Showing posts with label Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Security. Show all posts
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Homeland Security's Chertoff: more surveillance, less privacy
Americans are increasingly more willing to trade privacy for security, according to a recent Washington Post poll, and comments by Michael Chertoff, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security at the International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioner's conference in Montreal earlier this week reflect this outlook.Michael Geist reported on the BBC news site about Chertoff’s presentation at this year’s global privacy conference, where the theme was “Terra Incognita”, the latin term for unknown lands:
In a room full of privacy advocates, Chertoff came not with a peace offering, but rather a confrontational challenge.
He unapologetically made the case for greater surveillance in which governments collect an ever-increasing amount of data about their citizens in the name of security.
For example, in support of his security agenda, he noted that US forces in Iraq once gathered a single fingerprint from a steering wheel of a vehicle that was used in a bombing attack and matched it to one obtained years earlier at a US border crossing.
He added that there was a similar instance in England, where one fingerprint in a London home linked to a bombing was matched to a fingerprint gathered at a US airport (the identified person was actually innocent of wrongdoing, however).
Chertoff explained that in the autumn the US intends to expand its fingerprinting collection program by requiring all non-Canadians entering his country to provide prints of all ten fingers (it currently requires two fingerprints).
In the process, his vision of a broad surveillance society - supported by massive databases of biometric data collected from hundreds of millions of people - presented a chilling future. Rather than terra incognita, Chertoff seemed to say there is a known reality about our future course and there is little that the privacy community can do about it.
David Brin’s book The Transparent Society discusses the illusion of privacy and advocates making most information available to everyone to ensure greater transparency and accountability. Security does seem to be prevailing over privacy, and, ironically, greater openness is regarded as the means to safeguard personal liberties. It’s a frightening prospect in many ways, but perhaps a more palatable option than the current move to consolidate information into the hands of government, corporations, the military or police.
Chertoff's observations are provocative and may lead our privacy commissioners to shift the debate from "privacy versus security" to focus more on issues of accountability and oversight.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Canada's No-Fly list could be linked to biometrics
Canada new “no-fly” list, to be known as “Passenger Protect”, takes effect on June 18th and according to an Ottawa Citizen report, the federal transport minister isn’t ruling out linking the names to biometric data in the long term. The Canadian no-fly list will have hundreds of names, rather than the tens of thousands on the U.S. list. Names will be added to the list based on information supplied by CSIS and the RCMP.In an earlier post, I wrote about the risks associated with biometrics and DNA-enabled travel documents, data security and the potential impact on individual privacy. The first steps toward collecting biometric data are already underway in both the U.S. and Canada:
Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart has spoken out against the no-fly list, along with other privacy advocates such as Pippa Lawson, director of CIPPIC. Citizens could be the subject of mistaken identity and personal information collected by governments could make citizens vulnerable when traveling abroad or if their information is stolen or abused. The potential for abuse was highlighted at the Air India inquiry, where a Transport Minister acknowledged that the no-fly list could be shared with foreign governments.The United States already scans the fingerprints of foreign visitors entering the country and stores the information in a database. Visitors from Canada and some countries are excluded from the program.
Meanwhile, Transport Canada has bulked up security at airports by issuing biometric ID cards to staff who work in "restricted areas."
While airlines could be fined up to $25,000 if they disclose personal information about individuals on the list, there appear to be little safeguards provided to prevent foreign governments from using or abusing this information. Passengers who feel they have been mistakenly placed on the no-fly list can appeal to the Office of Reconsideration, but are not allowed to know why their name was originally placed on the list.
Canadians are entitled to strong and rigorous guarantees from their federal government about the uses and limits of the collection and dissemination of personal information. The implications of misuse and abuse are far too serious for anything less.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
