close sidebar

Citations

Privacy in 2015: timing is everything - New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner blog

­February, 10 2015

A good example was the initiative to develop the 13 Principles on Communications Surveillance. This responded to concerns at the global level about the lack of clarity for policy makers, product developers, platform providers, and legal experts about what protection for privacy looks like for new developments such as cloud storage, big data, and communications surveillance.

Source

Privacy principles for surveillance in the digital age

August, 1, 2013 - by Tamir Israel, The Samuelson­Glushko.

Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) has joined over 120 civil society groups from around the world in endorsing a set of principles geared towards re­asserting what it means to protect privacy and associated human rights in light of increasing state surveillance capacities.

Source

Public Oversight and The Rule of Law

September 17, 2014 - by Joe McNamee.

One of the most striking elements of the surveillance practices is the extent to which laws and judicial procedures have been breached, ignored and undermined by agencies whose tasks it is to uphold the rule of law.

Source

PUMA: amenazas a la intimidad y a la libertad de expresión

July 1, 2013 - by Carolina Botero.

Una cosa es vigilar ciudadanos en procesos judiciales. Otra cosa es espiar por razones de inteligencia. Tras la amarga experiencia de las chuzadas del DAS (q.e.p.d), el PUMA no inspira confianza. (…) la vigilancia para inteligencia es una auténtica amenaza, como afirman La Rue y Botero: los programas de inteligencia tienen que estar sometidos a sistemas de control que prevengan violaciones a los derechos fundamentales. Es necesario definir democráticamente los principios que deben guiar estas actividades.

Source

Report and Recommendations of The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies

­December 2013

As we have seen, however, that assumption [collection of metadata does not seriously invade individual privacy, as it is meaningfully different from other information (content)] is questionable. In a world of ever more complex technology, it is increasingly unclear whether the distinction between ‘meta­data’ and other information carries much weight.120

Source

Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age A/HRC/27/37

­September 2014 - At the Human Rights Council’s twenty ­seventh session. Unlike certain other provisions of the Covenant, article 17 does not include an explicit limitations clause. Guidance on the meaning of the qualifying words “arbitrary or unlawful” nonetheless can be drawn from the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;1 the practice of the Human Rights Committee as reflected in its general comments, including Nos. 16, 27, 29, 34, and 31, findings on individual communications2 and concluding observations;3 regional and national case law;4 and the views of independent experts.5 In its general comment No. 31 on the nature of the general legal obligation on States parties to the Covenant, for example, the Human Rights Committee provides that States parties must refrain from violation of the rights recognized by the Covenant, and that “any restrictions on any of [those] rights must be permissible under the relevant provisions of the Covenant. Where such restrictions are made, States must demonstrate their necessity and only take such measures as are proportionate to the pursuance of legitimate aims in order to ensure continuous and effective protection of Covenant rights.”6 The Committee further underscored that “in no case may the restrictions be applied or invoked in a manner that would impair the essence of a Covenant right.”

    1. See E/CN.4/1985/4, annex.
    1. For example, communication No. 903/1999, 2004, Van Hulst v. The Netherlands.
    1. CCPR /C/USA/CO/4.
    1. For example, European Court of Human Rights, Uzun v. Germany, 2 September 2010, and Weber and Soravia v. Germany, para. 4; and Inter­American Court of Human Rights, Escher v. Brazil, Judgment, 20 November 2009.
    1. See A/HRC/13/37 and A/HRC/23/40. See also I nternational Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance, available from https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text.
    1. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, para. 6.
Source

RWB signs 'International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance'

July 31, 2013 - by Reporters Sans Frontières.

Reporters Without Borders has joined around 100 other organizations in signing the “International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance,” which were developed by Access, EFF and Privacy International with the help of a group of international experts.

Source

Share Defense calls upon Serbia to protect privacy against unchecked Internet surveillance

September 23, 2013 - by SHARE Defense­ SHARE Conference. Share Defense joins a huge international coalition in calling upon Serbia to assess whether national surveillance laws and activities are in line with their international human rights obligations. The 13 Principles set out for the first time an evaluative framework for assessing surveillance practices in the context of international human rights obligations.

Source

Share Defense poziva Srbiju da zaštiti privatnost od nekontrolisanog nadgledanja Interneta

September 23, 2013 - by SHARE Defense ­ SHARE Conference. Share Defense se danas pridružio velikoj međunarodnoj koaliciji za zaštitu digitalnih prava i ovim putem poziva nadležne državne organe da naprave procenu u kojoj meri su zakoni koji se odnose na elektronski nadzor u skladu sa međunarodnim standardima o poštovanju ljudskih prava.Sa ovih trinaest principa se po prvi put uspostavlja okvir za procenu vršenja nadzora u kontekstu međunarodnih obaveza o ljudskim pravima.

Source

Spotlighting surveillance: Where states can lead on transparency reporting

September 17, 2014 - by Peter Micek.

At their best, ‘transparency reports’ can reveal the scope and scale of surveillance online. Generally, they include aggregate statistics of requests that governments issue for user data, giving details like the type of request, why it was issued, and whether the recipient complied. They’re one of the proactive ways that companies, governments ­­ really any entity dealing with user data ­­ can speak directly to users about privacy and free expression online. To date, however, States have lagged far behind when it comes to reporting on their surveillance activity.

Source