Civil Rights Principles for the Era of Big Data

Technological progress should bring greater safety, economic opportunity, and convenience to everyone. And the collection of new types of data is essential for documenting persistent inequality and discrimination. At the same time, as new technologies allow companies and government to gain greater insight into our lives, it is vitally important that these technologies be designed and used in ways that respect the values of equal opportunity and equal justice. We aim to:

1. Stop High-Tech Profiling. New surveillance tools and data gathering techniques that can assemble detailed information about any person or group create a heightened risk of profiling and discrimination. Clear limitations and robust audit mechanisms are necessary to make sure that if these tools are used it is in a responsible and equitable way.
2. Ensure Fairness in Automated Decisions. Computerized decisionmaking in areas such as employment, health, education, and lending must be judged by its impact on real people, must operate fairly for all communities, and in particular must protect the interests of those that are disadvantaged or that have historically been the subject of discrimination. Systems that are blind to the preexisting disparities faced by such communities can easily reach decisions that reinforce existing inequities. Independent review and other remedies may be necessary to assure that a system works fairly.
3. Preserve Constitutional Principles. Search warrants and other independent oversight of law enforcement are particularly important for communities of color and for religious and ethnic minorities, who often face disproportionate scrutiny. Government databases must not be allowed to undermine core legal protections, including those of privacy and freedom of association.
4. Enhance Individual Control of Personal Information. Personal information that is known to a corporation — such as the moment-to-moment record of a person’s movements or communications — can easily be used by companies and the government against vulnerable populations, including women, the formerly incarcerated, immigrants, religious minorities, the LGBT community, and young people. Individuals should have meaningful, flexible control over how a corporation gathers data from them, and how it uses and shares that data. Non-public information should not be disclosed to the government without judicial process.
5. Protect People from Inaccurate Data. Government and corporate databases must allow everyone — including the urban and rural poor, people with disabilities, seniors, and people who lack access to the Internet — to appropriately ensure the accuracy of personal information that is used to make important decisions about them. This requires disclosure of the underlying data, and the right to correct it when inaccurate.

European Court of Justice in Rynes case considered that Data protection regime should apply to private use of CCTV cameras

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/11/home-surveillance-cctv-images-may-breach-data-protection-rules-european-court-judgment-says

This recent European Court of Justice judgment relates to the application of data protection principles to private individuals using CCTV cameras to protect their property. Under article 3(2) of the Directive, the data protection principles do not apply where personal data is processed for “purely personal or household affairs.” Previously, the Information Commissioner had considered that this exception, as transposed into section 36 of the Data Protection Act 1998, was relatively broad. He is now reconsidering his position.

The facts before the court

Mr Ryneš’ home had been the subject of attacks by unknown persons which had prompted him to install a CCTV camera. This was attached to his house to record the entrance to his home and the public footpath. The camera ran on a continuous loop recording data until full and then recording over it. His home was subject to another attack after the installation of the camera and he gave the recording to the police to prosecute the offenders. One of the offenders resisted the prosecution on the basis that the surveillance system was not lawful and the national court (in the Czech Republic) referred the question to the Court of Justice to clarify the application of the European Data Protection Directive 1995 (the Directive) to these circumstances.

Finding of the court

The court found that the operation of a CCTV camera system on which images of the public are stored on a continuous recording device (such as a hard disk drive) installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitors a public space, does not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity. Therefore, in short, the use of CCTV in these circumstances is not exempt from the various protections of the Directive.

Although the Directive takes into account the legitimate interests of the owner such as the protection of property, health and life, as an exception to the right to respect for privacy, the court considered that it must be narrowly interpreted.

What this means for domestic CCTV operators

Watch this space. In his first Annual Report, the Surveillance Camera Commissioner identified the use of CCTV within the domestic context as his first future challenge. Just 1 in every 70 CCTV cameras is state owned and with CCTV systems available on the high street from as little as £100, the Surveillance Commissioner noted an upsurge in complaints about the use of domestic CCTV cameras.

The Information Commissioner is currently reviewing his guidance in light of this judgment. However, in the meantime, it is clear that CCTV surveillance which even partially covers a public space and is directed outwards from the private setting of the person must comply with the data protection principles. This is not necessarily straightforward, especially when applying the principles to the domestic context. However, as set out in the Information Commissioner’s code of practice, compliance includes the following:

• Clear information available to anyone who may be captured by the system about the identity and contact details of the operator and the purpose of the CCTV surveillance;
• A process by which anyone captured on the system can access the data;
• Notification to the supervisory authority (the Information Commissioner’s Office) before they are set up.

La Corte Suprema ratifica el criterio adoptado en Belen Rodriguez acerca de la falta de responsabilidad de los buscadores de Internet respecto al contenido subido por terceros.

Cobertura de La Nación sobre los recientes pronunciamientos de la Corte Suprema sobre responsabilidad civil de los buscadores en Argentina

In Big Data era the privacy by consent principle shall be replaced by privacy by accountability

In the ‘big data’ era the principle of ‘privacy by consent’ has become increasingly meaningless and should be replaced by ‘privacy by accountability’ including stricter means of holding companies accountable for how they use data (Mayer-Schönberger,. 

Mayer-Schönberger has argued that in the age of big data much of data’s value is in secondary uses that were not foreseen when the data was collected. Hence, data protection should place less emphasis on data collection and more on the subsequent uses of data. Data is no longer collected based on a specific purpose and an informed user consent, on the contrary, the purpose of collecting the data is frequently formulated in broad generic terms and accepted by the user with limited sense of what the consent implies. 

“The ability to capture personal data is often built deep into the tools we use every day, from Web sites to smartphone apps” (Ibid: xx). Coupled with the fact that personal data represents commercial value to an extent not previously seen, it makes no sense to rely on user content as the primary data protection mechanism, the argument goes.

 In consequence, Mayer-Schönberger suggests to focus on increased accountability for the companies that use data and to increase the power of data protection authorities as safeguards between the individual and data processing companies such as Facebook. 

Silicon Valley utopians are selling us dreams of outlandish autonomous cars and “smart” homes. They are teasing us with windowless planes and 3D-printed food. "Newspapers report breathlessly on companies working to “cure death.” We seem to swallow all of these publicity-friendly confections, to accept them as if the future were written and would be here soon enough. Yet we are still debating the role of social networks in steering real-world conversations."

Paris-and-the-power-of-online-movements

El nuevo torneo de la AFA de 30 equipos y el impacto sobre su televisación bajo el programa estatal Fútbol para Todos.

Nota de La Nación donde dicen que el recién adecuado canal Telefé podría estar ingresando en el proyecto.

Explicación del escándalo de Sony y el impacto sobre el resto de los negocios.

Explanation of Sony´s picture scandal and impact over business.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/22/7434201/north-korea-internet-problems-after-obama-response-sony-hack