Welcome to Identity Trust CIC

 

 

Enabling Trust: Empowering People

 

 


Latest Twitter Updates for @identitytrust

 

 

http://www.minonline.com/news/FTC-Takes-On-Privacy-as-Industry-Struggles-to-Respond_12921.html

 

Steve Smith

Monday, December 7, 2009

 

The Federal Trade Commission today opens a series ofroundtables on the

increasingly contentious topic of consumer privacy in adigital age. As

members of the industry, privacy advocates, and everyone'slawyers make

their way to Washington D.C. to add their voices to theproceedings, the

online publishing and advertising industries continue topromise but not

quite deliver the self-regulatory controls the FTC demandedof them almost a

year ago. When the FTC issued its first set of findingsabout the state of

behavioral targeting earlier this year, the group offeredguidelines it

hoped the industry would follow in policing itself. A groupof advertising

associations, led by the Interactive Advertising Bureauclaimed last summer

it would create a set of policies, a consumer educationcampaign and clear

privacy labels for ads and Web sites. As the FTC convenesits meeting today,

the IAB launches an ad campaign regarding online privacy anda Web site for

consumers dubbed "Privacy Matters."   http://www.iab.net/privacymatters/

 

At the same time The Center for Democracy and Technologylaunched a very

different consumer-facing site, "Take Back YourPrivacy" which invites

people to write their representative about the issue.

http://www.cdt.org/takebackyourprivacy

 

The site also offers a tool for reporting violations ofprivacy. A year

after the FTC first weighed in on the issue, the Internetplayers involved

do not seem to have gotten an inch closer to a credibleself-policing

mechanism, let alone consensus on what needs to be done toprotect

consumers.

 

In advance of the roundtable, several of the panel participantsfrom

consumer advocacy groups issued advance statements thatsuggest they will be

calling for more direct regulation of the industry."It's time to recognize

privacy as a fundamental human right and create a publicpolicy framework

that requires that right to be respected," say SusanGrant, Director of

Consumer Protection at Consumer Federation of America."Rather than stifling

innovation, this will spur innovative ways to make themarketplace work

better for consumers and businesses." Pam Dixon of theWorld Privacy Forum

claims that attempts at self-regulation "have beenutterly ineffective to

protect consumers. The sale of personal information is aroutine business

model for many in corporate America. ."

 

For their part, the components of the interactiveadvertising world continue

to press the side of increased consumer education about theways data are

collected on sites and making more visible opt out toolsthrough groups like

the Network Advertising Initiative. Nevertheless, it will behard for the

industry to cite its efforts at self-regulation when all ithas to show is a

new public service ad campaign and a Web site. There hadbeen plans for wide

adoption of privacy principles among advertisers andpublishers as well as

large labeling at sites and on ads that led to opt-out andeducational

materials. Those pieces of this self-policing project arestill being tested

we are told.  <| Powered by www.ISPIClips.com |>

 

But is the IAB effort too little too late? There is growinginterest among

legislators on a state and federal level to enact lawsgoverning online data

collection. The new FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz, who willopen today's

conference, had a long history of pressing for greaterprivacy control

before President Obama appointed him Chair earlier thisyear, so many in the

industry expect even greater pressure or eventual regulationto come from

the agency. A live Webcast of the event will be available atthe FTC site.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/privacyroundtables/index.shtml

 
ICO to get new powers to fine as of April 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This From: Out-Law News, July 22, 2009
http://www.out-law.com

Information Commissioner enjoys new powers to fine from April 2010
http://www.out-law.com/page-10188

OUT-LAW News,
22/07/2009

Privacy regulator the Information Commissioner will be handed new powers to
issue fines next April. The Commissioner's office has confirmed for the
first time the date on which it will be able to hand out new fines.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) was promised the long
lobbied-for powers by Government but no date had been set. The ICO says that
it has been told the new powers will take effect in April.

Under the Data Protection Act (DPA) the ICO cannot issue fines for breaches
of the eight data protection principles at the heart of the law. From next
April that will change and it will be able to issue fines for knowing or
reckless breaches of the Act's principles.

"The ICO has pressed strongly for monetary penalties where the Data
Protection Act has been knowingly or recklessly breached. Penalties are
being introduced next April, but are not yet in force," said an ICO
statement.

A spokesman for the ICO said that it did not yet know how much it would be
allowed to fine people and organisations, and that there was "some work
still being done" on the fines.

The fines can be levied by the ICO when one of the eight principles have
been seriously breached, but only if the ICO is convinced that the breach
was deliberate or that the data controller knew, or ought to have known, of
the contravention risk, and that the contravention would be likely to cause
substantial damage or substantial distress and that the controller failed to
take action to stop it. <| Powered by www.ISPIClips.com |>

The power to make the changes were introduced in the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act in 2008.

The Ministry of Justice is the Government department responsible for the
changes, but it had no comment to make on the timescale.

Rosemary Jay, a privacy law expert at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind
OUT-LAW.COM, said that it was "surprising" that the date was announced by
the ICO and not by the Ministry of Justice.

"Data controllers should be warned that they cannot rely on this timetable,"
she said. "The date has not been announced or confirmed by the relevant
Government department, the Ministry of Justice; the date of commencement is
in the hands of Parliament and the Government not the ICO."

"The position is complicated by the fact that the power to fine cannot be
brought in until all the preparatory work has been completed and a Code of
Practice issued," she said.

"The fines provisions are part of a wider agenda of increased powers for the
Information Commissioner and observers would expect many of these to be put
forward as a package by Ministers," said Jay. "The ICO will of course have
been working behind the scenes with the Ministry and will be aware of the
proposed timetable but timetables can slip, events can intervene and there
can be no certainty until Parliament has agreed the commencement order."

 

ISPI Clips 135.225: UK - Identity Trust counts surveillance cameras in
London borough
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This From: ShepherdsBushW12.com (UK), August 21, 2009
http://www.shepherdsbushw12.com/default.asp

Research group to carry out manual count of local cameras
http://www.shepherdsbushw12.com/default.asp?section=info&link=http://nnet-server.com/server/common/hfcoun075.htm

Yasmine Estaphanos
August 21, 2009

Hammersmith and Fulham Council have refused to respond to a Freedom of
Information request on the use of CCTV in the borough.

A research group known as the Identity Trust CIC requested the information
as part of a project to try and identify how many CCTV cameras there were in
certain parts of London and where they were located.
http://identitytrustcic.org

Out of 10 councils who were asked to supply the information, Hammersmith and
Fulham was one of only two which refused, saying: "By releasing the
information we would fail in a statutory function under the Crime and
Disorder Act 1998, in failing to protect the public from crime and disorder
within the borough."

Following an unsuccessful appeal, the Identity Trust CIC has now referred
the matter to the Information Commissioner and says it expects the IC will
find Hammersmith & Fulham Council to be "in breach of the Data Protection
Act".

The Identity Trust's Mark Lizar said: "Hammersmith & Fulham has used the
reason of S31 under the Crime and Disorder Act. The Council states that it
is fearful of criminals planning and carrying out crime - which shows a
misunderstanding of how CCTV works and is a mis-interpretation of the law.
The Council does not have the power to spy on people with out them knowing
it without using RIPA. In fact it calls into question whether the cameras
used to enforce traffic laws through penalties are even legal unless they
have a sign on them saying they are used for traffic control."

In their letter to the Information Commissioner, the Identity Trust CIC
write: "Identity Trust CIC asserts that the use of CCTV for reduction of
crime is misleading the public trust, as research indicates that CCTV may
increase a feeling of safety without decreasing crime. In addition, the lack
of appropriate regulation and not knowing who is watching, and when citizens
are being watched is not only a breach of trust but a serious breach of
Article 8 (of the European Charter of Human Rights)".

The Identity Trust CIC now plans to continue its research in Shepherd's Bush
and Hammersmith by inviting local residents to take part in a manual count
of CCTV cameras in the area. During the research event, which will take
place on Saturday (August 22), volunteers will be asked to take a note of
the locations of all CCTV cameras, including those owned by the Council as
well as local businesses, from Hammersmith Broadway right up to Shepherd's
Bush.  <| Powered by www.ISPIClips.com |>

Lizar says he thinks people should not assume they are safer just because
they are surrounded by CCTV cameras: "If a camera is fake and doesn't work,
should it make you feel safer? In this way it misleads you and can cause you
more harm. If a camera is operated but incorrectly so that it wont actually
make you safer, is this okay? If a camera is abused to watch and profile
you? It definitely doesn't make you safer. Digital technology is advancing
rapidly, unregulated and it's out of control. Hammersmith & Fulham's refusal
to provide CCTV camera information is an illustration of the type of
paranoia surveillance breeds," he said.

But the Council are convinced that CCTV is an effective crime-prevention and
detection tool.

Councillor Greg Smith, H&F Cabinet Member for Crime & Street Scene, says:
"CCTV cameras make criminals think twice about committing crime because they
dramatically increase the chances that those same criminals will be caught
and punished. Most CCTV cameras are there for all to see but there are
occasions where the council does use covert CCTV to protect the public
interest. The council only uses covert CCTV in cases of criminal or
anti-social behaviour. Revealing the locations of these cameras is not in
the interests of the silent majority of law-abiding residents who want us to
catch these thoughtless criminals."