The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has released a discussion paper on privacy issues related to "cloud computing". This is part of their broad outreach and consultation process on privacy and new technology. You can read it here: Reaching for the Cloud(s).
On a related topic, I will be one of the keynote speakers at the Town Hall being put on by the Commissioner in Calgary next month.
The Guardian is reporting about an incident that seems at odds with the official pronouncements that body scanners at airports protect privacy:
Airport worker given police warning for 'misusing' body scanner UK news guardian.co.uk... A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "Police received an allegation regarding an incident that happened at Heathrow Terminal 5 on March 10. A first-instance harassment warning has been issued to a 25-year-old male."
The BAA employee took a photo of his co-worker, Jo Margetson, when she inadvertently went through a scanner.
"I can't bear to think about the body scanner thing," she told the Sun. "I'm totally traumatised. I've spoken to the police about it. I'm in too much of a state to go to work."...
Thanks to advanced statistical analysis and the plethora of digital crumbs scattered around the internet, every bit of data you leave behind (no matter how small) online can be used to piece together a link to your full identity and details. Scary stuff from the New York Times.
How Privacy Vanishes Online, a Bit at a Time - NYTimes.comBy STEVE LOHR
If a stranger came up to you on the street, would you give him your name, Social Security number and e-mail address?
Probably not.
Yet people often dole out all kinds of personal information on the Internet that allows such identifying data to be deduced. Services like Facebook, Twitter and Flickr are oceans of personal minutiae — birthday greetings sent and received, school and work gossip, photos of family vacations, and movies watched.
Computer scientists and policy experts say that such seemingly innocuous bits of self-revelation can increasingly be collected and reassembled by computers to help create a picture of a person’s identity, sometimes down to the Social Security number.
“Technology has rendered the conventional definition of personally identifiable information obsolete,” said Maneesha Mithal, associate director of the Federal Trade Commission’s privacy division. “You can find out who an individual is without it.”
In a class project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that received some attention last year, Carter Jernigan and Behram Mistree analyzed more than 4,000 Facebook profiles of students, including links to friends who said they were gay. The pair was able to predict, with 78 percent accuracy, whether a profile belonged to a gay male.
So far, this type of powerful data mining, which relies on sophisticated statistical correlations, is mostly in the realm of university researchers, not identity thieves and marketers.
But the F.T.C. is worried that rules to protect privacy have not kept up with technology. The agency is convening on Wednesday the third of three workshops on the issue.
Its concerns are hardly far-fetched. Last fall, Netflix awarded $1 million to a team of statisticians and computer scientists who won a three-year contest to analyze the movie rental history of 500,000 subscribers and improve the predictive accuracy of Netflix’s recommendation software by at least 10 percent.
On Friday, Netflix said that it was shelving plans for a second contest — bowing to privacy concerns raised by the F.T.C. and a private litigant. In 2008, a pair of researchers at the University of Texas showed that the customer data released for that first contest, despite being stripped of names and other direct identifying information, could often be “de-anonymized” by statistically analyzing an individual’s distinctive pattern of movie ratings and recommendations.
In social networks, people can increase their defenses against identification by adopting tight privacy controls on information in personal profiles. Yet an individual’s actions, researchers say, are rarely enough to protect privacy in the interconnected world of the Internet.
You may not disclose personal information, but your online friends and colleagues may do it for you, referring to your school or employer, gender, location and interests. Patterns of social communication, researchers say, are revealing.
“Personal privacy is no longer an individual thing,” said Harold Abelson, the computer science professor at M.I.T. “In today’s online world, what your mother told you is true, only more so: people really can judge you by your friends.”
Collected together, the pool of information about each individual can form a distinctive “social signature,” researchers say.
The power of computers to identify people from social patterns alone was demonstrated last year in a study by the same pair of researchers that cracked Netflix’s anonymous database: Vitaly Shmatikov, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Texas, and Arvind Narayanan, now a researcher at Stanford University.
By examining correlations between various online accounts, the scientists showed that they could identify more than 30 percent of the users of both Twitter, the microblogging service, and Flickr, an online photo-sharing service, even though the accounts had been stripped of identifying information like account names and e-mail addresses.
“When you link these large data sets together, a small slice of our behavior and the structure of our social networks can be identifying,” Mr. Shmatikov said.
Even more unnerving to privacy advocates is the work of two researchers from Carnegie Mellon University. In a paper published last year, Alessandro Acquisti and Ralph Gross reported that they could accurately predict the full, nine-digit Social Security numbers for 8.5 percent of the people born in the United States between 1989 and 2003 — nearly five million individuals.
Social Security numbers are prized by identity thieves because they are used both as identifiers and to authenticate banking, credit card and other transactions.
The Carnegie Mellon researchers used publicly available information from many sources, including profiles on social networks, to narrow their search for two pieces of data crucial to identifying people — birthdates and city or state of birth.
That helped them figure out the first three digits of each Social Security number, which the government had assigned by location. The remaining six digits had been assigned through methods the government didn’t disclose, although they were related to when the person applied for the number. The researchers used projections about those applications as well as other public data, like the Social Security numbers of dead people, and then ran repeated cycles of statistical correlation and inference to partly re-engineer the government’s number-assignment system.
To be sure, the work by Mr. Acquisti and Mr. Gross suggests a potential, not actual, risk. But unpublished research by them explores how criminals could use similar techniques for large-scale identity-theft schemes.
More generally, privacy advocates worry that the new frontiers of data collection, brokering and mining, are largely unregulated. They fear “online redlining,” where products and services are offered to some consumers and not others based on statistical inferences and predictions about individuals and their behavior.
The F.T.C. and Congress are weighing steps like tighter industry requirements and the creation of a “do not track” list, similar to the federal “do not call” list, to stop online monitoring.
But Jon Kleinberg, a professor of computer science at Cornell University who studies social networks, is skeptical that rules will have much impact. His advice: “When you’re doing stuff online, you should behave as if you’re doing it in public — because increasingly, it is.”
According to the New York Times, Facebook is going to roll out full-blown location sharing in April. From the NYT's Bits Blog:
Facebook Will Allow Users to Share Location - Bits Blog - NYTimes.comIn preparation for the introduction, Facebook updated its privacy policy last November. The new policy states: “When you share your location with others or add a location to something you post, we treat that like any other content you post.”
At that time, the company also offered some foreshadowing of the new feature: “If we offer a service that supports this type of location sharing we will present you with an opt-in choice of whether you want to participate.”
Facebook has been working on a location-based tool for close to a year, but decided to wait until the product was completely ready for mainstream adoption before announcing it, said the people with knowledge of the project.
My latest posting on slaw.ca:
Drawing the curtain on ISP cooperation with law enforcement – SlawI've been a faithful follower of Cryptome for quite some time. Cryptome has been posting very interesting and controversial content on the internet since 1996. It was the first WikiLeaks. Recent readers would note some publications that are very interesting for those who are interested a look at the level of cooperation of between internet service providers and law enforcement. Some of the reaction has been overblown, in my view. Nobody should be surprised that service providers hand over customer information in response to warrants and subpoenaes. Where the law requires it, banks do it, pharmacies do it, libraries do it and credit card companies do it. I think it would be shocking if service providers didn't have policies and procedures for this. What would be more troubling would be the extent to which service providers hand over information in the absence of a lawful requirement.
Most recently, Microsoft served a DMCA notice on Cryptome and its hosting provider, demanding that their Global Criminal Compliance Handbook be removed. Cryptome countered and Microsoft ultimately caved. My personal view is that service providers should make this information public so that customers really understand their digital footprints.
So if you want to see what Facebook, AOL, PayPal, MySpace, AOL and Skype will provide in response to a lawful demand, check out Cryptome.
And for lawyers, these documents will tell you what you can expect to get in response to a lawful demand.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta has just ordered Marks' Work Wearhouse to stop carrying out routine credit checks on prospective employees in Investigation Report P2010-IR-001.
From the Commissioner's website:
February 23, 2010Mark’s Work Wearhouse investigated under the Personal Information Protection Act
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has found that Mark’s Work Wearhouse (MWW) contravened the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) when the organization conducted pre-employment credit checks for its job applicants.
The complainant had applied for a job with MWW as a sales associate. During the complainant’s in-person interview with the organization he signed a declaration of understanding for a credit check. Shortly after the interview he was contacted by MWW and asked to explain his credit rating and how he was resolving his credit issue. The complainant explained to MWW that in the past an error in processing his paper work between the federal government and his bank concerning his student loans had occurred. Due to a lack of financial resources he could not resolve the matter.
The complainant was unsuccessful in obtaining the sales associate position with MWW. MWW advanced that the organization conducted a pre-employment credit check in regard to the complainant as the information provides an assessment of how job applicants will handle financial responsibilities and tasks with their employment duties as a sales associate; and it is an assessment of whether the job applicants have a probable risk of in-store theft or fraud. The investigator found that the personal credit information collected by MWW was not reasonably required to assess the complainant’s ability to perform the duties a sales associate, or to assess whether he might have a tendency towards committing in-store theft or fraud.
MWW agreed to cease the collection of personal credit information of sales associate applicants as part of its hiring process.
Some coverage: Canadian HR Reporter - Article View.
The Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan is reportedly having to scale back services after the provincial government nixed a request for additional resources to hire another investigator. Gary Dickson's office not only administers the public sector access and privacy law, but he has to deal with the health privacy law that covers public and private sector healthcare.
I'm not sure you can truly be independent of the government if you have to go begging to it for adequate funds.
Saskatchewan privacy commissioner cuts services citing lack of resources - Winnipeg Free PressREGINA - Saskatchewan's privacy commissioner says his office is in crisis and is being forced to cut back services because of a lack of funding from the provincial government.
Gary Dickson says surging demand for service has overwhelmed his office and the current three investigators cannot sustain the caseload.
He says despite his plea, the government's Board of Internal Economy has denied a request for $129,000 to hire another investigator and set up office space for that person.
"I've said to the board when I appeared in front of them, and I used the word very consciously, our office is in a crisis in terms of being swamped with demands for service from the people who live in the province," Dickson said Monday.
"We just cannot possibly ... respond to that demand in any kind of reasonable time frame."
Dickson says the number of reviews and complaints is up by 113 per cent over last year. Requests for advice and inquiries from public bodies and health trustees are also up.
Some people have been waiting for more than three years for a resolution to their case file, he says. The three investigators currently have a caseload of 376 reviews and investigations.
"Something has to give," says Dickson.
"So what we've decided to do is try and be transparent to the people of the province in terms of how this is going to translate into waits and delays."
The commissioner says his office will send letters to everyone who requests an investigation or review alerting them that they should not expect any action on their file for approximately 12 to 18 months.
Dickson also says all public organizations should expect significant cutbacks and delays if they need consultation on a project.
The privacy commissioner's office oversees some 3,000 bodies including ministries, Crown corporations, boards, commissions, agencies, schools, regional health authorities, municipalities, universities, colleges and health trustees.
The commissioner says the decision by the board will diminish how accountable public bodies are to the people of Saskatchewan.
"Manitoba, with roughly the same population, would have six investigators. Newfoundland and Labrador I think has more than six investigators (and) half the population. They certainly don't oversee 3,000 public bodies and health trustees," says Dickson.
Saskatchewan Justice Minister Don Morgan, who sits on the board of internal economy, says the privacy commissioner's budget has been steadily rising since 2002. That can't continue during tough financial times, he says.
"We're in times of fiscal restraint and we're expecting all ministries, all government agencies to try and work within existing budgets wherever they can," says Morgan.
The province is trying to cope with a big hole in last year's budget when potash revenue fell $1.8 billion.
The Saskatchewan government will deliver its new budget March 24, but Premier Brad Wall has already warned there won't be big spending increases - in fact, cuts are in the works.
Morgan said there's no way of controlling how many complaints the privacy commissioner's office receives, but he wants to cut the number if possible.
"We would like to work with the privacy commissioner to find ways that we can reduce the backlog in their office and try and find some efficiencies by having more of the requests dealt with at the ministry levels rather than through his office," he says.
There's a lot of power in social media, but many tweet or update their status withouth thinking about what they are telling the world. This issue is especially acute when it comes to location-based information. If you're telling the world you're at your local Starbucks, you're telling everyone that you're not at home. Burglars may be interested in that, if they can match your tweets with your home address. A new website, Please Rob Me, vividly illustrates the issue. See also: Please Rob Me Makes Foursquare Super Useful For Burglars.
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland has released what I think is a very important decision under that province's access to information legislation. The dispute in Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2010 NLTD 31 (not yet on CanLII) centered around whether the Information and Privacy Commissioner has the authority to request and review documents that were alleged to be subject to solicitor-client privilege.
The relevant portion of the Act on which the Commissioner was relying provides:
52. (1) The commissioner has the powers, privileges and immunities that are or may be conferred on a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act.(2) The commissioner may require any record in the custody or under the control of a public body that the commissioner considers relevant to an investigation to be produced to the commissioner and may examine information in a record, including personal information.
(3) The head of a public body shall produce to the commissioner within 14 days a record or copy of a record required under this section, notwithstanding another Act or regulations or a privilege under the law of evidence.
The Court concluded that solicitor-client privilege, though it may have started as a rule of evidence, is a substantive right that it not interfered with by Section 52(1). This is consistent with Privacy Commissioner of Canada v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, 2008 SCC 44 (S.C.C.).
Justice Marshall wrote:
[90] Section 52(3) of the ATIPPA does not oblige the DOJ to provide the Commissioner with solicitor-client records. The language of section 52(3) does not capture solicitor-client privileged documents. Similarly, section 52(2) does not give the Commissioner power to demand solicitor-client records. The open-textured language of section 52(2) is to be read as not including solicitor-client documents (Blood Tribe). Similarly, a restrictive interpretation of section 52(3) dictates that describing privilege solely as a rule of evidence is not broad enough to capture solicitor-client privilege. While this finding is based on a restrictive interpretation, it is also consistent with the objects of the ATIPPA. The “mischief” has been remedied by the legislature which has given the Commissioner the power of review; but not the power to violate solicitor-client privilege which is a “fundamental civil and legal right”.
Following in the footsteps of British Columbia and Alberta, bar owners in Halifax are talking about rolling out a "Bar Watch" program. You can read about other programs here: id swiping.
What is particularly troubling or at the very least needs close scrutiny is the suggestion that the banned list is going to originate from the police. So far, I haven't seen what gives the police the right to decide who goes into licensed establishments and what criteria they will use. I haven't seen any detail about how it with be implemented and what information will be demanded from all bar patrons.
Stay tuned.
Bar owners see police role in managing ban (UNews)The group spearheading a citywide bar-goer blacklist may rely on police to provide personal information of banned patrons, according to a spokesperson for the group.
"I'm assuming that the police would hand it over to us, I can't see why they wouldn't," said Richard Stevens of the Restaurant Association of Nova Scotia. "I'm fairly certain that that's the way it would go."
Stevens is a co-owner of the Pogue Fado Irish Public House, as well as chair of the association's government-affairs committee. That committee met Thursday with its partners in this project - the municipality, police and provincial liquor enforcement officials - and agreed in principle to proceed with the plan.
The Bar Watch program, as it's been dubbed, may begin as early as April, but there's a lot still up in the air. Though Stevens said he's just speculating at this point, maintaining a database of patrons barred from Halifax's drinking establishments would be key.
This list would likely contain "very basic biographical information about the person," such as name and address, he said. Some details of the incident that earned them their spot on the list may also be included, including names of witnesses and security staff involved.
The list would be maintained by the association, and only bar owners and general managers would be able to add people to it. Bar security would only see the names of banned patrons, not their full details.
"It would take a significant incident (to get on the list). This isn't anything that any of the owners take lightly," Stevens said.
"I'm assuming that probably 75 to 80 per cent of the people that end up getting barred, the police would probably end up getting involved anyway ... because it would be that serious."
Even if bar security have to restrain patrons involved in a fight or another serious incident, the bouncers have no right to search them for ID, he said.
"If they fail to provide identification, if and when they've been restrained after an incident, we'd call the police," he said. "The police would come and the police would get that information."
Stevens said he believes the police will provide the information necessary for the blacklist. Arrest records are public.
Police advising, but no word on further role
Halifax Regional Police spokesperson Cst. Brian Palmeter said the police's role "is to provide any guidance or assistance that they would ask from us."
"All that we're really saying about it is that we're aware the Restaurant Association has had some preliminary discussions about this ... We would support anything that any business would do to make it safer for their customers ... but as far as this goes, this is something that they're looking at doing. It's not a police matter."
At the time, Palmeter was not asked and did not comment on whether police would provide the association with personal information of patrons.
Stevens said the police have been advising the association on the administration of the program.
"They have a lot more experience with these programs than we do," he said. "They're guiding us along, providing advice, and they're going to stay by our side ... until we get this thing up and running."
Stevens said the police could be involved in this capacity for one to two years.
The next step in getting this program off the ground is a meeting with "the key stakeholders around HRM," which Stevens said he expects within the next two or three weeks.
"We'll target, with the help of the police force, 10 or 12 key establishments, contact the owners, and call them in for a meeting where we'll describe the program, its objectives, what we hope to accomplish, and ask them to get onboard."
