donatieknop english

In het programma Heilige Huisjes op de christelijke zender Groot Nieuws Radio stond op maandagmiddag 18 juni 2012 de volgende stelling centraal: "Ook al heb je niets te verbergen, de overheid heeft niet het recht jou zomaar overal te kunnen bespieden." Namens Stichting Privacy First werd Vincent Böhre hierover uitgebreid geïnterviewd door presentatrice Tjitske Volkerink. Aan het einde van de uitzending nam ook journalist Frank Mulder deel aan het gesprek en gaf duiding aan het onderwerp privacy vanuit christelijk perspectief. Hieronder kunt u de hele uitzending terugluisteren:

Gepubliceerd in Privacy First in de media

Vanochtend vond in Genève de langverwachte Universal Periodic Review (UPR) van Nederland bij de Mensenrechtenraad van de Verenigde Naties plaats. In de aanloop naar deze 4-jaarlijkse sessie hadden Privacy First en diverse andere organisaties hun privacyzorgen over Nederland uitgebreid kenbaar gemaakt bij zowel de VN als bij vrijwel alle VN-lidstaten; meer hierover kunt u HIER lezen. De Nederlandse delegatie bij de UPR-sessie werd geleid door minister Liesbeth Spies (BZK). Opvallend in het opening statement van minister Spies was de volgende passage over privacy:

"The need to strike a balance between different interests has sometimes been hotly debated in the Dutch political arena, for example in the context of privacy measures and draft legislation limiting privacy. The compatibility of this kind of legislation with human rights standards is of utmost importance. This requires a thorough scrutiny test, which is guaranteed by our professionals and institutions. Improvements in this regard have been made when necessary, especially in the starting phase of new draft legislation. This has been done in the field of privacy, where making Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs), describing the modalities for the planned processing of personal data, are compulsory now." (pp. 5-6, cursivering SPF)

Een "thorough scrutiny test" en verplichte Privacy Impact Assessments zijn de termen die Privacy First hierin positief opvielen.

Voorafgaand aan de UPR-sessie had het Verenigd Koninkrijk reeds de volgende vraag aan Nederland voorgelegd: "Given recent concerns about data collection and security, including the unintended consequences of cases of identity theft, does the Netherlands have plans for measures to ensure more comprehensive oversight of the collection, use and retention of personal data?" (Bron) Namens Nederland beantwoordde minister Spies deze vraag vanochtend in Genève als volgt: "On the review of our laws on data protection, The Netherlands are currently working on a legislative proposal on data breach notification, following announcements of this proposal in the present coalition agreement. The proposal, which would require those responsible for personal data to notify the data protection authorities in case of "leakage" of personal data with specific risks for privacy (including identity theft), is expected to be tabled in Parliament in the coming months." Dit antwoord is nogal summier en bevat helaas geen nieuws. Wel zal een nieuwe Nederlandse wet met een meldplicht voor datalekken hopelijk ook als best practice voor andere VN-lidstaten kunnen gaan gelden. De credits hiervoor gaan naar onze collega's van Bits of Freedom die zich hiervoor lang hebben ingezet.

Tijdens de UPR-sessie noemde Estland de bescherming van privacy en persoonsgegevens een "human rights challenge of the 21st century". Het onderwerp privacy werd vervolgens kritisch aan de orde gesteld door Marokko: "Quelles sont les mesures concrètes entreprises par les autorités néerlandaises pour sécuriser l'utilisation des donnés personnelles?" De Filippijnen brachten het recht op privacy eveneens ter sprake, maar slechts als volgt: "The Philippine delegation appreciates the frank assessment of the Netherlands of the obstacles and challenges it has to hurdle in the implementation of the right to privacy especially in the area of protection of personal information." Kwalitatief beter was het commentaar van Griekenland, India, Rusland en Oezbekistan. Griekenland stelde preventief fouilleren aan de orde: "We take note of reports regarding the issue of preventive body searches. We recommend that the Netherlands ensure that in its application of preventive body searches, all relevant human rights are adequately protected, in particular the right to privacy and physical integrity and the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race and religion." India sprak Nederland aan op het etnisch profileren van burgers: "We encourage the Dutch Government to take concrete measures to combat discrimination including discrimination by the Government such as ethnic profiling." Ook Rusland adviseerde Nederland "to introduce measures to stamp out discrimination arising as a result of the practice of racist, ethnic or religious profiling." Oezbekistan sprak Nederland hier eveneens op aan: "We are concerned over the existence of information on the increasingly broad use by the police of racist profiling."

Ter reactie op deze punten verwees minister Spies naar recente Nederlandse onderzoeken door politie, wetenschappers en de Nationale, Amsterdamse en Rotterdamse Ombudsman over preventief fouilleren, discriminatie en 'ethnic profiling'. Over digitale profiling (in het algemeen) verklaarde zij bovendien het volgende: "In its recent proposal for a general Data Protection Regulation, the [European] Commission has included rules on profiling, which can address the problems associated with profiling and the protection of personal data. The Netherlands endorses the need for clear legislative rules with regard to this topic, given the specific challenges for privacy protection that this technique entails. This is also the background against which the Netherlands welcomed in 2010 the Council of Europe Resolution on this topic, which contained a useful definition of profiling that would also be beneficial for inclusion in the [European] Commission proposals. The Netherlands will draw attention to this ongoing discussion in Brussels. The Regulation, once in force, will be directly applicable in the Netherlands." 

Al met al vormt dit een redelijke oogst indien men zich realiseert dat het thema privacy bij de VN-Mensenrechtenraad tot nu toe vrijwel geen rol speelde. Wel is het jammer om te moeten constateren dat de meeste landen dit onderwerp nog altijd nauwelijks durven te benoemen, laat staan er concrete, kritische vragen over stellen. Veel aanbevelingen van Privacy First zijn tijdens de UPR-sessie onbesproken gebleven, terwijl diplomaten in Genève en Den Haag er eerder uitgebreide interesse in hadden getoond. Wellicht is men alsnog "teruggefloten" vanuit de departementen in de diverse hoofdsteden, omdat veel privacykwesties ook in eigen land gevoelig liggen? Wie zal het zeggen... Feit blijft echter dat de internationale gemeenschap ruimschoots door Privacy First over e.e.a. is ingelicht en dat de Nederlandse VN-delegatie onder leiding van minister Spies mede daardoor "op scherp" stond. Dit kan het privacybewustzijn en de privacybescherming binnen en buiten Nederland alleen maar ten goede komen. Uiteindelijk is het ons daar allemaal om te doen.

Update 4 juni 2012: vanmiddag nam een werkgroep van de Mensenrechtenraad een concept-rapportage over de Nederlandse UPR-sessie aan. De definitieve versie van deze rapportage zal in september 2012 door de Mensenrechtenraad aangenomen worden, vergezeld van (onderbouwde) acceptatie of verwerping door Nederland per individuele aanbeveling in het rapport. Ook zal de Tweede Kamer nog over e.e.a. debatteren.

In totaal namen 49 landen aan de Nederlandse UPR-sessie deel. Opvallend was dat België, Italië en Oostenrijk niet aan de sessie deelnamen (België en Italië hadden zich eerder wel aangemeld). Wat Oostenrijk betreft is dit met name jammer omdat van alle VN-lidstaten juist Oostenrijk zich vooraf het meest geïnteresseerd had getoond in de schaduwrapportage van Privacy First en had laten doorschemeren een krachtige, algemene aanbeveling aan Nederland over het recht op privacy te kunnen doen.

Update 21 september 2012: vanochtend besprak de VN-Mensenrechtenraad de aanbevelingen aan Nederland en verklaarde de Nederlandse permanente vertegenwoordiger in Genève welke aanbevelingen door Nederland werden overgenomen of verworpen; zie dit VN-document en deze videoregistratie. De twee aanbevelingen van de Mensenrechtenraad die betrekking hadden op ethnic profiling en preventief fouilleren werden beide door Nederland overgenomen, en wel met de volgende toelichting:

ethnic profiling: "The Dutch government rejects the use of ethnic profiling for criminal investigation purposes as a matter of principle." En over profiling in algemene zin: "In its recent proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation, the European Commission included rules on profiling that address problems that may arise due to the increasing technical possibilities for in-depth searches of databases containing personal data. The Netherlands endorses the need for clear legislative rules on this subject, given the specific challenges for privacy protection that this technology entails." (Bron, 98.57 & n. 75).
- preventief fouilleren: "The power to stop and search is strictly regulated in the Netherlands. The mayor of a municipality may designate an area where, for a limited period of time, preventive searches may be carried out in response to a disturbance of or grave threats to public order due to the presence of weapons. The public prosecutor then has discretion to order actual body searches and searches of vehicles and luggage for weapons." (Bron, 98.74 & n. 95).

Zie tevens dit statement van het Nederlands Juristen Comité voor de Mensenrechten (NJCM) die ochtend (video). Evenals het NJCM betreurt Privacy First het gebrek aan overheidsconsultatie in de aanloop naar de UPR-sessie van vandaag.

Hieronder is de sessie van 31 mei jl. in zijn geheel te zien (klik HIER voor beeldfragmenten per land afzonderlijk):

Gepubliceerd in Wetgeving

Een brede internationale alliantie van maatschappelijke organisaties eist dat er een Europees onderzoek naar de opslag van biometrische gegevens komt. Overheden eisen in toenemende mate biometrische gegevens (waaronder vingerafdrukken) van mensen op, die vervolgens op RFID-chips in paspoorten en identiteitskaarten worden opgeslagen. Sommige landen, zoals Nederland, Frankrijk en Litouwen, gaan nog verder en slaan deze gegevens op in databanken die kunnen worden gebruikt voor opsporing en vervolging.

De alliantie van meer dan 60 organisaties (waaronder Privacy First) heeft Secretaris-Generaal Thorbjørn Jagland van de Raad van Europa dringend verzocht om de betrokken landen zo spoedig mogelijk om uitleg te vragen of hun wetgeving over dit onderwerp overeenstemt met het Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (EVRM). Volgens de alliantie dient er een diepgaand onderzoek te worden ingesteld of de mensenrechtengaranties en criteria met betrekking tot de noodzaak, proportionaliteit, subsidiariteit en veiligheidsgaranties die het EVRM voor het gebruik van biometrie eist, ook inderdaad worden gerespecteerd. In een recent rapport van de Raad van Europa wordt dit sterk betwijfeld.

Saillant 'detail' is overigens dat het idee voor de huidige Europese afname en opslag van biometrische gegevens mede tot stand is gekomen in de Raad van Europa zelf, namelijk op instigatie van enkele werkgroepen die zich rond 2004 met terrorismebestrijding bezighielden. Eén van deze werkgroepen was de Group of Specialists on Identity and Terrorism (CJ-S-IT) en stond onder Nederlands voorzitterschap. In april 2004 deed deze werkgroep de volgende aanbevelingen:

 "The creation or development of systems which allow identity checks with reference
to civil status records and  registers and population registers to be carried out rapidly
(in particular by means of a centralised system) and in a reliable manner. (…)

Give consideration to and promote research and ongoing cooperation between police
scientists and institutions (…) in order to make greater use of scientific identification
of individuals, especially through the use of biometrics and DNA analysis,
most notably in their use in identity documentation.
" (Bron, pp. 17-18. Overige
documentatie vanaf 2003 tot heden staat HIER online.)

Inmiddels is het dan ook aan diezelfde Raad van Europa om sindsdien al te ver doorgeslagen nationale wetgeving in kaart te gaan brengen. Waar deze wetgeving in strijd is met de mensenrechten dient de betreffende lidstaat tot de orde te worden geroepen. Privacy First ziet de uitvoering van deze taken door de Secretaris-Generaal van de Raad van Europa met vertrouwen tegemoet.

biometricsdigitalmedia-freeofrights

Gepubliceerd in Biometrie
vrijdag, 08 oktober 2010 22:17

The Fair Information Principles

The general philosophy of the Fair Information Principles

1. Notice/Awareness

The most fundamental principle is notice. Consumers should be given notice of an entity's information practices before any personal information is collected from them. Without notice, a consumer cannot make an informed decision as to whether and to what extent to disclose personal information. Moreover, three of the other principles discussed below -- choice/consent, access/participation, and enforcement/redress -- are only meaningful when a consumer has notice of an entity's policies, and his or her rights with respect thereto.

While the scope and content of notice will depend on the entity's substantive information practices, notice of some or all of the following have been recognized as essential to ensuring that consumers are properly informed before divulging personal information:

  • identification of the entity collecting the data;
  • identification of the uses to which the data will be put;
  • identification of any potential recipients of the data;
  • the nature of the data collected and the means by which it is collected if not obvious (passively, by means of electronic monitoring, or actively, by asking the consumer to provide the information);
  • whether the provision of the requested data is voluntary or required, and the consequences of a refusal to provide the requested information; and
  • the steps taken by the data collector to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and quality of the data.

Some information practice codes state that the notice should also identify any available consumer rights, including: any choice respecting the use of the data; whether the consumer has been given a right of access to the data; the ability of the consumer to contest inaccuracies; the availability of redress for violations of the practice code; and how such rights can be exercised.

In the Internet context, notice can be accomplished easily by the posting of an information practice disclosure describing an entity's information practices on a company's site on the Web. To be effective, such a disclosure should be clear and conspicuous, posted in a prominent location, and readily accessible from both the site's home page and any Web page where information is collected from the consumer. It should also be unavoidable and understandable so that it gives consumers meaningful and effective notice of what will happen to the personal information they are asked to divulge.

2. Choice/Consent

The second widely-accepted core principle of fair information practice is consumer choice or consent. At its simplest, choice means giving consumers options as to how any personal information collected from them may be used. Specifically, choice relates to secondary uses of information -- i.e., uses beyond those necessary to complete the contemplated transaction. Such secondary uses can be internal, such as placing the consumer on the collecting company's mailing list in order to market additional products or promotions, or external, such as the transfer of information to third parties.

Traditionally, two types of choice/consent regimes have been considered: opt-in or opt-out. Opt-in regimes require affirmative steps by the consumer to allow the collection and/or use of information; opt-out regimes require affirmative steps to prevent the collection and/or use of such information. The distinction lies in the default rule when no affirmative steps are taken by the consumer. Choice can also involve more than a binary yes/no option. Entities can, and do, allow consumers to tailor the nature of the information they reveal and the uses to which it will be put. Thus, for example, consumers can be provided separate choices as to whether they wish to be on a company's general internal mailing list or a marketing list sold to third parties. In order to be effective, any choice regime should provide a simple and easily-accessible way for consumers to exercise their choice.

In the online environment, choice easily can be exercised by simply clicking a box on the computer screen that indicates a user's decision with respect to the use and/or dissemination of the information being collected. The online environment also presents new possibilities to move beyond the opt-in/opt-out paradigm. For example, consumers could be required to specify their preferences regarding information use before entering a Web site, thus effectively eliminating any need for default rules.

3. Access/Participation

Access is the third core principle. It refers to an individual's ability both to access data about him or herself -- i.e., to view the data in an entity's files -- and to contest that data's accuracy and completeness. Both are essential to ensuring that data are accurate and complete. To be meaningful, access must encompass timely and inexpensive access to data, a simple means for contesting inaccurate or incomplete data, a mechanism by which the data collector can verify the information, and the means by which corrections and/or consumer objections can be added to the data file and sent to all data recipients.

4. Integrity/Security

The fourth widely accepted principle is that data be accurate and secure. To assure data integrity, collectors must take reasonable steps, such as using only reputable sources of data and cross-referencing data against multiple sources, providing consumer access to data, and destroying untimely data or converting it to anonymous form.

Security involves both managerial and technical measures to protect against loss and the unauthorized access, destruction, use, or disclosure of the data. Managerial measures include internal organizational measures that limit access to data and ensure that those individuals with access do not utilize the data for unauthorized purposes. Technical security measures to prevent unauthorized access include encryption in the transmission and storage of data; limits on access through use of passwords; and the storage of data on secure servers or computers that are inaccessible by modem.

5. Enforcement/Redress

It is generally agreed that the core principles of privacy protection can only be effective if there is a mechanism in place to enforce them. Absent an enforcement and redress mechanism, a fair information practice code is merely suggestive rather than prescriptive, and does not ensure compliance with core fair information practice principles.

 

 

The Fair Information Principles as put into Canadian Law

Klik hier voor de bron.

These principles are usually referred to as “fair information principles”.

They are included in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), Canada’s private-sector privacy law, and called "Privacy Principles".

Privacy Principles

Principle 1 — Accountability

An organization is responsible for personal information under its control and shall designate an individual or individuals who are accountable for the organization’s compliance with the following principles.

Principle 2 — Identifying Purposes

The purposes for which personal information is collected shall be identified by the organization at or before the time the information is collected.

Principle 3 — Consent

The knowledge and consent of the individual are required for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information, except where inappropriate.

Principle 4 — Limiting Collection

The collection of personal information shall be limited to that which is necessary for the purposes identified by the organization. Information shall be collected by fair and lawful means.

Principle 5 — Limiting Use, Disclosure, and Retention

Personal information shall not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which it was collected, except with the consent of the individual or as required by law. Personal information shall be retained only as long as necessary for the fulfilment of those purposes.

Principle 6 — Accuracy

Personal information shall be as accurate, complete, and up-to-date as is necessary for the purposes for which it is to be used.

Principle 7 — Safeguards

Personal information shall be protected by security safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the information.

Principle 8 — Openness

An organization shall make readily available to individuals specific information about its policies and practices relating to the management of personal information.

Principle 9 — Individual Access

Upon request, an individual shall be informed of the existence, use, and disclosure of his or her personal information and shall be given access to that information. An individual shall be able to challenge the accuracy and completeness of the information and have it amended as appropriate.

Principle 10 — Challenging Compliance

An individual shall be able to address a challenge concerning compliance with the above principles to the designated individual or individuals accountable for the organization’s compliance.

 

Gepubliceerd in Filosofie
Pagina 20 van 20

Onze Partners

logo Voys Privacyfirst
logo greenhost
logo platfrm
logo AKBA
logo boekx
logo brandeis
 
banner ned 1024px1
logo demomedia
 
 
 
 
 
Pro Bono Connect logo 100
Control Privacy
Procis

Volg ons via Twitter

twitter icon

Volg onze RSS-feed

rss icon

Volg ons op LinkedIn

linked in icon

Volg ons op Facebook

facebook icon