Information privacy
Information privacy is the relationship between the collection and dissemination of
or data protection.Authorities
Laws
- General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (European Union)[3]
- General Personal Data Protection Law (Brazil)
- Data Protection Directive (European Union)
- California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) (California)
- Privacy Act (Canada)
- Privacy Act 1988 (Australia)
- Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 (India)
- China Cyber Security Law (CCSL) (China)
- Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) (China)
- Data Protection Act, 2012 (Ghana)
- Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (Singapore)[4]
- Republic Act No. 10173: Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Philippines)[5]
- Data protection (privacy) laws in Russia
- Data Protection Act 2018 (United Kingdom)
- Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) (Bahrain)
Authorities by country
- National data protection authorities in the European Union and the European Free Trade Association
- Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (Australia)
- Privacy Commissioner (New Zealand)
- Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL, France)
- Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (Germany)
- Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (Hong Kong)
- Data Protection Commissioner (Ireland)
- Office of the Data Protection Supervisor (Isle of Man)
- National Privacy Commission (Philippines)
- Personal Data Protection Commission([[]])
- Turkish Data Protection Authority (KVKK, Turkey)
- Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (Switzerland)
- Information Commissioner's Office (ICO, United Kingdom)
- Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD, Spain)
Information types
Various types of
Cable television
This describes the ability to control what information one reveals about oneself over cable television, and who can access that information. For example, third parties can track IP TV programs someone has watched at any given time. "The addition of any information in a broadcasting stream is not required for an audience rating survey, additional devices are not requested to be installed in the houses of viewers or listeners, and without the necessity of their cooperations, audience ratings can be automatically performed in real-time."[6]
Educational
In the United Kingdom in 2012, the Education Secretary Michael Gove described the National Pupil Database as a "rich dataset" whose value could be "maximised" by making it more openly accessible, including to private companies. Kelly Fiveash of The Register said that this could mean "a child's school life including exam results, attendance, teacher assessments and even characteristics" could be available, with third-party organizations being responsible for anonymizing any publications themselves, rather than the data being anonymized by the government before being handed over. An example of a data request that Gove indicated had been rejected in the past, but might be possible under an improved version of privacy regulations, was for "analysis on sexual exploitation".[7]
Financial
Information about a person's financial transactions, including the amount of assets, positions held in stocks or funds, outstanding debts, and purchases can be sensitive. If criminals gain access to information such as a person's accounts or credit card numbers, that person could become the victim of fraud or identity theft. Information about a person's purchases can reveal a great deal about that person's history, such as places they have visited, whom they have contact with, products they have used, their activities and habits, or medications they have used. In some cases, corporations may use this information to target individuals with marketing customized towards those individual's personal preferences, which that person may or may not approve.[7]
Internet
The ability to control the information one reveals about oneself over the internet and who can access that information has become a growing concern. These concerns include whether
The advent of various
To avoid giving away too much personal information, emails should be encrypted. Browsing of web pages as well as other online activities should be done traceless via "anonymizers", in case those are not trusted, by open-source distributed anonymizers, so-called
Email is not the only internet content with privacy concerns. In an age where increasing amounts of information are online, social networking sites pose additional privacy challenges. People may be tagged in photos or have valuable information exposed about themselves either by choice or unexpectedly by others, referred to as participatory surveillance. Data about location can also be accidentally published, for example, when someone posts a picture with a store as a background. Caution should be exercised when posting information online. Social networks vary in what they allow users to make private and what remains publicly accessible.[12] Without strong security settings in place and careful attention to what remains public, a person can be profiled by searching for and collecting disparate pieces of information, leading to cases of cyberstalking[13] or reputation damage.[14]
Cookies are used on websites so that users may allow the website to retrieve some information from the user's internet, but they usually do not mention what the data being retrieved is.[15] In 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) passed a regulation that forces websites to visibly disclose to consumers their information privacy practices, referred to as cookie notices.[15] This was issued to give consumers the choice of what information about their behavior they consent to letting websites track; however, its effectiveness is controversial.[15] Some websites may engage in deceptive practices such as placing cookie notices in places on the page that are not visible or only giving consumers notice that their information is being tracked but not allowing them to change their privacy settings.[15] Apps like Instagram and Facebook collect user data for a personalized app experience; however, they track user activity on other apps, which jeopardizes users' privacy and data. By controlling how visible these cookie notices are, companies can discreetly collect data, giving them more power over consumers.[15]
Locational
As location tracking capabilities of mobile devices are advancing (location-based services), problems related to user privacy arise. Location data is among the most sensitive data currently being collected.[16] A list of potentially sensitive professional and personal information that could be inferred about an individual knowing only their mobility trace was published in 2009 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[17] These include the movements of a competitor sales force, attendance of a particular church or an individual's presence in a motel, or at an abortion clinic. A recent MIT study[18][19] by de Montjoye et al. showed that four spatio-temporal points, approximate places and times, are enough to uniquely identify 95% of 1.5 million people in a mobility database. The study further shows that these constraints hold even when the resolution of the dataset is low. Therefore, even coarse or blurred datasets provide little anonymity.
Medical
People may not wish for their medical records to be revealed to others due to the confidentiality and sensitivity of what the information could reveal about their health. For example, they might be concerned that it might affect their insurance coverage or employment. Or, it may be because they would not wish for others to know about any medical or psychological conditions or treatments that would bring embarrassment upon themselves. Revealing medical data could also reveal other details about one's personal life.[20] There are three major categories of medical privacy: informational (the degree of control over personal information), physical (the degree of physical inaccessibility to others), and psychological (the extent to which the doctor respects patients' cultural beliefs, inner thoughts, values, feelings, and religious practices and allows them to make personal decisions).[21] Physicians and psychiatrists in many cultures and countries have standards for doctor–patient relationships, which include maintaining confidentiality. In some cases, the physician–patient privilege is legally protected. These practices are in place to protect the dignity of patients, and to ensure that patients feel free to reveal complete and accurate information required for them to receive the correct treatment.[22] To view the United States' laws on governing privacy of private health information, see HIPAA and the HITECH Act. The Australian law is the Privacy Act 1988 Australia as well as state-based health records legislation.
Political
Legality
The legal protection of the right to privacy in general – and of data privacy in particular – varies greatly around the world.[24]
Laws and regulations related to Privacy and Data Protection are constantly changing, it is seen as important to keep abreast of any changes in the law and to continually reassess compliance with data privacy and security regulations.[25] Within academia, Institutional Review Boards function to assure that adequate measures are taken to ensure both the privacy and confidentiality of human subjects in research.[26]
- Healthcare records
- Criminal justice investigations and proceedings
- Financialinstitutions and transactions
- genetic material
- Residence and geographic records
- Privacy breach
- geolocation
- persistent cookies
- Academic research
Protection of privacy in information systems
As heterogeneous information systems with differing privacy rules are interconnected and information is shared, policy appliances will be required to reconcile, enforce, and monitor an increasing amount of privacy policy rules (and laws). There are two categories of technology to address privacy protection in commercial IT systems: communication and enforcement.
- Policy communication
- P3P – The Platform for Privacy Preferences. P3P is a standard for communicating privacy practices and comparing them to the preferences of individuals.
- Policy enforcement
- XACML – The Extensible Access Control Markup Language together with its Privacy Profile is a standard for expressing privacy policies in a machine-readable language which a software system can use to enforce the policy in enterprise IT systems.
- EPAL – The Enterprise Privacy Authorization Language is very similar to XACML, but is not yet a standard.
- WS-Privacy - "Web Service Privacy" will be a specification for communicating privacy policy in web services. For example, it may specify how privacy policy information can be embedded in the SOAP envelope of a web service message.
- Protecting privacy on the internet
On the internet many users give away a lot of information about themselves: unencrypted e-mails can be read by the administrators of an
- Improving privacy through individualization
Computer privacy can be improved through individualization. Currently security messages are designed for the "average user", i.e. the same message for everyone. Researchers have posited that individualized messages and security "nudges", crafted based on users' individual differences and personality traits, can be used for further improvements for each person's compliance with computer security and privacy.[28]
United States Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues
The
The program regulates the exchange of passenger name record information between the EU and the US. According to the EU directive, personal data may only be transferred to third countries if that country provides an adequate level of protection. Some exceptions to this rule are provided, for instance when the controller themself can guarantee that the recipient will comply with the data protection rules.
The European Commission has set up the "Working party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data," commonly known as the "Article 29 Working Party". The Working Party gives advice about the level of protection in the European Union and third countries.[31]
The Working Party negotiated with U.S. representatives about the protection of personal data, the
The Safe Harbor program addresses this issue in the following way: rather than a blanket law imposed on all organizations in the United States, a voluntary program is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. U.S. organizations which register with this program, having self-assessed their compliance with a number of standards, are "deemed adequate" for the purposes of Article 25. Personal information can be sent to such organizations from the EEA without the sender being in breach of Article 25 or its EU national equivalents. The Safe Harbor was approved as providing adequate protection for personal data, for the purposes of Article 25(6), by the European Commission on 26 July 2000.[33]
Under the Safe Harbor, adoptee organizations need to carefully consider their compliance with the onward transfer obligations, where personal data originating in the EU is transferred to the US Safe Harbor, and then onward to a third country. The alternative compliance approach of "binding corporate rules", recommended by many EU privacy regulators, resolves this issue. In addition, any dispute arising in relation to the transfer of HR data to the US Safe Harbor must be heard by a panel of EU privacy regulators.[34]
In July 2007, a new, controversial,
In February 2008,
See also
- Data sovereignty
- Data localization
- Digital inheritance
- Digital self-determination
- ePrivacy Regulation
- Genetic privacy
- Pirate Party
- Privacy
- Privacy by design
- Privacy enhancing technologies
- Privacy law
- Privacy software
- Web literacy (privacy)
- Computer science specific
- Organisations
- Confederation of European Data Protection Organisations
- Data Privacy Day (28 January)
- International Association of Privacy Professionals (headquartered in USA)
- Privacy International (headquartered in UK)
- Scholars working in the field
References
- )
- ^ Ian Austen (June 22, 2011). "Canadian Inquiry Finds Privacy Issues in Sale of Used Products at Staples". The New York Times. Retrieved 2019-05-14.
- ^ "Data protection". 4 June 2021.
- ^ "Personal Data Protection Act Overview". www.pdpc.gov.sg. Archived from the original on 23 December 2017. Retrieved 20 Oct 2019.
- ^ Republic Act No. 10173: Data Privacy Act of 2012
- ^ "System for Gathering TV Audience Rating in Real Time in Internet Protocol Television Network and Method Thereof". FreePatentsOnline.com. 2010-01-14. Retrieved 2011-06-07.
- ^ a b Fiveash, Kelly (2012-11-08). "Psst: Heard the one about the National Pupil Database? Thought not". The Register. Retrieved 2012-12-12.
- ^ Bergstein, Brian (2006-06-18). "Research explores data mining, privacy". USA Today. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
- ^ Bergstein, Brian (2004-01-01). "In this data-mining society, privacy advocates shudder". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
- ^ Swartz, Nikki (2006). "U.S. Demands Google Web Data". Information Management Journal. Archived from the original on 2014-12-19. Vol. 40 Issue 3, p. 18
- ^ "VyprVPN Protects Your Privacy and Security | Golden Frog". www.vyprvpn.com. Retrieved 2019-04-03.
- ISBN 9781423999386. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
- ISBN 9780275981181.
- ISBN 9789231001888. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
- ^ S2CID 213860986.
- ISBN 9783319472898. Retrieved 9 May 2018.
- ^ Blumberg, A. Eckersley, P. (3 August 2009). "On locational privacy and how to avoid losing it forever". EFF.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - PMID 23524645.
- ^ Palmer, Jason (March 25, 2013). "Mobile location data 'present anonymity risk'". BBC News. Retrieved 12 April 2013.
- ^ Aurelia, Nicholas-Donald; Francisco, Matus, Jesus; SeungEui, Ryu; M, Mahmood, Adam (1 June 2017). "The Economic Effect of Privacy Breach Announcements on Stocks: A Comprehensive Empirical Investigation". Amcis 2011 Proceedings - All Submissions.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - .
- ^ "If a patient is below the age of 18-years does confidentiality still works or should doctor breach and inform the parents?15years girl went for... - eNotes". eNotes.
- ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-04-03.
- ^ Rakower, Lauren (2011). "Blurred Line: Zooming in on Google Street View and the Global Right to Privacy". brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu. Archived from the original on 2017-10-05.
- ^ Robert Hasty, Dr Trevor W. Nagel and Mariam Subjally, Data Protection Law in the USA. (Advocates for International Development, August 2013.)"Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-09-25. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "Institutional Review Board - Guidebook, CHAPTER IV - CONSIDERATIONS OF RESEARCH DESIGN". www.hhs.gov. October 5, 2017. Retrieved October 5, 2017.
- )
- ^ "The Myth of the Average User: Improving Privacy and Security Systems through Individualization (NSPW '15) | BLUES". blues.cs.berkeley.edu. Retrieved 2016-03-11.
- ^ "Protection of personal data". European Commission. Archived from the original on 16 June 2006.
- ^ Weiss and Archick, Martin A. and Kristin (May 19, 2016). "U.S.-EU Data Privacy: From Safe Harbor to Privacy Shield". Congressional Research Service.
- ^ "EPIC – Article 29 Working Party". epic.org. Archived from the original on 15 Aug 2021. Retrieved 2021-03-20.
- ^ "SEC (2004) 1323: The implementation of Commission Decision 520/2000/EC on the adequate protection of personal data provided by the Safe Harbour privacy Principles and related Frequently Asked Questions issued by the US Department of Commerce" (PDF). European Commission. 20 October 2004. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 July 2006.
- Eur-Lex.
- ^ "Q&A on the European Data Protection Authorities Panel foreseen by the Safe Harbour Decision" (PDF). European Commission. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-07-24.
- ^ Rue 89, 4 March 2008 (in English)
- ^ "New EU-US PNR Agreement on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data – CHALLENGE | Liberty & Security". libertysecurity.org. Archived from the original on 12 January 2012. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) - ^ Statewatch, US changes the privacy rules to exemption access to personal data September 2007
- ^ Brussels attacks new US security demands, European Observer. See also Statewatch newsletter February 2008
- ^ Statewatch, March 2008
Further reading
- Philip E. Agre; Marc Rotenberg (1998). Technology and privacy: the new landscape. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51101-8.
External links
- International
- Factsheet on ECtHR case law on data protection
- International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners
- Biometrics Institute Privacy Charter
- Europe
- EU data protection page
- UNESCO Chair in Data Privacy
- European Data Protection Supervisor Archived 2008-12-19 at the Wayback Machine
- Latin America
- North America
- Privacy and Access Council of Canada
- Laboratory for International Data Privacy Archived 2019-08-12 at the Wayback Machine at Carnegie Mellon University.
- Privacy Laws by State
- Journals