"Retention & Online Search: How Current Challenges for Privacy Become New Threats for Freedom of Expression" (Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, June 8, 2012)

  • 224 views
Uploaded on

On 8-9 June 2012, NGO Internews, with the support of the Annenberg School for Communication of Pennsylvania University and USAID, organised a “Conference on Internet Governance, Policy and Regulation” …

On 8-9 June 2012, NGO Internews, with the support of the Annenberg School for Communication of Pennsylvania University and USAID, organised a “Conference on Internet Governance, Policy and Regulation” in Sarajevo (Bosnia-Herzegovina).

Cedric Laurant presented some of the current challenges that privacy and data protection present for the defense of freedom of expression in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Several representatives from the Bosniak Minister of Communications, Communications Regulatory Authority, USAID and the Council of Europe assisted to the event, as well as from Bosniak NGOs working on freedom of expression issues and media organisations, together with international Internet governance, free speech and privacy experts from Europe and the United States.

Panels covered the issues of privacy, data protection and free speech in the digital age, online security, and Internet governance, policy and regulatory aspects.

More information at http://www.ulys.net/fr/conferences-489/current-privacy-and-data-protection-challenges-for-the-defense-of-free.html

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
224
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CONFERENCE  ON  INTERNET  GOVERNANCE,  POLICY  &  REGULATION   (SARAJEVO,  BOSNIA-­‐HERZEGOVINA,  8-­‐9  JUNE  2012)   INTERNEWS  &  ANNENBERG  SCHOOL  FOR  COMMUNICATION     Cédric  Laurant   A5orney-­‐at-­‐Law,  Cabinet  Ulys  (Brussels)   Principal,  Cedric  Laurant  ConsulAng     www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   1  
  • 2. RETENTION  AND  ONLINE  SEARCH:  HOW  CURRENT  CHALLENGES   FOR  PRIVACY  BECOME  NEW  THREATS  FOR  FREEDOM  OF   EXPRESSION   ü IntroducAon:  2  illustraAons   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   2  
  • 3. RETENTION  AND  ONLINE  SEARCH:  HOW  CURRENT  CHALLENGES   FOR  PRIVACY  BECOME  NEW  THREATS  FOR  FREEDOM  OF   EXPRESSION   ü 1)  public  authority’s  surveillance  by   data  retenAon  mandates   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   3  
  • 4. CHALLENGE  TO  PRIVACY  –  THREAT  TO  FREE  SPEECH?  q How  threats  to  privacy  may  present  a  threat  to  free   speech:   §  1.  public  authority’s  surveillance  by  data  retenAon   mandates   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   4  
  • 5. THE  CASE  OF  MALTE  SPITZ  http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention q The  case  of  Malte  Spitz   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   5  
  • 6.       “How  much  informa[on  do  you  give  online  every  day?   And  who  has  access  to  it?”     See  h`p://vimeo.com/19289724   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   6  
  • 7. THE  CASE  OF  MALTE  SPITZ   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   7  
  • 8. THE  CASE  OF  MALTE  SPITZ  http://www.zeit.de/ q 6  months  of  phone  records  (“traffic  datenschutz/malte- data”),  enhanced  with  records  of  spitz-data-retention the  Malte  Spitz’s  tweets  and  blog   entries   q Person’s  profile   q Person’s  rela[onships   q Where  he  lives,  works,  spends  [me   with  friends,  spouse?...  lovers?   q Indirectly  reveals  his  poli[cal,   philosophical,  even  sexual   preferences.   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   8  
  • 9. THE  CASE  OF  MALTE  SPITZ   q Ques[ons:   q Does  this  threaten  Malte  Spitz’s  right  to  associate  with   others?  To  travel?  To  communicate  or  interact  with   whom  he  wishes?   q Does  data  reten[on  poten[ally  place  every  ci[zen   under  suspicion?   q Could  such  surveillance  end  the  presump[on  of   innocence?   q …   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   9  
  • 10. RETENTION  AND  ONLINE  SEARCH:  HOW  CURRENT  CHALLENGES   FOR  PRIVACY  BECOME  NEW  THREATS  FOR  FREEDOM  OF   EXPRESSION   ü 2)  private  sector’s  surveillance   through  online  behavioural  and   targeted  adverAsing  techniques   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   10  
  • 11. CHALLENGE  TO  PRIVACY  –  THREAT  TO  FREE  SPEECH?  q How  threats  to  privacy  may  present  a  threat  to  free   speech:   §  1.  public  authority’s  surveillance  by  data  retenAon   mandates   § 2.  private  sector’s  surveillance  through  online   behavioural  and  targeted  adver[sing   techniques   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   11  
  • 12. “COLLUSION”   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   12  
  • 13. “COLLUSION”  q A  Firefox  add-­‐on  that  allows  you  to  see  which  sites  are  using   third-­‐party  cookies  to  track  your  movements  across  the  Web.   It  shows,  in  real  [me,  how  that  data  creates  a  spider-­‐web  of   interac[on  between  companies  and  other  trackers.   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   13  
  • 14. “WHAT  THEY  KNOW”  (WALL  STREET  JOURNAL)  http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk/ www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   14  
  • 15. RETENTION  AND  ONLINE  SEARCH:  HOW  CURRENT  CHALLENGES   FOR  PRIVACY  BECOME  NEW  THREATS  FOR  FREEDOM  OF   EXPRESSION   ü 1.  How  can  violaAons  of  individuals’   privacy  affect  their  freedom  of   speech?   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   15  
  • 16. 1.  HOW  CAN  VIOLATIONS  OF  YOUR  PRIVACY  AFFECT  YOUR   FREEDOM  OF  SPEECH?   q Ar[cula[on  between  privacy  and  freedom  of  speech.  q Privacy  as  a  core  human  right  and  a  condi[on  for  freedom  of   expression.  (But  also  freedom  to  travel,  to  associate,  etc.)   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   16  
  • 17. RETENTION  AND  ONLINE  SEARCH:  HOW  CURRENT  CHALLENGES   FOR  PRIVACY  BECOME  NEW  THREATS  FOR  FREEDOM  OF   EXPRESSION   ü 2.  Challenges  to  individuals’  privacy:   illustraAons  of  how  actual  or  hypotheAcal   infringements  to  individuals  privacy  have   led,  or  may  lead,  to  a  restricAon  of  their   freedom  of  expression   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   17  
  • 18. 2.1.  DATA  RETENTION  q How  regula[ons  in  Europe  manda[ng  the  reten[on  of   communica[ons  data  -­‐  e.g.,  online  traffic  and  mobile   communica[ons  -­‐  on  online  service  providers  and   telecommunica[ons  companies,  have  affected  Internet   users,  consumers  and  individuals’  right  to  privacy  and,  as  a   result,  their  freedom  of  speech.  q Delega[on  by  the  state  of  law  enforcement-­‐specific  du[es  to   the  private  sector  (Choicepoint  case).   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   18  
  • 19. DATA  RETENTION  IN  EUROPE   Extract  from  the  European  Privacy  &  Human  Rights  2010  report.   Map  available  at  h5ps://www.privacyinternaAonal.org/projects/global-­‐country-­‐reports   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   19  
  • 20. Struggles  against  data  reten[on     in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe         Case  study  of  Poland     (by  Katarzyna  Szymilewicz,  Panoptykon)   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   20  
  • 21. •   Overview  of  data  reten[on  regimes  (and  struggles  against  them).  •   2011  case  study  of  Poland  contrasted  against  the  cases  of  Hungary,  Bulgaria,  Lithuania,  Czech  Republic  and  Romania:  necessity  and  propor[onality  revisited.  •   Interpreta[ons?   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   21  
  • 22. Purpose  limita[on  for  data  reten[on                       www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   22  
  • 23. fiscal  offences,  for  use  by  prosecutors  and  courts  if  relevant  to  the  court   proceedings  pending,  for  the  purpose  of  the  Internal  Security  Agency,   Foreign  Intelligence  Agency,  Central  AnA-­‐CorrupAon  Bureau,  Military   Counter-­‐intelligence  Services  and  Military  Intelligence  Services  to   perform  their  tasks.  Hungary   To  enable  invesAgaAng  bodies,  the  public  prosecutor,  the  courts  and   na[onal  security  agencies  to  perform  their  du[es,  and  to  enable  police   and  the  Na[onal  Tax  and  Customs  Office  to  invesAgate  intenAonal   crimes  carrying  a  prison  term  of  two  or  more  years.  Bulgaria     For  ‘discovering  and  inves[ga[ng  severe  crimes  and  crimes  under   ArAcle  319a-­‐319f  of  the  Penal  Code  and  for  searching  persons’.  Lithuania     For  the  inves[ga[on,  detec[on  and  prosecu[on  of  serious  and  very   serious  crimes,  as  defined  by  the  Lithuanian  Criminal  Code.  Romania  &   Not  transposed.  Czech  Rep.     www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   23  
  • 24. Access  to  retained  data     www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   24  
  • 25. Poland     Police,  border  guards,  tax  inspectors,  Internal  Security  Agency,  Foreign   Intelligence  Agency,  Central  AnA-­‐CorrupAon  Bureau,  military  counter-­‐ intelligence  services,  military  intelligence  services,  th.e  courts  and  the   public  prosecutor.   Requests  must  be  in  wri[ng  and  in  case  of  police,  border  guards,  tax   inspectors,  authorised  by  the  senior  official  in  the  organisaAon.  Hungary   Police,  NaAonal  Tax  and  Customs  Office,  naAonal  security  services,  public   prosecutor,  courts.  Police  and  the  NaAonal  Tax  and  Customs  Office   require  prosecutor’s  authorisaAon.  Prosecutor  and  naAonal  security   agencies  may  access  such  data  without  a  court  order.  Bulgaria     Specific  directorates  and  departments  of  the  State  Agency  for  NaAonal   Security,  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior,  Military  InformaAon  Service,   Military  Police  Service,  Minister  of  Defence,  NaAonal  InvesAgaAon   Agency;  the  court  and  pre-­‐trial  authoriAes  under  the  condiAons.  Access   only  possible  on  the  order  of  the  Chairperson  of  a  Regional  Court.  Lithuania     Pre-­‐trial  invesAgaAon  bodies,  the  prosecutor,  the  court  (judges)  and   intelligence  officers.  Authorised  public  authoriAes  must  request  retained   data  in  wri[ng.  For  access  for  pre-­‐trial  invesAgaAons  a  judicial  warrant  is   necessary.  Romania  &    Not  transposed.  Czech  Rep.   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   25  
  • 26. Reten[on  periods     www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   26  
  • 27.    Poland     2  years.      Hungary   6  months  for  unsuccessful  calls  and  1  year  for  all  other   data.     1  year    Bulgaria     Data  which  has  been  accessed  may  be  retained  for  a   further  6  months  on  request.      Lithuania     6  months.        Romania  &    Not  transposed.  Czech  Rep.   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   27  
  • 28. Number  of  requests  for  retained   data  in  2009     www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   28  
  • 29.    Poland     1  048  318.      Hungary   None  provided.      Bulgaria     None  provided.      Lithuania     72  473.      Romania   None  provided.      Czech  Republic     280  271.   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   29  
  • 30. (   POLAND     number  of  requests  for  retained  data:        2009  –  1  048  318     (total  for  the  EU:  2  051  082)     2010  –  1  382  521       www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   30  
  • 31. POLAND   data  checks  performed  in  2009     Central  An[-­‐ corrup[on   Internal   Bureau     Security   4%   Agency   13%   Military     Intelligence   Courts,     11%   Prosecu[on   and  Police   Border  Guard     56%   15%  Military   Fiscal  police   Intelligence   0%   1%   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   31  
  • 32. Types  of  data  checks    performed  by  6  agencies  between     Jan  2009  and  Oct  2010   Billing  data   34%   Subscriber   data  54%   Geoloca[on   9%   Other   3%   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   32  
  • 33. RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  SHOWING  CHALLENGES  TO   LEGALITY  AND  LEGITIMACY  OF  DATA  RETENTION  LAWS   IMPLEMENTED  IN  EASTERN  EUROPEAN  MEMBER  STATES  q   Romania:  ConsAtuAonal  Court:  blanket  data  retenAon   unconsAtuAonal  per  se  (2009);  new  drag  data  retenAon  bill   introduced  in  Parliament  (2011),  but  rejected  by  Senate  (end  2011).  q   Czech  Republic:  ConsAtuAonal  Court:  naAonal  provisions   implemenAng  the  DirecAve  recognised  not  proporAonate  (2011);   Chamber  of  DepuAes’  current  a5empts  to  reintroduce  data   retenAon  (2012).  q   Bulgaria:  Supreme  AdministraAve  Court  revised  and  amended   naAonal  law  on  data  retenAon  on  the  basis  of  unconsAtuAonality   with  Bulgarian  ConsAtuAon  and  ECHR  (2008).  q   Hungary  &  Poland  –  pending  cases.   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   33  
  • 34. RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  SHOWING  CHALLENGES  TO  LEGALITY  AND   LEGITIMACY  OF  DATA  RETENTION  LAWS  IMPLEMENTED  IN  EASTERN   EUROPEAN  MEMBER  STATES  q European  Court  of  Jus[ce:  decision  expected  soon  that  will  assess   compaAbility  of  data  retenAon  mandate  of  Data  RetenAon  DirecAve   with  respect  to  the  fundamental  right  to  privacy.  q European  Commission:  suing  Germany  for  failing  to  implement  the   Data  RetenAon  DirecAve  (May  2012)  q Other  EU  Member  States:   q Germany:  ConsAtuAonal  Court  declared  unconsAtuAonal  the  naAonal  data   retenAon  law  (March  2010).   §  Court  ordered  deleAon  of  collected  data.   §  Court  stated:  data  retenAon  could  “cause  a  diffusely  threatening  feeling  of  being   under  observa@on  that  can  diminish  an  unprejudiced  percep@on  of  ones  basic   rights  in  many  areas.”   q Ireland:  Court  referred  to  European  Court  of  JusAce  a  case  challenging   legality  of  Data  RetenAon  DirecAve  (thanks  to  an  Irish  NGO)  (May  2010).   q Cyprus:  Supreme  Court:  parts  of  data  retenAon  law  are  unconsAtuAonal   (Feb.  2011).   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   34  
  • 35.      INTERPRETATIONS?   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   35  
  • 36. www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   36  
  • 37. “RENAUT”  DATABASE  DATABASE  (REGISTRO  NACIONAL  DE  USUARIOS  DE  TELEFONÍA  MÓVIL)   q Used  in  Mexico  by   the  police…  and  the   mafia  (!);   q Contains  name,   tel.no.  and  ID  no.   (Clave  Única  de   Registro  de   Población);   q Useful  to  locate   OTHER  EXAMPLES  OF  HOW  ACTUAL  INFRINGEMENTS  TO   someone.   INDIVIDUALS  PRIVACY  HAVE  LED  TO  A  RESTRICTION  OF   THEIR  FREEDOM  OF  EXPRESSION   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   37  
  • 38. RETENTION  AND  ONLINE  SEARCH:  HOW  CURRENT  CHALLENGES   FOR  PRIVACY  BECOME  NEW  THREATS  FOR  FREEDOM  OF   EXPRESSION   ü 2.2.  How  making  an  online  search  can   reduce  freedom  of  speech?   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   38  
  • 39. 2.2.  HOW  MAKING  AN  ONLINE  SEARCH  CAN  REDUCE   FREEDOM  OF  SPEECH?  q  Profiling  by  online  marke[ng  industry,  data  aggregators  and  other  online  adver[sing   companies:  characterisa[on  of  Internet  user  as  a  type  of  consumer  fiwng  into   marke[ng  and  data  mining  categories,  which  in  turn  may  affect  their  choices  online  as   a  consumer,  computer  user,  individual  or  ci[zen.  q  “Dynamic”  pricing:  discriminatory  aspects.  q  Google’s  new  merged  privacy  policy  and  consequences  (example  of  search  in  Google   and  YouTube  while  logged  on  through  gmail  account).  q  Facebook’s  subject  access  request  (Max  Schrems’  case:  h`p://europe-­‐v-­‐facebook.org).  q  Rapleaf  case:  tying  of  an  e-­‐mail  address  to  a  profile.  q  “SSN”  case:  individual’s  date  +  place  of  birth  (zip  code)  sufficient  to  guess  his/her   Social  Security  No.  q  Facebook  “Apps”:   h`p://online.wsj.com/ar[cle/ SB10001424052702303302504577327744009046230.html#ar[cleTabs%3Dinterac[ve   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   39  
  • 40. RAPLEAF  CASE  http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/st_RAPLEAF_20101018.html www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   40  
  • 41. OUTLINE  (1/2)  q Introduc[on:  2  illustra[ons  showing  extent  of  the:   q a)  Challenges  to  privacy,  and   q b)  How  they  may  present  a  threat  to  free  speech:   §  1)  public  authority’s  surveillance  (data  retenAon):  Malte  Spitz’s  case   §  2)  private  sector  surveillance  (WSJ  “What  They  Know”  example  of  3rd  party   tracking  through  online  behavioural  adverAsing).  q 1.  How  viola[ons  of  your  privacy  can  affect  your  freedom  of   speech:   q 1.1.  ArAculaAon  between  privacy  and  freedom  of  speech.  But  also   freedom  to  travel,  to  associate,  etc.   q 1.2.  Privacy  as  a  core  human  right  and  a  condiAon  for  freedom  of   expression.   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   41  
  • 42. OUTLINE  (2/2)  q 2.  Challenges  to  individuals’  privacy:  illustra[ons  of   how  actual  or  hypothe[cal  infringements  to   individuals  privacy  has  led,  or  may  lead,  to  a   restric[on  of  their  freedom  of  expression   q 2.1.  Data  retenAon:  how  regulaAons  in  Europe  mandaAng  the  retenAon   of  communicaAons  data  affect  users  and  consumers  right  to  privacy   and,  as  a  result,  their  freedom  of  speech.   q 2.2.  How  making  an  online  search  can  reduce  freedom  of  speech?  q   3.  Take-­‐aways   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   42  
  • 43. 3.  TAKE-­‐AWAYS  q What  solu[ons?  q EU  legal  framework  (ECHR,  EU  Chart  FR,  DP  Dir.,  DP  Reg.).  q Integra[on/adapta[on  of  Bosniak  legal  framework  within   the  EU  framework.  q Civic  engagement  and  public  opposi[on  in  Eastern  European   countries  (cfr  Eastern  European  cons[tu[onal  courts’   decisions  on  data  reten[on).  q Impact  of  Civil  Society  &  NGOs.  q Ci[zens’  public  trust  in  their  government  and  public   ins[tu[ons  (cfr  data  reten[on  slides).  q Risks  of  discrimina[on.   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   43  
  • 44. CONFERENCE  ON  INTERNET  GOVERNANCE,  POLICY  &  REGULATION  (SARAJEVO  8-­‐9  JUNE  2012)   THANK  YOU  FOR  YOUR  ATTENTION  !   ULYS,  a  Moder-  and  Human  Law  Fir5,  Dedicated  to  Innovation  !                                                53   e                     sh a lom, M   nn E   EL    Ha  BE LGIU la  Couro  FR ANC    ISRA ,  Derech ULYS enue  de   ULYS Galilée   ULYS ower av e   red  T 0   224   lles    10   33  ru ris   0   11   Ve ayim    70  2  B ruxe 0  88 6  Pa  70  9 ivat  770 1050 2  34   7511 )1  40 0  01  38   G  (0)3  19   2  (0) 5  80  (0  +9 72 0  70  +3 45  3  +33  7 Tel  : 3  77 Tel  : )2  3 Tel  : )1  40 2  (0) 32  (0 33  (0  +97 Fax  :  + F ax  :  + Fax  : ü New  Technologies,  Privacy  &  ICT   AREAS  OF  EXPERTISE       ü Intellectual  Property   Cédric  Laurant   ü Cinema,  Media  &  Entertainment   A5orney-­‐at-­‐Law,  Cabinet  Ulys  (Brussels)   ü E-­‐Payment,  E-­‐Finance  &  Internet  Banking   (Member  of  the  Brussels  and  District  of  Columbia  Bars)   ü Sport  &  Gaming   Principal,  Cedric  Laurant  ConsulAng   ü Commercial  Law   [cedric.laurant  [at]  ulys  [dot]  net]  [c  [at]  cedriclaurant  [dot]  com]   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   44  
  • 45. PresentaAon  available  at:    h5p://blog.cedriclaurant.org   www.ulys.net    -­‐    www.droit-­‐technologie.org   45