Privacy Policy Working Group
From Pirate Party UK Wiki
The Privacy Policy Working Group was set up in July 2009. See forum post.
Contents |
Introduction
The purpose of this group is to form official policies for PPUK on various topics related to privacy issues, some of which are listed below. If you think there are any topics missing, please feel free to add them to the list and/or comment in the forum thread for this policy group. If you have any questions, you can contact the chair (Duke) either through his talk page here, the forum or on IRC (where he is usually lurking, if not active).
Members
Topics
- These are only initial suggestions, please feel free to add to this list, either here or in the forum thread
- Government monitoring of internet and mobile 'phone traffic including email and web browsing
- Private company monitoring of same, e.g. Phorm
- Security of any such data collected
- CCTV cameras (both state operated and private)
- open storage of footage from cameras (e.g. recent issues at the G20 summit)
- Requirement under RIPA Part III to hand over encryption keys to the authorities or face imprisonment.
- Secrecy behind the use of this law.
- Government transparency
- Freedom to take pictures etc. in public (both individually and on a corporate scale, e.g. Google Street view)
- Introduction of national ID cards
Interesting and Relevant Links
- Please post links to news articles etc. that discuss any of these issues below.
- 1,000 cameras 'solve one crime'
- BBC article commenting on a police report that comes to that conclusion.
The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals.
- Source (24/08/2009)
- Nine sacked for breaching core ID card database
- Despite assurances from ministers that this sort of thing would never happen, it seems that a number of council workers were fired after it emerged they had illegally accessed files on the National Identity Scheme database. Interestingly, none of them was prosecuted.
... nine local authority workers have been sacked for accessing the personal records of celebrities, and their acquaintances held on the core database of the government's ID scheme.
- The comments are also worth a glance.
- Source (10/08/2009)
- Two convicted for refusal to decrypt data
- Article commenting on the recent convictions of two people under [section 49] the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000).
Two people have been successfully prosecuted for refusing to provide authorities with their encryption keys, resulting in landmark convictions that may have carried jail sentences of up to five years.
- Source (11/08/2009)
- Lib Dems demand curbs on 'spying'
- BBC article commenting on a statement by the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesman, Chris Huhne. It contains some potentially useful statistics on the use of CCTV cameras and 'phone and email monitoring by local councils.
The Lib Dems want tighter controls on surveillance powers for authorities including councils and the police. More than 500,000 requests to access phone and e-mail records were made in 2008, a report by the Interception of Communications Commissioner showed...
- Source (10/08/09)
- Crowdsourced CCTV - one way to fight back
- Article commenting on this Channel 4 report that pieces together video footage from different sources, essentially crowd sourcing the CCTV.
We can’t watch ACPO the way the state watches us, yet. But we’re making a start by effectively crowd-sourcing our own CCTV - and it’s been explosive. Channel 4 provides a demonstration
- Source (22/04/2009)
- Government plans for "Family Intervention Projects"
- The original description of the Family Intervention Project. Note this plan was quoted in mainstream media with varying accuracy. This link is for checking relevant facts.
Family Intervention Projects have developed out of the Government’s anti-social behaviour strategy which has focused on tackling anti-social behaviour such as neighbour nuisance.
- Source (22/02/09)
- Security vs Privacy
- Article discussing how a reduction in privacy is portrayed as a trade-off for security. In many cases, the 'security vs privacy' debate is used as the rationale for privacy invasion and is generally a false dichotomy.
Security and privacy are not opposite ends of a seesaw; you don't have to accept less of one to get more of the other. Think of a door lock, a burglar alarm and a tall fence. Think of guns, anti-counterfeiting measures on currency and that dumb liquid ban at airports. Security affects privacy only when it's based on identity, and there are limitations to that sort of approach.
- Source (29/01/08)