#electronic privacy

[saintcranky]

the Cypherpunks back in the 70s, 80s and 90s understood the importance of privacy in the dawning computer age. This is still so important. 

[inspectorspacetimerevisited]

One issue that the programme hasn’t addressed is privacy.

And science fiction is suitable to take it on.

[midnightfunk]

Man jailed for not unlocking iPhone adds fuel to device search warrant debate

A Florida man was thrown in jail for 44 days for refusing to unlock two iPhones in his possession during a traffic stop, an incident fuelling the ongoing privacy debates over how law enforcement can legally gain access to a smartphone's contents via passcode or biometrics, without being unconstitutional.

[tennesseewatchman-com-news-blog]

Montana Committee Passes Two Bills Taking on Warrantless Electronic Data Collection

Montana Committee Passes Two Bills Taking on Warrantless Electronic Data Collection

HELENA, Mont. (Feb. 2, 2017) – Two bills that would together ban warrantless collection of cell phone data in most situations unanimously passed an important Montana House committee yesterday. Final passage of the legislation would not only increase privacy protections in the state, it would also hinder one practical aspect of federal surveillance programs.

Rep. Daniel Zolnikov sponsors both…

View On WordPress

[dr-archeville]

Radical Librarianship: how ninja librarians are ensuring patrons' electronic privacy

Librarians in Massachusetts are working to give their patrons a chance to opt-out of pervasive surveillance. Partnering with the ACLU of Massachusetts, area librarians have been teaching and taking workshops on how freedom of speech and the right to privacy are compromised by the surveillance of online and digital communications -- and what new privacy-protecting services they can offer patrons to shield them from unwanted spying of their library activity.

"Although many librarians may be understandably new to the topic of online surveillance, information professionals are not new to defending intellectual freedom and the right to read and voice dissenting opinions, as well as the rights of historically marginalized people who continue to be under the most surveillance."

[electronicprivacy-blog]

Cyrus Farivar for Ars Technica, 4/2/13:

t may seem odd, but in the European Union citizens have a near-blanket right to compel companies to release personal data held about them. The concept is sometimes referred to in its Latin shorthand: habeas data. It’s the principle through which an Austrian law student has become a thorn in the side of Facebook, trying to compel the social network to disclose the vast amount of data that it holds about him.

Here in the United States, we generally don’t have this right.

But after lobbying by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, California Assembly Member Bonnie Lowenthal (who represents parts of the Los Angeles area) recently introduced a bill that could extend that concept to the Golden State for the first time. The "Right to Know Act of 2013" (AB 1291) was re-read and amended a second time on Monday.

The Legislative Counsel’s Digest summarizes the bill as it is currently written this way:

This bill would instead require any business that retains a customer’s personal information, as defined, or discloses that information to a third party, to provide at no charge, within 30 days of the customer’s specified request, a copy of that information to the customer as well as the names and contact information for all third parties with which the business has shared the information during the previous 12 months, regardless of any business relationship with the customer. This bill would require that a business subject to these provisions choose one of several specified options to provide the customer with a designated address for use in making a request for copies of information under these provisions.

If a company does not comply, citizens can file a civil suit to force compliance.

California has a history of pushing privacy concepts into law and influencing non-California businesses to comply. For example, the California Online Privacy Protection Act requires websites to prominently describe data collection and use. (Condé Nast, Ars’ parent company, does this even though it is not based in California.)

As the EFF wrote on Tuesday: “Hopefully, as companies put efficient systems into place to enable Californians to learn what is happening to their data, it will be easy for the companies to make those systems available to people outside of California. And like California’s model for data breach notification laws, (first enacted in California in 2002 and now integrated into law in 46 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands), transparency will become the default, helping consumers while saving companies money down the line.”

[deserveneither]

On Tuesday it was confirmed that the data was gone. My only option for the wrecked drive, the specialist told me over the phone, was to send it to a company called Data Savers. For between $750 and $2,500, a man in a moon suit would sit in a sealed room and use lasers to lift whatever information he could directly from the disk. Even then, recovery wasn’t guaranteed. I couldn’t afford it, I told her, but I may have a friend who can help me privately, so I would take the drive to him instead. Impossible, the specialist responded. “Apple requires that we return all replaced drives directly to the manufacturer,” she said. Once there, my precious disk would be destroyed. I could keep it only if I paid $300 — a full $100 more than it would cost simply to buy a new drive.

This was problematic for two reasons. First, if the original item — which I already paid for — was worthless to the company, why couldn’t I keep it? Second, defunct as it was, the drive contained information that was my property, not the manufacturer’s, and some of the data pertained to sources I’d spoken to in the course of reporting and whom I’d guaranteed confidentiality. How could I keep my promise if their information was in the hands of a corporation and still theoretically retrievable? I had to reclaim it.

[electronicprivacy-blog]

Alex Byers for Politico Morning Tech, 3/18/13:

BUZZ: ATR TEAMS WITH CDT, ACLU TO LAUNCH NEW ECPA ADVOCACY — As talk about email privacy rules ramps up again in Washington, digital due process proponents are looking at the 113th Congress as the best chance yet to notch a victory — and they’re forming another coalition to help put the hammer down. The new group, known as Digital 4th — as in the amendment — puts traditional tech advocates at the ACLU and Center for Democracy and Technology together with Grover Norquist’s anti-tax group, Americans for Tax Reform. And they’re calling the need for ECPA reform a constitutional no-brainer. “There’s going to be a full-court press on this issue over the next couple of years,” CDT’s Greg Nojeim told MT. “There’s a sense that the stars have aligned — and not just because there’s a substantive need for the legislation, but because a number of the parties involved are committing substantial time and resources to getting it done.” The groups’ stances on the issue aren’t new, but with what they see as a great opportunity to make headway on email privacy, they’re pledging a new level of activism. For one, the inclusion of Norquist’s group provides some political cover for more Republicans to get on board. And in addition to the activism from the groups themselves, Digital 4th has retained lobbying muscle from firms like Jochum Shore & Trossevin to whip lawmakers toward their goal: Requiring law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before asking for digital content or location data.