the Kastanjeskolan (Chestnut School) in Tomelilla Sweden wants to install surveillance cameras. Now while I really believe surveillance cameras in schools is a really bad idea I would not nominate the principle for this alone.

On being asked about the implications on student privacy the principal allegedly answered that it was not a violation of privacy since there would be signs informing the students that there were surveillance cameras in action.

Whoa! Your privacy is not violated if you are informed? What a dope. The principal of the school apparently does not get the difference between privacy as a basic right and the purpose of informing people about potential violations of privacy.

First we must argue the question of whether minors are really capable of grasping the privacy implications of video surveillance (many adults are not). Secondly, the children attending the school have no real choice but to attend the school – therefore informing them of cameras is not the same as providing them with the opportunity to make informed choices since they lack the real freedom to choose.

Additionally the installation of camera surveillance in schools sends a very peculiar message to the students.

Considering the lack of insight and obvious lack of thought displayed by the principal parents should seriously consider whether this is the right school for the children…

(via Infontology)