This paper will access the Information Officers concerns about information and privacy in the UK. From the beginning, a clear understanding of the definition of terms followed by the various developments in the Information and Privacy protection mostly in the last decade. The paper will assess the level of technology that is used in information and privacy monitoring. The paper will evaluate the control measures in place to manage information and privacy starting from the Data protections Act 1998 additional legislative measures and a sample of a judicial proceeding touching on information and privacy. The legal Implications of the developments in information and privacy is assessed and the paper concluded with a critical analysis and opinion of the Information officers concerns that the UK is slowly sleepwalking into a surveillance society.
In 2007, the UK government planned to centralize everybodys data into big database to enable collaboration by the various ministries. This move followed accelerated debates about the fate of the citizens privacy if such a plan was ever implemented. This data collaboration would allow private details such as death to be shared between the government departments including times of disaster, an act many members of the public consider utter distressing to the family members. On the other side of the debate, many senior government officials believe that the current data sharing rules are an impediment to the fast and efficient delivery of service to the public.
While all these debates are foregoing, the Information Officer is convinced that he UK is sleepwalking into a surveillance society. Outcome from a review body Work and Pension agree that the existing rules on public and private workers data security are a stumbling block toward their expedition of services. The most cited examples are the insurance claim processes where a case of multiple data from the same policy or beneficiary members was a major point of confusion to the claims administrators. Legally speaking, the data processing officer are not allowed to use the information more that once. This has implications that they have to keep asking for access even if they are dealing with the same person on different occasions. This is quite time consuming. At the extremes, the data sharing services are prone to false legal implications, blatant violation of privacy rights or identity fraud.
2.0 Information and Privacy
2.1 Definition of Privacy
According to a ruling in 1988, Privacy was defined as The Right to be left alone. The intrusions of the UK paparazzi in the life of the royal family in the UK and particularly the case of Princesses Diana led to the set up of the National Heritage Select Committee to investigate the damage and extent of this behaviour. This committee concluded that
Every individual has a right to privacy comprising
(a) A right to be free from harassment and molestation and
(b) a right to privacy of personal information, communications, and documents.
The invasive behaviours of the UK Press also led to the set up of the Culcutt Committee in 1990 which later defined privacy as The right of the individual to be protected against intrusion into his personal life or affairs, or those of his family, by direct physical means or by publication of information.
2.2 Definition of Surveillance
According to Ball, Kirstie, et al. (2006), Surveillance is the
Purposeful, routine, systematic and focused attention paid to personal details, for the sake of control, entitlement, management, influence or protection.
The focus of this paper is the type of surveillance that takes place secretly in most cases or with the people knowledge but with less of the control. Surveillance may also be classified as vertical, such as management to lower level employees or peer, such as spouses applying mobile phones to track each other, or even simple use of cameras or embedded chips for the same purpose.
2.3 Developments in Information Privacy
During the Second World War, the international community experience various violations in privacy occasioned by military forces. Hence, in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was set forth in Article 12 of the UN the Human Right to Privacy, honour and safety. Additional call for privacy is enshrined in the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Convention) Article 8, which stresses the need to protect each others dignity, privacy, democracy and morals unless in a legal process.
The European Court through the Human Rights Act (HRA) has in been enforcing the privacy protection using various legislations. To that effect, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union declares the need to all citizens privacy rights to be respected at all their areas of life including during their communication process .
Currently in the UK, the funding to support the National CCTV strategy meeting has been suspended. The NCSPB members are in the process of carrying out a survey to gather latest opinions about the National CCTV programme. There is however, strategic progress on the CCTV programme that is coordinated by the Office of the Justice Reforms. Now all CCTV control centres are expected to have airwave according to the Local Authority Act. The CCTV programme support has just finished producing a brief for presentation to the Minister on the next steps in the CCTV strategy. There is a concerted effort to review the terms of CCTV records retention. These discussions are now being considered by the CCTV Sub Groups.
There is discontent on the current powers of the ICO and the SRO and the respective CCTV programme teams are seeking redress from the Ministry of Justice. The contentious issue is the fact that the Data Controller unauthorized to retain information especially if they touch on the surveillance of the citizens. Other reports regarding Data matrix and CCTV are expected to be tabled before the teams soon. The Policing Minister is expected to defend the CCTV programme before the House of Lords. The SRO is in strong favour of the use of verbal evidence by the police as opposed to the use of surveillance cameras to record crime footages. This proposal has been welcome by the prosecution Change Delivery Board.
The NPIA has made commendable progress as far as the Doctrine and Practice Section is concerned. This progress will be capped with a Guidance and Training Section. There is great misunderstanding about the application of the Data Protection Act 1998, which has lead to wrongful blockage of use of airwave radio alongside the CCTV. The UK CCTV programmes seek to match the National and International CCTV Standards. As soon as the role of the ICO is defined under the prevailing National CCTV body, the discussions will proceed smoothly and the public pressure will ease all the way to the Minister of Justice.
Various recommendations in the Information Privacy are in progress. The UK Police has received green light to continue using CCTV Video with the possibility of setting up control rooms. The ICO may work with this plan, until when an objection arises with the Home Office. More CCTV evidence will be allowed in courts. We expect to see more partnership between all the CCTV programme stakeholders. Concerted efforts are forthcoming to gather public views about information privacy using an outlined questionnaire. The outcome will be a foundation for a CCTV mapping process, which is expected to elicit a lot of debate.
2.4 Informational Privacy
From the onset of the giant database for personal information, the UK government showed good will and gesture by seeking the public opinion on the matter of individual privacy. Whereas there were earlier claims that the existing data security framework was the major cause of delays in business protocol and administration, the Works and Pension review team disagree after establishing that there were other cultural barriers to blame. The sticky issues as far as informational privacy are concerned are the government and public role privacy rights and damage control responsibilities and policies that allow government staff to share information while in their line of duty. The next critical issues about informational privacy are the possibilities for identity fraud. Any illegal hacking into such a database would result in a major identity fraud.
On the issue of surveillance cameras, there are been diverse views about their capabilities to solve crime. At worst, such a system costs the public a lot of funds yet the main objectives remain elusive. The Information officer has the mandate of monitoring the information that the government accesses from the public and is concerned on whether the government need a system of better information or central database.
A report from the Information Tribunal service following an appeals by various Chief Constables against the Information Officer unanimously decided that the were in violation of personal privacy when they held the convicts records in their respective databases longer than the period the accused were serving sentences of convictions. In a nutshell, the tribunal was of the opinion that the records should not be held when the police are not using them actively. Whereas this decision is sensitive to the governments need to store conviction data, this decision by the tribunal calls for proper legislation to secure the privacy of the citizens.
3.0 Technology
The current technologies used in surveillance are concentrated around the videos recording, digital ICT, telecommunication, and chipped technologies such as RFID tags to track down targets. This does not downplay the availability of non-technological devices such as those used to eavesdrop on other privacy as common with spies. Studies show that the face-to-face interaction is also a considerable form of access to personal data especially when professionals like doctors, lawyers and others are interacting with their clients. Today, technology is used in various areas of our society
3.1 Identity Control
Due the increase in illegal trans-border migrations, the UK is keen in setting up technology backed identity control mechanism. This process is by both visible technologies like biometric passport and invisible technologies like the chips. Matters of communal policing and surveillance are quickly degenerating into social crime area profiles. Whereas the upper social class are okay with the surveillance cameras around their living environment, the middle and lower class have some problem with the scheme since they label them as criminals from tender age.
3.2 Innovative change process
The current state of technology is capable of recording movement of cars automatically with other finer details like the registration, car types and time. This technology is slowly replacing the use of cameras in most homes, social or workplaces. The same information automatically sent to the police under the RIPA 2 regulations for perusal with or without the authors and the recipients permission.
3.3 Workplace and home track and watch
The rise in biometric scans all over the country especially at the workplaces is the cause of widespread hue and cry on workforce information privacy. The only problem with the advance information network is the possible use of the private information to benchmark with others especially the health and wellness information.
4.0 Maintaining Control
4.1 The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)
The Data Protection Act 1998 replaced the earlier Data protection Act 1984, whereby the major amendments were in the name of the personnel such as the Data protection Registrar becoming the commissioner. Other major inclusions are the data controller. The Data protection Act is important in its use to deliberate on the numerous matters of concern raised by the consumers. Thus, the Data Protection Act 1998 enforces personal data privacy rights with close consideration of the Acts relevant schedules. The Data Protection Act of 1998 also ensures that the personal data is processed in a fair manner with their prior consent even if the information is to be obtained from the electoral register.
As far as the trends in the public complain at concerned, the commercial companies are the common violators of the Data Protection Act 1998 wherever they are in stiff competition with the other players in the respective business segments. Today, the public have a right of withdrawing their personal information following the 2002 Regulations. The Data Protection Act seeks to reduce damage to the public whenever their data is used without their express authority. Taking the example of the HYPERLINK httpwww.b4usearch.com www.b4usearch.com website, the commissioner invoked the section Data Protection Act Section 40 to bar the website controllers from using the data from the electoral register effective 1st August 2006. The Data protection Act is not one sided it allows the organizations to appeal whenever they feel that the commissioners enforcement is unfair or unjust.
4.2 Similar Legislation covering Information and Privacy
Additional legislation is available in support of information privacy. The Freedom of Information Act outlines the process of requesting for personal information by the public from any public database. This Act is has various guidelines that must be followed strictly. Specifically the Act is keen on filtering the information requested by the public along vexatious as was the case in Welsh v Information Commissioner EA20070088 (16 April 2008) or repeated requests as was the case in In Coggins. Additionally the authority will decide whether the request is a harassment as was the case in the Gowers v Information Commissioner and LB Camden EA20070114 (13 May 2008) obsessive as was the case in Hossack v Information Commissioner and DWP EA20070024 (18 December 2007) a burden or annoying as was the case in In ICO decision notice FS50151851 or valuable ahead of their compliance with the public request as was the consideration in Betts v Information Commissioner EA20070109 (19 May 2008). The ICO can issue a formal refusal notice when either of the above are noted.
The ICO has a legislated Data protection strategy to shield the public from exploitations, harassment and unauthorised access to their privy information. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party is yet another alternative legislation drawn between the EU and the USA. This article is important in aiding collaboration of passengers names whenever they are travelling by air to the US. This article was completed in July 2007. In support is the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party Working Party on Police and Justice 0242207EN Art 29 WP ref WP 145 WPPJ ref 1007. This latter article was drafted after a joint consultation between the council framework decision and the permissible use of the Passenger Name Record (PNR) in collaboration with the interested law forces. The mandate of this latter article is to streamline the work of the police and the law agencies in the wake of security problems on the rise.
The other legislation is called the Unwanted Marketing Guidance. This guidance supports the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. This Unwanted Marketing Guidance outlines the customers rights as far as direct marketing is concerned since in most cases the marketers access their private information. The ICO allows the public to register their e-mails via a Mailing Preference Service to bump off junk mails.
The Claiming Compensation Guidance elaborates the process and qualifications that must be attained by the public whenever they feel aggrieved under the Data Protection Act 1998. The guidance stipulates instances worthy of claims process of claims litigation confirmation with the ICO on the information privacy claims and the likely awards by the courts. In the process of confirmation with the ICO, the Data protection Audit Manual will be applicable for test of conformance. The ICO has additional legislation to support the Data Protection Act such as the CCTV Code of Practice Code of Practice for Archivists and Record managers under Section 51(4) of the Data Protection Act A brief Guide for Data Protection for SMEs Framework Code of Practice for Sharing Personal Information among others.
4.3 Judicial Proceedings regarding control of information and privacy
The Human Rights Act and its potential effect on the personal privacy was tested in the Campbell v. MGN . In this case, a celebrity, Naomi Campbells photo appeared in a newspaper as she was coming out of a Narcotic Anonymous venue. The act of the Daily Mirror to produce her photo was indeed a breach of privacy under the HRA and the Data Protection Act 1998. Even though the Court of Appeal dismissed the suit, Naomi was successful in her appeal and the mere show of slim majority show how contentious the legislative assemblies in the UK regard privacy cases. The Court of Appeal had a difficult task of ensuring that Naomis rights of privacy protected while the Daily Mirror upheld their Freedom of expression. There is no guarantee that such a case would be successful today going by the developments in privacy laws, rules, regulations and guidelines that could be easily manipulated to suit any the legal parties advantage.
5.0 Legal Implications
The Commissioner perturbed by the trends of organizations using personal information without the owners consent. The commissioner is also justified in the concerns that the publics rights to get their personal data available at the electoral register will not be effected despite the fact that the public can request for leave from the website owners. The commissioners concerns are also justified because of the quest to shield senior organizational personalities data from the public access. This issue is important because such individual, especially those in security services can be a target of organized crime. Overall, the continued usage of personal data from the electoral register is illegal, a travesty of justice and trump of the freedom of privacy of the citizens, according to the commissioner.
Information Privacy needs adequate regulation other than the legal protection. This has implications that other non-legal framework like rules, and guidelines are in order to must support the processes such as CCTV surveillance is effective in their objectives. The information Commissioners concern about the entire surveillance process is partly due to the doubt that regulation is effective to protect the people. Specifically, several matters are a constant matter of concern from the public, such as the justice system, dignity of the citizens, the self-determination of the organizations installing the technology, the social inclusion especially in the wake of the war on terror and the security of the data of the citizens.
6.0 Opinion on the Information Officers concerns
In this study, the Information Commissioner was concerned about sleepwalking into a surveillance society. After a consideration of the various publications and legislative framework, is notable that the commissioners concerns are justified. It is obvious that the public will embrace more future technology for the collaboration of private information and lifestyles. Such information can be positively used to make life worthy decisions by the consenting individuals.
The information Commissioners first level of concern goes to the semi illiterate and less skilled people in the society, whose private data, are collected, circulated and shared without their express permission. Unfortunately, such individuals have not capability of blocking this information violation process or making a choice on the scale and scope of information that should be shared by the second and third parties of interest.
Advancing technology has led to virtual imprisonment of some individuals in the society because they are under constant surveillance from various force and government authorities. Today, it is quite easy to access personal information from the internet. Yet the never-ending disagreements between the citizens and the government about the access, ownership and modification of personal information are rife. Even if the government and other surveillance authorities consider that the society will slowly get used to monitoring, the entrenchment of this culture and the information collaboration and sharing impunity is what is causing a lot of concern to the Information Commissioner and the public at large.
The Information Commissioner is also concerned about the botched up and illegal social profiling that is emanating from the community surveillance networks. Current outcomes show a rise in identity faults leading to injustice to the citizens and untold suffering by many others. The information Commissioner is also justified in his concerns about the current use of CCTV and the responsive legislature in place. Clearly, the current guidelines are missing important points while the law applied selectively, because there is varied interpretation from the police to the judicial systems.
Overall, there are major problems that have arisen over the last decade alone in attempting to control information privacy. First, the Information privacy control in the UK was lagging behind the technology according to the Information Officer. This has implications that the control mechanism and legislative framework were reactive rather than proactive. This poses a problem of lack of initial collaboration between the technologist and legal experts.
Second, the information privacy controls have been keener on the technology and management results in alignment with the organizational security goals. According to the Information Officers justified concerns, this has implications that the legal match is behind every innovations. Third, much information privacy recording initiatives pay more attention to the citizens or workers privacy pass. The Information Officers is justified in concerns that this highlights the thoughts of the organization leaders who have a closed mind approach of the technology of surveillance as they claim they are doing so for public and organizational good.
Fourth, most information surveillance systems were set up without the public opinion, surveys and debates. No wonder, the UK is now trying to gauging the public opinion on the future strategies of CCTV programme with the data technologist taking one view while the law enforcers take the other. The Information Officer is justified in concerns that the public whose privacy rights are most trumped on do not get as much time and opportunity to air their views as far as the controls of the surveillance is concerned. Take the most notorious cases of surveillance for terrorism control. One wonders if the investments are worth their course when we have had one incident after the other in the glare of the cameras.
Fifth, the surveillance controls normally take political shape. This according to the Information Officers justified concerns, has implications that most organizations may not be keen to take part in the process at the expense of their production time. The UK has in fact taken an early initiative to reduce this pressure from many organizations, by combining it with other government initiatives like environmental conservation, health and safety. This has implications that the surveillance control must get business backing if the process is to be free from any political tones.
Finally, the role of the media report has had divided impact on the surveillance control process. Most media outlets have been keen in reporting the more negative aspects of the surveillance control, leaving very few columns or airtime for the positive initiatives. The skewed media pattern or reporting is mostly blamed for bad reception of the surveillance control technology, as they tend to relay news that will make their organizations or brand more popular, than relaying the facts. Similarly, the Information Officer is justified in concerns that media has jeopardized the surveillance control process by fictionalizing the causes and effects of the process, spearing malicious fear and twisting facts with untested arguments.
7.0 Conclusion
Information and privacy control in UK attracts a lot public and private attention because of the legal, social, political and technological implications. Whereas the UK and EU laws define the scope of privacy, there is still a lot of controversy as far as the implementation is concerned. Hence, the UK government has and Information Commissioner referred to as the Information Officer to look into the information privacy administration in a just, legal and fair manner.
Over the decades, there have been various in the area of information privacy. Various laws, rules, guidelines and regulations exist. However, there are glaring instances when all these legislative and alternative frameworks complicate the goals and aims of information privacy and security. The available technology that provide practical cases of information and privacy control are in the area of identity control, immigration border monitoring, retail brand monitoring, cashless money transactions, prison and parole tracking, technology change management, satellite tracking, social movement monitoring, global positioning, work and home tracking among other uses.
Information and Privacy control in the UK has the legislative background such as the Data Protection Act 1998 to guide information protection, sharing and penalty for offence. There are similar legislation hat back up the Data Protection Act 1998, especially in the special circumstances and where the DPA has gaps in administration. These similar legislations have local rules, guidelines and international laws background. The importance of the Information Privacy having international legislature arises with the EU formation as well as the international causes and needs of data collaboration. Despite the fact that there are legal proceedings regarding control of information and privacy, the Information Officer is still concerned that there is inadequate due process and public awareness, hence, we seem to be sleepwalking into the surveillance society either deliberately or by coercion.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment