What is the Definition of Online Privacy? – Winston & Strawn LLP
What is the definition of online privacy?
The definition of online privacy is the level of privacy protection an individual has while connected to the Internet. It covers the amount of online security available for personal and financial data, communications, and preferences. Internet users often attempt to increase online privacy through anti-virus software, strong password choices, turning off tracking, reviewing site security, and opting for stricter privacy settings. Risks to online privacy range from phishing scams to malware, while problems with website security may result in identity theft.
What does privacy mean on a computer? The Internet?
The complex issue of computer privacy covers the way your personal information is used, collected, shared, and stored on your personal devices and while on the Internet. Personal information about your habits, shopping, and location can be collected from your phone, GPS, and other devices—and eventually shared with third parties. Internet and device users have the right to ask how information will be used and to review online privacy policies.
Why Online Privacy Is Important | Suncorp Bank
Staying safe online can help protect you and your loved ones’ identity and personal information from risks like theft. The next time you’re on your device, keep these simple online security tips in mind:
Use strong passwords, such as those generated by and stored in a keychain, or two-factor authentication.
Install virus protection software on your devices.
Only enter personal information, like credit card details, into secure websites. A website is secure when a lock icon displays in your browser to the left of the URL.
If an organisation asks you to share personal information via email, be wary that it may be a scam. Suncorp, for example, will never ask you to do this via an email. For up-to-date info about current scams, or to report a scam, visit
Don’t share personal information like your address or phone number on social media and remember to configure your privacy settings so you know who gets to see what you post.
Suncorp has partnered with McAfee to offer our Suncorp Bank customers a free three-months of its anti-virus software for personal use. To find out more and see the terms and conditions, visit:
Privacy and Human Rights – Overview – Global Internet Liberty Campaign
Privacy and Human Rights – Overview
GLOBAL INTERNET LIBERTY CAMPAIGN
PRIVACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Practice
Acknowledgments
This report was written by Privacy
International with a grant provided by the Open Society Institute.
The primary authors of this report are David Banisar of the
Electronic Privacy Information Center and Simon Davies of Privacy
International. Additional research was provided by Wayne Madsen,
Michael Kassner, Ronnie Breckheimer, and Shauna Van Dongen.
Knowledgeable individuals from academia, government, human rights
groups and other fields were asked to submit reports and information.
Their reports were supplemented with information gathered from
Constitutions, laws, international and national government documents,
news reports, human rights reports and other sources. A list of
contributors is located at Appendix D.
OVERVIEW
Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized
in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convenant on
Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and
regional treaties. Privacy underpins human dignity and other key
values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has
become one of the most important human rights issues of the modern
age. The publication of this report reflects the growing importance,
diversity and complexity of this fundamental right.
This report provides details of the state of
privacy in fifty countries from around the world. It outlines the
constitutional and legal conditions of privacy protection, and
summarizes important issues and events relating to privacy and
surveillance.
Nearly every country in the world recognizes a
right of privacy explicitly in their Constitution. At a minimum,
these provisions include rights of inviolability of the home and
secrecy of communications. Most recently-written Constitutions such
as South Africa’s and Hungary’s include specific rights to access and
control one’s personal information.
In many of the countries where privacy is not
explicitly recognized in the Constitution, such as the United States,
Ireland and India, the courts have found that right in other
provisions. In many countries, international agreements that
recognize privacy rights such as the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights have
been adopted into law.
In the early 1970s, countries began adopting
broad laws intended to protect individual privacy. Throughout the
world, there is a general movement towards the adoption of
comprehensive privacy laws that set a framework for protection. Most
of these laws are based on the models introduced by the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Council of Europe.
In 1995, conscious both of the shortcomings of
law, and the many differences in the level of protection in each of
its States, the European Union passed a Europe-wide directive which
will provide citizens with a wider range of protections over abuses
of their data. [fn
1] The directive on the “Protection of
Individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the
free movement of such data” sets a benchmark for national law. Each
EU State must pass complementary legislation by October 1998.
The Directive also imposes an obligation on
member States to ensure that the personal information relating to
European citizens is covered by law when it is exported to, and
processed in, countries outside Europe. This requirement has resulted
in growing pressure outside Europe for the passage of privacy laws.
More than forty countries now have data protection or information
privacy laws. More are in the process of being enacted.
Reasons for Adopting Comprehensive
Laws
There are three major reasons for the movement
towards comprehensive privacy and data protection laws. Many
countries are adopting these laws for one or more reasons.
To remedy past
injustices. Many countries,
especially in Central Europe, South America and South Africa, are
adopting laws to remedy privacy violations that occurred under
previous authoritarian regimes.
To promote electronic
commerce. Many countries, especially
in Asia, but also Canada, have developed or are currently
developing laws in an effort to promote electronic commerce. These
countries recognize consumers are uneasy with their personal
information being sent worldwide. Privacy laws are being
introduced as part of a package of laws intended to facilitate
electronic commerce by setting up uniform rules.
To ensure laws are consistent with
Pan-European laws. Most countries in
Central and Eastern Europe are adopting new laws based on the
Council of Europe Convention and the European Union Data
Protection Directive. Many of these countries hope to join the
European Union in the near future. Countries in other regions,
such as Canada, are adopting new laws to ensure that trade will
not be affected by the requirements of the EU Directive.
Continuing Problems
Even with the adoption of legal and other
protections, violations of privacy remain a concern. In many
countries, laws have not kept up with the technology, leaving
significant gaps in protections. In other countries, law enforcement
and intelligence agencies have been given significant exemptions.
Finally, in the absence of adequate oversight and enforcement, the
mere presence of a law may not provide adequate protection.
There are widespread violations of laws
relating to surveillance of communications, even in the most
democratic of countries. The U. S. State Department’s annual review of
human rights violations finds that over 90 countries engage in
illegally monitoring the communications of political opponents, human
rights workers, journalists and labor organizers. In France, a
government commission estimated in 1996 that there were over 100, 000
wiretaps conducted by private parties, many on behalf of government
agencies. In Japan, police were recently fined 2. 5 million yen for
illegally wiretapping members of the Communist party.
Police services, even in countries with strong
privacy laws, still maintain extensive files on citizens not accused
or even suspected of any crime. There are currently investigations in
Sweden and Norway, two countries with the longest history of privacy
protection for police files.
Companies regularly flaunt the laws, collecting
and disseminating personal information. In the United States, even
with the long-standing existence of a law on consumer credit
information, companies still make extensive use of such information
for marketing purposes.
THREATS TO PRIVACY
The increasing sophistication of information
technology with its capacity to collect, analyze and disseminate
information on individuals has introduced a sense of urgency to the
demand for legislation. Furthermore, new developments in medical
research and care, telecommunications, advanced transportation
systems and financial transfers have dramatically increased the level
of information generated by each individual. Computers linked
together by high speed networks with advanced processing systems can
create comprehensive dossiers on any person without the need for a
single central computer system. New technologies developed by the
defense industry are spreading into law enforcement, civilian
agencies, and private companies.
According to opinion polls, concern over
privacy violations is now greater than at any time in recent history.
[fn 2] Uniformly, populations throughout the world express
fears about encroachment on privacy, prompting an unprecedented
number of nations to pass laws which specifically protect the privacy
of their citizens. Human rights groups are concerned that much of
this technology is being exported to developing countries which lack
adequate protections. Currently, there are few barriers to the trade
in surveillance technologies.
It is now common wisdom that the power,
capacity and speed of information technology is accelerating rapidly.
The extent of privacy invasion — or certainly the potential to
invade privacy — increases correspondingly.
Beyond these obvious aspects of capacity and
cost, there are a number of important trends that contribute to
privacy invasion:
GLOBALISATION removes geographical
limitations to the flow of data. The development of the Internet is
perhaps the best known example of a global technology.
CONVERGENCE is leading to the elimination of
technological barriers between systems. Modern information systems
are increasingly interoperable with other systems, and can mutually
exchange and process different forms of data.
MULTI-MEDIA fuses many forms of transmission
and expression of data and images so that information gathered in a
certain form can be easily translated into other forms.
Technology transfer and policy
convergence
The macro-trends outlined above have had
particular effect on surveillance in developing nations. In the field
of information and communications technology, the speed of policy
convergence is compressed. Across the surveillance spectrum —
wiretapping, personal ID systems, data mining, censorship or
encryption controls — it is the West which invariably sets a
proscriptive pace. [fn
3]
Governments of developing nations rely on first
world countries to supply them with technologies of surveillance such
as digital wiretapping equipment, deciphering equipment, scanners,
bugs, tracking equipment and computer intercept systems. The transfer
of surveillance technology from first to third world is now a
lucrative sideline for the arms industry. [fn 4]
According to a 1997 report “Assessing the
Technologies of Political Control” commissioned by the European
Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee and undertaken by the European
Commission’s Science and Technology Options Assessment office (STOA),
[fn 5] much of this technology is used to track the
activities of dissidents, human rights activists, journalists,
student leaders, minorities, trade union leaders, and political
opponents. The report concludes that such technologies (which it
describes as “new surveillance technology”) can exert a powerful
‘chill effect’ on those who “might wish to take a dissenting view and
few will risk exercising their right to democratic protest”. Large
scale ID systems are also useful for monitoring larger sectors of the
population. As Privacy International observed, “In the absence of
meaningful legal or constitutional protections, such technology is
inimical to democratic reform. It can certainly prove fatal to anyone
‘of interest’ to a regime. ”
Government and citizen alike may benefit from
the plethora of IT schemes being implemented by the private and
public sectors. New “smart card” projects in which client information
is placed on a chip in a card may streamline complex transactions.
The Internet will revolutionize access to basic information on
government services. Encryption can provide security and privacy for
all parties.
However, these initiatives will require a bold,
forward looking legislative framework. Whether governments can
deliver this framework will depend on their willingness to listen to
the pulse of the emerging global digital economy and to recognize the
need for strong protection of privacy.
DEFINING PRIVACY
Of all the human rights in the international
catalogue, privacy is perhaps the most difficult to define and
circumscribe. [fn
6] Privacy has roots deep in history.
The Bible has numerous references to privacy. [fn 7]
There was also substantive protection of privacy in early Hebrew
culture, Classical Greece and ancient China. [fn 8]
These protections mostly focused on the right to solitude.
Definitions of privacy vary widely according to context and
environment. In many countries, the concept has been fused with Data
Protection, which interprets privacy in terms of management of
personal information. Outside this rather strict context, privacy
protection is frequently seen as a way of drawing the line at how far
society can intrude into a person’s affairs. [fn 9]
It can be divided into the following facets:
Information Privacy, which involves the establishment of rules governing
the collection and handling of personal data such as credit
information and medical records;
Bodily privacy, which concerns the protection of people’s physical
selves against invasive procedures such as drug testing and cavity
searches;
Privacy of
communications, which covers the
security and privacy of mail, telephones, email and other forms of
communication; and
Territorial privacy, which concerns the setting of limits on intrusion
into the domestic and other environments such as the workplace or
public space.
The lack of a single definition should not
imply that the issue lacks importance. As one writer observed, “in
one sense, all human rights are aspects of the right to privacy. ”
[fn 10]
Some viewpoints on privacy:
In the 1890s, future U. Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis articulated a concept of privacy that
urged that it was the individual’s “right to be left alone. ” Brandeis
argued that privacy was the most cherished of freedoms in a
democracy, and he was concerned that it should be reflected in the
Constitution. [fn
11]
The Preamble to the Australian Privacy Charter
provides that, “A free and democratic society requires respect for
the autonomy of individuals, and limits on the power of both state
and private organizations to intrude on that autonomy.. Privacy is
a key value which underpins human dignity and other key values such
as freedom of association and freedom of speech.. Privacy is a basic
human right and the reasonable expectation of every person. ”
[fn 12]
Alan Westin, author of the seminal 1967 work
“Privacy and Freedom, ” defined privacy as the desire of people to
choose freely under what circumstances and to what extent they will
expose themselves, their attitude and their behavior to others.
[fn 13]
According to Edward Bloustein, privacy is an
interest of the human personality. It protects the inviolate
personality, the individual’s independence, dignity and integrity.
[fn 14]
According to Ruth Gavison, there are three
elements in privacy: secrecy, anonymity and solitude. It is a state
which can be lost, whether through the choice of the person in that
state or through the action of another person. [fn 15]
The Calcutt Committee in the UK said that,
“nowhere have we found a wholly satisfactory statutory definition of
privacy. ” But the committee was satisfied that it would be possible
to define it legally and adopted this definition in its first report
on privacy:
The right of the individual to be protected
against intrusion into his personal life or affairs, or those of his
family, by direct physical means or by publication of
information. [fn
16]
THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Privacy can be defined as a fundamental (though
not an absolute) human right. The law of privacy can be traced as far
back as 1361, when the Justices of the Peace Act in England provided
for the arrest of peeping toms and eavesdroppers. [fn 17] In 1765, British Lord Camden, striking down a warrant
to enter a house and seize papers wrote, “We can safely say there is
no law in this country to justify the defendants in what they have
done; if there was, it would destroy all the comforts of society, for
papers are often the dearest property any man can have. ”
[fn 18] Parliamentarian William Pitt wrote, “The poorest man
may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may
be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow though it; the storms
may enter; the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot
enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined
tenement. ”
Various countries developed specific
protections for privacy in the centuries that followed. In 1776, the
Swedish Parliament enacted the “Access to Public Records Act” which
required that all government-held information be used for legitimate
purposes. In 1792, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the
Citizen declared that private property is inviolable and sacred.
France prohibited the publication of private facts and set stiff
fines in 1858. [fn
19] In 1890, American lawyers Samuel
Warren and Louis Brandeis wrote a seminal piece on the right to
privacy as a tort action describing privacy as “the right to be left
alone. “[fn
20]
The modern privacy benchmark at an
international level can be found in the 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which specifically protected territorial and
communications privacy. Article 12 states:
No-one should be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
attacks on his honour or reputation. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interferences or attacks.
[fn 21]
Numerous international human rights covenants
give specific reference to privacy as a right. The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Convention on
Migrant Workers [fn
22] and the UN Convention on Protection
of the Child [fn
23] adopt the same language.
[fn 24]
On the regional level, these rights are
becoming enforceable. The 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, [fn 25] Article 8 states:
(1) Everyone has the right to
respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence. (2) There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except as in accordance
with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security, public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime,
for the protection of health of morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others.
The Convention created the European Commission
of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights to oversee
enforcement. Both have been particularly active in the enforcement of
privacy rights and have consistently viewed Article’s protections
expansively and the restrictions narrowly. [fn 26] The Commission found in its first decision on
privacy:
For numerous Anglo-Saxon and French authors,
the right to respect “private life” is the right to privacy, the
right to live, as far as one wishes, protected from publicity.. In
the opinion of the Commission, however, the right to respect for
private life does not end there. It comprises also, to a certain
degree, the right to establish and develop relationships with other
human beings, especially in the emotional field for the development
and fulfillment of oneís own personality. [fn 27]
The Court has reviewed member statesí
laws and imposed sanctions on several countries for failing to
regulate wiretapping by governments and private individuals.
[fn 28] It has also reviewed cases of individuals access to
their personal information in government files to ensure that
adequate procedures were implemented. [fn 29] It has expanded the protections of Article 8 beyond
government actions to those of private persons where it appears that
the government should have prohibited those actions. [fn 30] Presumably, under these combined analyses, the court
could order the imposition of data protection laws if data was
improperly processed to the detriment of the data subject.
[fn 31]
Article 11 of the American Convention on Human
Rights sets out the right to privacy in terms similar to the
Universal Declaration. [fn 32] In 1965, the Organization for American States
proclaimed the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
which called for the protection of numerous human rights including
privacy. [fn
33] The Inter-American Court of Human
Rights has also begun to addresses privacy issues in its cases.
The Evolution of Data Protection
Interest in the right of privacy increased in
the 1960s and 1970s with the advent of information technology (IT).
The surveillance potential of powerful computer systems prompted
demands for specific rules governing the collection and handling of
personal information. In many countries, new constitutions reflect
this right. The genesis of modern legislation in this area can be
traced to the first data protection law in the world enacted in the
Land of Hesse in Germany in 1970 This was followed by national laws
in Sweden (1973), the United States (1974), Germany (1977) and France
(1978). [fn
34]
Two crucial international instruments evolved
from these laws. The Council of Europe’s 1981 Convention for the
Protection of Individuals with regard to the Automatic Processing of
Personal Data [fn
35] and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development’s Guidelines Governing the Protection of
Privacy and Transborder Data Flows of Personal Data [fn 36] articulate specific rules covering the handling of
electronic data. The rules within these two documents form the core
of the Data Protection laws of dozens of countries. These rules
describe personal information as data which are afforded protection
at every step from collection through to storage and dissemination.
The right of people to access and amend their data is a primary
component of these rules.
The expression of data protection in various
declarations and laws varies only by degrees. All require that
personal information must be:
obtained fairly and lawfully;
used only for the original specified
purpose;
adequate, relevant and not excessive to
accurate and up to date; and
destroyed after its purpose is
completed.
These two agreements have had a profound effect
on the adoption of laws around the world. Over twenty countries have
adopted the COE convention and another six have signed it but have
not yet adopted it into law. The OECD guidelines have also been
widely used in national legislation, even outside the OECD countries.
The European Telecommunications Directive
and the European Data Protection Directive
In the past three years, the European Union has
enacted two directives which will provide citizens with a wider range
of protections over abuses of their data. The Directives set a
baseline common level of privacy which not only reinforces current
data protection law, but which extends it to establish a range of new
rights. The Data Protection Directive sets a benchmark for national
law which will harmonize law throughout the European Union.
[fn 37] Each EU State must pass complementary legislation by
October 1998, though it is more likely that not all will have
completed the process until the early part of 1999. The
Telecommunications Directive [fn 38] establishes specific protections covering telephone,
digital television, mobile networks and other telecommunications
systems.
Several principles of data protection are
strengthened under the Directives, namely the right to know where the
data originated, the right to have inaccurate data rectified, a right
of recourse in the event of unlawful processing and the right to
withhold permission to use data in some circumstances. For example,
individuals will have the right to opt-out free of charge from being
sent direct marketing material, without providing any specific
reason. The Data Protection Directive contains strengthened
protections over the use of sensitive personal data relating, for
example, to health or finances. In the future, the commercial and
government use of such information will generally require “explicit
and unambiguous” consent of the data subject.
The key concept in the European model is
“enforceability. ” The European Union is concerned that data subjects
have rights that are enshrined in explicit rules, and that they can
go to a person or an authority that can act on their behalf. Every EU
country will have a Privacy Commissioner or agency that enforces the
rules. It is expected that the countries with which Europe does
business will have to have a similar level of oversight.
The Directive imposes an obligation on member
States to ensure that the personal information relating to European
citizens is covered by law when it is exported to, and processed in,
countries outside Europe. [fn 39] This requirement has resulted in growing pressure
outside Europe for the passage of privacy laws. Those countries which
refuse to adopt meaningful privacy law may find themselves unable to
conduct certain types of information flows with Europe, particularly
if they involve sensitive data.
The Telecommunications Directive imposes wide
scale obligations on carriers and service providers to ensure the
privacy of users’ communications. The new rules will cover areas
which until now have fallen between the cracks of data protection
laws. Access to billing data will be severely restricted, as will
marketing activity. Caller ID technology must incorporate an option
for per-line blocking of number transmission. Information collected
in the delivery of a communication must be destroyed once the call is
Models of privacy protection
There are currently several major models for
privacy protections. In some countries, several models are used
simultaneously.
The regulatory model adopted by Europe,
Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Central and Eastern Europe and
Canada is that of a public official
who enforces a comprehensive data
protection law. This official, known variously as a Commissioner,
Ombudsman or Registrar, monitors compliance with the law and conducts
investigations into alleged breaches. In some cases the official can
find against an offender. The official is also responsible for public
education and international liaison in data protection and data
transfer. This is the preferred model for most countries adopting
data protection law. It is also the model favored by Europe to ensure
compliance with its new data protection regime. However, the powers
of the commissions vary greatly and many report a serious lack of
resources to adequately enforce the laws.
Some countries such as the United States have
avoided general data protection rules in favor of specific
sectoral laws governing, for example, video rental records and
financial privacy. In such cases, enforcement is achieved through a
range of mechanisms. The problem with this approach is that it
requires that new legislation be introduced with each new
technologies so protections frequently lag behind. The lack of legal
protections for genetic information in the U. is a striking example
of its limitations. In other countries, sectoral laws are used to
compliment comprehensive legislation by providing more detailed
protections for certain categories of information, such as police
files or consumer credit records.
Data protection can also be achieved – at least
in theory – through various forms of self regulation, in which
companies and industry bodies establish codes of practice. However,
the record of these efforts has been disappointing, with little or no
evidence that the aims of the codes are regularly fulfilled. Adequacy
and enforcement are the major problem with these approaches. Industry
codes in many countries have tended to provide only weak protections
and lack enforcement. This is currently the policy promoted by the
governments of United States, Singapore and Australia.
With the recent development of commercially
available technology-based systems, privacy protection has also moved
into the hands of individual users. Users of the Internet can employ
a range of programs and systems which will ensure varying degrees of
privacy and security of communications. Questions remain about
security and trustworthiness of these systems. Recently, the European
Commission evaluated some of the technologies and stated that the
tools would not replace a legal framework. [fn 40]
THE TECHNOLOGIES OF PRIVACY INVASION
The report found a number of technologies were
causing new concerns about the protection of privacy. Many of these
technologies were being adopted and implemented outside legal
protections.
Identity systems
Identity (ID) cards
Identity (ID) cards are in use in one form or
another in virtually all countries of the world. The type of card,
its function, and its integrity vary enormously. While a majority of
countries have official, compulsory, national IDís that are
used for a variety of purposes, many developed countries do not have
such a card. Amongst these are the United States, Canada, New
Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Nordic
countries. Those that do have such a card include Germany, France,
Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain.
ID cards are established for a variety of
reasons. Race, politics and religion were often at the heart of older
ID systems. The threat of insurgents, religious discrimination or
political extremism have been all too common as motivation for the
establishment of ID systems which would force enemies of the State
into registration, or make them vulnerable in the open without proper
documents. In Pakistan, the cards are used to enforce a quota
system.
In recent years, ID cards have been linked to
national registration systems, which in turn form the basis of
government administration. In such systems – for example Spain,
Portugal, Thailand and Singapore – the ID card becomes merely one
visible component of a much larger system. With the advent of
magnetic stripes and microprocessor technology, these cards can also
become an interface for receipt of government services. Thus the
cards become a fusion of a service technology, and a means of
identification. At the heart of such plans is a parallel increase in
police powers. Even in democratic nations, police retain the right to
demand ID on pain of detention.
In a number of countries, these systems have
been successfully challenged on constitutional privacy grounds. In
1998, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that a national ID system
violated the constitutional right to privacy. In 1991, the Hungarian
Constitutional Court ruled that a law creating a multi-use personal
identification number violated the constitutional right of privacy.
[fn 41]
Biometrics
Biometrics is the process of collecting,
processing and storing details of a personís physical
characteristics for the purpose of identification and authentication.
The most popular forms of biometric ID are retina scans, hand
geometry, thumb scans, finger prints, voice recognition, and
digitized (electronically stored) photographs. The technology has
gained the interest of governments and companies because unlike other
forms of ID such as cards or papers, it has the capacity to
accurately and intimately identify the target subject.
Biometrics schemes are being implemented across
the world. Spain has commenced a national fingerprint system for
unemployment benefit and healthcare entitlement. Russia has announced
plans for a national electronic fingerprint system for banks.
Jamaicans are required to scan their thumbs into a database before
qualifying to vote at elections. In France and Germany, tests are
under way with equipment that puts fingerprint information onto
credit cards. The technology is being used in retail outlets,
government agencies, child care centers, police forces and
automated-teller machines.
An automated immigration system developed by
the U. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) uses hand
geometry. In this project, frequent travelers have their hand
geometry stored in a “smart” computer chip card. The traveler places
a hand onto a scanner, and places the card into a slot. More than
70, 000 people have enrolled in the trial. The scheme may ultimately
result in a worldwide identification system for travelers.
The most controversial form of biometrics —
DNA identification — is benefiting from new scanning technology
which can automatically match DNA samples against a large database in
minutes. Police forces in several countries such as the United
States, Germany and Canada are creating national databases of DNA. In
the United Kingdom and the U. S., police have been demanding that all
individuals in a particular area voluntarily provide samples or face
being placed under scrutiny as a suspect.
Surveillance of Communications
Nearly all countries have established some form
of wiretapp
Frequently Asked Questions about net privacy
The definition of online privacy is the level of privacy protection an individual has while connected to the Internet. It covers the amount of online security available for personal and financial data, communications, and preferences.
Staying safe online can help protect you and your loved ones’ identity and personal information from risks like theft. … Don’t share personal information like your address or phone number on social media and remember to configure your privacy settings so you know who gets to see what you post.
Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. … Nearly every country in the world recognizes a right of privacy explicitly in their Constitution.