Privacy

California’s privacy proposal failed, but it probably violated the Constitution anyway

by

California’s privacy proposal failed, but it probably violated the Constitution anyway.
Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) refused to support it, and it contradicted the Obama administration’s Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.
The hyperbole of today’s privacy activists claiming that securing rules on broadband providers is the end-all, be-all of regulation only became a rallying cry when the 2015 FCC classified broadband as a telecommunications service.
The bill’s advocates are fighting against broadband providers’ attempt to offer broadband as an advertising-subsidized service.
While states have some leeway to regulate commerce within their borders, Dormant Commerce Clause arguments have been used to challenge state-level internet regulation, showing that it discriminates against and unduly burdens commerce.
It’s unclear how the proposed rules would have stopped mobile subscribers from other states from enjoying advertising-supported broadband service when in California.
A Wickard v. Filburn argument could show that regulation in California, especially given its population, could have deleterious impacts, not only on Californians who would be denied competition and choice, but also on the rest of the country with increased compliance costs for doing business in California.
And yet, there is little evidence that Californians enjoy more privacy.
In fact, the proposed privacy law did nothing to address the real harms evidenced by Californians, namely those that emanate from government over-collection and under-protection of personal data.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, warned of “abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power.” California is just one of half a dozen states which have proposed misguided privacy laws.

The Privacy Countdown is On: California’s Legislature Has Days to Decide to Protect Your Personal Data from Big Telecom

by

375, his committee is the bottleneck, because the Senate cannot even vote on it until the committee moves the bill.
375, his committee is the bottleneck, because the Senate cannot even vote on it until the committee moves the bill.
375, his committee is the bottleneck, because the Senate cannot even vote on it until the committee moves the bill.
375, his committee is the bottleneck, because the Senate cannot even vote on it until the committee moves the bill.
375, his committee is the bottleneck, because the Senate cannot even vote on it until the committee moves the bill.
375, his committee is the bottleneck, because the Senate cannot even vote on it until the committee moves the bill.
375, his committee is the bottleneck, because the Senate cannot even vote on it until the committee moves the bill.
375, his committee is the bottleneck, because the Senate cannot even vote on it until the committee moves the bill.
375, his committee is the bottleneck, because the Senate cannot even vote on it until the committee moves the bill.
375, his committee is the bottleneck, because the Senate cannot even vote on it until the committee moves the bill.

Dad warns of potential privacy dangers for children in Musical.ly app

by

An Illinois father is speaking out and warning other parents about the potential privacy risks of the popular app Musical.ly, after he says a stranger asked his 7-year-old daughter to send shirtless pictures of herself through the app’s messaging feature. “She came to us and let us know that there was someone asking her to remove clothing for pictures, and she knew it wasn’t right,” Brad Frakes told ABC News of the interaction that he says his daughter, Madison, experienced while using the app, which lets users create their own music videos.
Frakes said that his daughter used the app to play with her cousins, and that he “never thought in a million years that we would receive anything other than family fun with this app.” “She likes to sing and dance, and that was a perfect format for her; it’s also a great way to let her communicate with family and friends, and just have a little bit of fun competition amongst family members,” Frakes said.
Frakes added that his daughter does not have her own phone or tablet, and only used the app through his phone. “The account was just at the default settings, we weren’t aware of any public or private settings that were available to us,” Frakes said.
They also outline how to activate enhanced privacy settings, stating, “If you’d like to make sure that only approved followers can see your teen’s videos, we recommend setting his/her profile to private by electing ‘private account’ in the settings page on the App.
If you’d like to make sure that only approved followers can send messages via direct.ly, we recommend enabling the ‘only friends can direct.ly me’ on the settings page.”
Frakes posted screenshots of the exchange between the stranger, who identified only as “Jessy” on the app, and his daughter, on his Facebook page in an attempt to warn other parents.
Detective Michelle Langston of the Batavia Police Department in Batavia, Illinois, told ABC News that adults will often pose as children online in an attempt to engage in a conversation with young people.

Indian Supreme Court in landmark ruling on privacy

by

Indian Supreme Court in landmark ruling on privacy.
India’s Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have a fundamental right to privacy, in a landmark judgement.
Rights groups are concerned personal data could be misused.
When the Aadhaar database was launched, the authorities said it would be a voluntary scheme which would help them weed out corruption while passing on welfare benefits to the most needy citizens.
The petitioners had said this would help the authorities create a comprehensive profile of a person’s spending habits and expressed apprehension that this data could be misused by a government which does not believe in people’s right to privacy.
He said that a smaller bench would now look into the validity of the Aadhaar scheme, the largest biometric identity scheme in the world.
But recently it has been made mandatory for access to welfare schemes.
In previous cases, it said that privacy was protected by the constitution, but argued otherwise in the Aadhaar case.
Indians are provided with a 12-digit random number issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).
Critics also believe that the Aadhaar card scheme contains enough data to create a profile of a person’s financial habits, property they own and other private information.

5 Ways Through Which Aadhaar Violates Your Privacy

by

5 Ways Through Which Aadhaar Violates Your Privacy.
With the compulsion of Aadhaar registration, the government is continuously being questioned about the issue of privacy.
Amidst the hue and cry, let’s take a look at the 5 ways through which Aadhaar can breach your privacy: It allows for the illegal tracking of individuals The Aadhaar number links multiple databases leading to profiling of an individual- his employment, finance, travel, recreation etc and thus could become a tool of mass surveillance by the Government.
It may lead to identity fraud As it is a collection of the bio-metric information, it can violate the bodily integrity and may lead to fraudulent impersonation in case of data leaks.
And there are chances of the enrollment operator, uploading someone else’s bio-metrics against another person.
In case of a security breach, the individual concerned is kept in the dark and the UID alone can initiate a complaint with the police.
It doesn’t allow you to opt out of the scheme even if you want to It’s pretty much like a black hole, as you can’t come out of it.
So, it is not very difficult for the Intelligence Agencies to track the database of UIDAI.
The constitutional bench of judges has stated that the right to privacy is a small component of liberty and is not absolute.
Despite that, with advances in technology it is better to be cautious and well-informed before you put yourself in the public domain as the your information could be used against you.

Some Bathroom Privacy Bill Supporters Say It’s Dead In Texas House

by

Some Bathroom Privacy Bill Supporters Say It’s Dead In Texas House.
NORTH TEXAS (CBS11) – Bathroom privacy legislation is among the most controversial bills to be debated this year at the Texas Capitol.
Republican State Representative Matt Krause of Fort Worth says, “I’d say for all intents and purposes any kind of privacy legislation is dead in the House.” Krause is one of 49 GOP lawmakers in the State House who either authored or co-sponsored the legislation.
Krause says the special session will end Wednesday and the legislative clock is running out.
In a statement, he says, “As House Bill 46 is good common sense legislation, I am still working to get this bill passed during the remaining time in this special session.
“Really, as long as I exist, I feel like there’s going to be some work to be done.” SMU political science professor, Cal Jillson is among those who credits businesses and business groups across Texas for holding rallies against the bathroom privacy bills that led to its demise.
But they don’t set the agenda of Texas politics anymore.” The State Senate already passed its own version of the bill.
Governor Dan Patrick set the legislative agenda in Texas.
He’s not in a position to set the agenda.” Jillson says while the bathroom privacy legislation is dead, he says it will return.
Governor Patrick, Speaker Straus and most state elected leaders will be up for election in November 2018.

FTC APPROVES TRUSTARC ONLINE PRIVACY PROGRAM FIXES

by

Many products have certification programs to assure consumers that they meet certain standards, such as food labeled as USDA Organic, Kosher, or halal.
The Federal Trade Commission recently approved changes to one of those child privacy certification plans.
Consulting and trust mark company TRUSTArc–formerly TRUSTe—asked the FTC approve modifications to its Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) safe harbor program, which certifies companies’ commitment to protecting children’s privacy.
Under the rule implementing COPPA, the FTC can authorize companies or groups to operate self-regulatory compliance programs.
The TrustArc move came after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) announced a settlement with the company for allegedly failing to adequately assess companies’ websites for compliance with COPPA.
Cameron Russell, executive director of the Center on Law and Information Policy at Fordham Law School, told Bloomberg BNA that the updated modifications will better protect children’s privacy.
“It gives developers and app stores a better understanding of what’s happening in the apps that target children under 13.” TRUSTArc didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg BNA’s request for comments.
The Toy Association, a trade group that represents thousands of toy manufacturers, said TRUSTArc’s implementations “could be incorporated into other safe harbor agreements as well.” The FTC approved a TRUSTArc safe harbor modification in 2013, which added annual re-certification, and stricter rules on collection of children’s personal information, and obtaining verifiable parental consent to collect data.
Ayanna Alexander is a Bloomberg BNA reporter intern covering intellectual property, privacy, and technology.
She is a senior at Howard University, majoring in print/online journalism, and previously was a multimedia intern at Agence France-Presse.

Protecting Privacy at Sea

by

Protecting Privacy at Sea.
So what is to be done when those intrusions follow them to their mooring, or out to sea?
But privacy protection is rarely achieved through technology alone.
So, when things go wrong, as they inevitably do at some point if you or any of your guests have any media profile, knowing some of the protections that English law provides to preserve your privacy and that of your guests will empower you to ensure that it isn’t sold to the highest media bidder.
The Princess vs The Press Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence.
Other Ways to Plug a Leak Privacy threats don’t just involve photographs.
That sort of leak isn’t just a threat to privacy: it’s also a potential security risk.
From engaging crew members to chartering vessels, contracts also commonly contain express restrictions on disclosures of information.
Other fundamental rights such as privacy or data protection might also be engaged.
Agreements are no substitute for taking care when recruiting and training crew.

Forthcoming Supreme Court decision on right to privacy one of the most important legal decisions in the world this year

by

By Eben Moglen and Mishi Choudhary Last week’s arguments before a nine-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, which is at long last deciding whether Indian citizens have a fundamental right to privacy, have established two realities clearly.
Second, they would like to know just what the outlines of this right should be.
But in our age, the age of the internet, the right to be left alone includes also the right not to be put out there, or exposed involuntarily.
Forced disclosure of the information that comprises our identities, in the age of biometric identification, social profiles, and cashless economic transactions, damages an essential component of all personal liberties.
Whether the individual’s information is used on its own, or is analysed, profiled, or linked in the “social graph” to that of other related persons, forced disclosure of personal information in today’s society creates power in the state which receives that information.
Not all of the constitutional right of privacy cases in the age of the internet will involve forced disclosures.
In these cases, the court would find that the fundamental right to privacy is infringed when forced disclosures of personal information to government interfere with the exercise of any of the freedoms the Article 19 protects, when you cannot actually have your freedom of movement, or of expression, for example, because you are compelled to give information that empowers government to restrict or deny your rights.
Where, for example, an Aadhaar number is required before a patient can request ambulance service, as has been ordered recently in UP, the right to medical care protecting life declared by the Supreme Court in Parmanand Katara vs the Union of India is violated by the compelled disclosure of identity.
We think that, if the Supreme Court decides the present issues fully, it will find that the common factors in all successful constitutional privacy claims are (1) the forced disclosure of personal information; (2) under circumstances adversely affecting an individual’s ability to exercise freedoms protected by Article 19 or liberties guaranteed by Article 21.
The importance of a fundamental right in our system is that it can only be enforced against the state.

Lawmakers Hold Hearing On Bathroom Privacy Bills Friday

by

AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM) – Hundreds of people are expected to testify Friday morning at the Texas Capitol during a hearing about two newly proposed bathroom privacy bills.
“I’m angry about the legislation.” On Thursday, he packed his bags for the drive down to Austin.
“I’m happy to go down to testify for my basic human rights, but I don’t think I should have to do that in the first place.” If SB 3 or SB 91 is approved, people would have to use the multi-occupancy bathrooms and locker rooms in local government buildings and public schools that match their birth gender.
Cathie Adams, a grandmother and national board member of the conservative group, Eagle Forum praises the legislation.
The grassroots are very enlivened and want this bill finished, passed.” Adams and other supporters say this isn’t about transgender people, but about keeping sexual predators out of women’s and girls’ bathrooms and locker-rooms.
“If a pervert were to go into a restroom, it wouldn’t matter about gender identity.
People would be able to tell that there’s a difference between trans people and perverts.” Adams disagrees, “There are others who are dressing as transgender, even if they’re not, and they are predators, and so this is just part of a law that has got to distinguish right from wrong.” Other proposed bathroom privacy bills, HB 46 and HB 50, proposed by Rep. Ron Simmons, R-Carrollton, would also negate all local ordinances and written school district policies relating to multi-occupancy bathrooms and locker rooms.
A similar bill has been filed in the Senate, SB 23, but a hearing isn’t scheduled on this legislation.
Adams though says, “I think the schools are trying to push the envelope.” Pettigrew says he’s been allowed to use the men’s room at his Garland high school without hearing any complaints.
Straus, moderate Republicans and Democrats say they don’t like the bathroom privacy bills because they’ll hurt Texas’ reputation as a pro-business state that welcomes everyone.