|
|
| |
|
| |
NEWS |
| |
According to a study by Consumer WebWatch and Stanford
University's Persuasive Technology Lab. Consumer WebWatch is
part of Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer
Reports magazine, less than 1 percent of consumers care to refer
to a site's privacy policies.
Betsy Border Assistant Director of the FTC and former
Assistant Attorney General of New York in her July 15,
2005 speech in Washington DC., noted that the Federal Trace
Commission's data on identity theft does not show an increase in
identity theft but rather the reporting of it. Betsy Border is
also the head of the FTC's identity theft team.
A recent report by the Better
Business Bureau found that most cases of identity theft occurred
through the theft of a checkbook or other offline methods.
SAN FRANCISCO, January 26, 2005 - The 2005 Identity Fraud Survey
Report - released by the Better Business Bureau and Javelin
Strategy & Research as an update of the Federal Trade
Commission's 2003 Identity Theft Survey Report and Javelin's
2003 Identity Theft Report - shows that despite growing fears
about identity theft and online fraud, of the victims that know
the identity and method used by the criminal, these crimes are
more frequently committed offline than online.
A six month study by ID Analytics, the San Diego,
California-based fraud detection company reveals that
consumers whose credit cards are lost or stolen or whose
personal information is accidentally compromised face little
risk of becoming victims of identity theft. |
| |
|
| |
In a letter dated Nov 30, 2004 the
Canadian Privacy Commissioner's office stated that
Canadian Privacy regulations - PIPEDA do not apply to
Abika.com |
| |
|
| |
Canada's Federal Court rules that video
surveillance system does not violate privacy regulation
In Erwin Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway & Privacy
Commissioner of Canada (June 11, 2004) The Court found that CP
could collect Eastmond's personal information without his
knowledge or consent because it benefited from the exemption in
paragraph 7(1)(b) of PIPEDA, which provides that personal
information can be collected without consent if "it is
reasonable to expect that the collection with the knowledge or
consent of the individual would compromise the availability or
the accuracy of the information and the collection is reasonable
for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement. |
| |
|
| |
COURT RULES POLICE ACCIDENT
REPORT NOT SUBJECT TO PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT
A newspaper is not liable under the federal
Driver's Privacy Protection Act for publishing an accident
report prepared by state police, a federal court has ruled. (Mattivi
v. Russell, Aug. 2, 2002.) This is one of several recent
decisions in which courts have rejected attempts to expand the
reach of the privacy protection act.
|
| |
10th
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling effectively canceled a vague FCC
regulation that had forced phone companies to obtain customer
permission before using or selling call records
US West won the appeal by successfully
challenging the FCC's definition of what constitutes customer
permission.
"Although we may feel uncomfortable
knowing that our personal information is circulating in the
world, we live in an open society where information may usually
pass freely," wrote 10th Circuit Court Judge Deanell Tacha. "A
general level of discomfort from knowing that people can readily
access information about us does not necessarily rise to the
level of a substantial state interest ... for it is not based on
an identified harm," Tacha wrote.
On June 5, 2000 the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ
of certiorari.
On May 1, 2000 EPIC filed an amicus brief in support of the Competition
Policy Insitute's petition for a writ of certiorari.
On February 28, 2000 the Competition Policy Institute filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to
consider the case.
On November 30, 1999 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
the petitions for rehearing. Judges Brorby, Henry, Briscoe,
Lucero, and Murphy voted in favor of en banc review.
On November 3, 1999 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted
the petition of privacy advocates, to file an amicus, "friend of the court", brief in
support of the FCC's petition for rehearing.
On October 22, 1999 privacy organizations filed a motion as amicus
curiae in support of the FCC's petition for rehearing by the
panel and suggestion for rehearing en banc.
On October 4, 1999 the FCC filed a Petition for Rehearing by the
Panel and Suggestion for Rehearing en Banc. |
| |
Physicians Almost Unanimous in Opposition to HIPAA 'Privacy'
Rules
New federal "privacy" rules could actually do
more harm to patients than just compromising privacy, according
to a national physician organization. A mailed survey of 344
physicians conducted by the Association of American Physicians
and Surgeons (AAPS) shows almost unanimous opposition to the HHS
privacy rules, scheduled for full implementation in 2003. A
whopping 96 percent thought the rules would further compromise
patient privacy. Some of the other questions provide further
clues about the practical effects of the rules.
|
| |
County's Cell-Phone Records Must Be
Disclosed, Nevada Court Rules
Records showing the telephone numbers of incoming and
outgoing calls on publicly owned cellular telephones are not
confidential or private, Nevada's highest state court has ruled.
(Las Vegas Review v. Board of County Commissioners, Aug. 18,
2000.) The court's ruling requires the release of unredacted --
or unedited -- records of cellular telephone use by county
officials. This ruling reinforces the high standard that the
government must meet to defeat the presumption of openness
embodied in public records acts like Nevada's, and the outcome
with respect to officials' cell-phone records should prove
helpful to reporters in many jurisdictions. |
|
Online Service provides access to people’s psychological
profiles, past relationships and other background information.
Until
recently psychological profiling was only accessible to major
corporations and law enforcement agencies. Abika.com a
background checking service on the Internet makes profiling
accessible to all by enabling you to check up people’s
psychological profiles including past relationships along with
other background information. Men lie and women lie too says
Radio psychologist Dr. Judy Kuriansky. People invest time,
emotions and money in pursuing all sorts of relationships, often
times only to find out it has been nothing but a bunch of lies
from someone with hidden motives.
Checking out someone’s psychological profile and background can
help you avoid being taken advantage of and unnecessary grief.
On the other hand it can even provide you with a substantial
advantage in relationships. If you or someone you know is
romantically involved, knowing more than what is divulged in
conversation could be important. In fact, anyone putting a
measure of trust in another might want to check the Web says Kim
Komando host of the Kim Komando Radio show.
Abika.com’s psychological profile reports give a comprehensive
description of a person’s behavior and the Psych Score of
his/her various psychological traits. Just as credit scores are
used by creditors to determine how good a credit risk you are.
Psych scores have predictive value for estimating how likely it
is that someone will behave in a certain way.
People
having similar scores for certain aspects of their behavior will
act similarly for those particular behaviors. One can compare
psychological profiles of two people and find out how similarly
they will act like each other for particular behaviors. The more
similar their scores the more similar they will behave.The psych score is based on a proprietary model derived from
analysis of past behaviors of thousands of people. Based on the
collective behavioral history of thousands of people with
psychological profile similar to yours, the psych score
estimates your behavior.
Your behavioral history is compiled from public records,
demographics, court records, media, private databases, polling
and complaints submitted to various organizations.
Many wealthy individuals use psychological profiling to screen
dates, spouses and business partners. The most popular request
from women is for the Psych score for cheating. A study
by American Management Association (AMA) reveals that 39 percent
of companies surveyed already use psychological testing as part
of their hiring process. Nearly all major law enforcement
agencies use psychological profiling. Sales people use
psychological profiling to better understand the needs of their
customers and gain a competitive edge in closing sales.
|
| |
|
| |
Privacy complaint
against Northwest dismissed
- Northwest
Airlines Corp. breached no one's privacy when it shared
passenger data with federal researchers weeks after the
September 11 attacks, the Transportation Department ruled in
dismissing a complaint filed by the Electronic Privacy
Information Center. The 16-page ruling offered a point-by-point
justification for Northwest's actions. Samuel Podberesky, assistant general
counsel for aviation enforcement, wrote that Northwest didn't
violate its privacy policy -- and even if it had, the policy was
unenforceable because he said Northwest is required to share
passenger data with the government upon request. |
| |
|
| |
In Canada Effective March 31, 2004, Private
investigators were designated in PIPEDA as “Investigative
Bodies” for the purposes of Section 7 (3)(d) and 7(3)(h.2)
of the Act – the provisions pertaining to
non-consensual disclosure of an individual’s personal
information to and from third party organizations. In order
to disclose personal information that has been collected
without an individual’s consent must be to an investigative
body. Now, with this regulation in place, persons may
legally give personal information to private investigators
and they may share this information with other investigative
bodies. PIPEDA states that an organization may only disclose
the personal information of an individual without the
person’s consent, to an investigative body. |
| |
|
| |
Court
Rulings of interest:
Excerpt of a ruling by 10th
U.S. Circuit Court Judge Deanell Tacha:
"Although we may feel uncomfortable knowing that our
personal information is circulating in the world, we
live in an open society where information may usually
pass freely," wrote 10th Circuit Court Judge Deanell
Tacha. "A general level of discomfort from knowing that
people can readily access information about us does not
necessarily rise to the level of a substantial state
interest ... for it is not based on an identified harm,"
Tacha wrote.
Excerpt of a ruling by Samuel Podberesky, assistant
general counsel for aviation enforcement,
Privacy is not, an absolute 'personal and fundamental
right ... particularly in the context of air travel,"
Podberesky wrote in the ruling.
Excerpt of a ruling by U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 1st Circuit
A company that provides e-mail service has the
right to copy and read any message bound for its
customers, a federal appeals court panel has ruled
The court ruled that because e-mail
is stored, even momentarily, in computers before it is
routed to recipients, it is not subject to laws that
apply to eavesdropping of telephone calls, which are
continuously in transit. As a result, the majority said,
companies or employers that own the computers are free
to intercept messages before they are received by
customers. In upholding a lower court decision, the
appeals panel majority said Congress intended for "any
temporary, intermediate storage" of communication to be
governed by laws other than those involving wiretapping
or other interception.
Excerpt of a ruling by Judge Kathleen M. O'Conner,
Washington.
In a ruling Judge Kathleen M. O'Connor of Spokane County
Superior Court reckoned that the Washington privacy law
does not apply to computer communications because the
words of the statute do not specifically mention
computers as a covered device.
Excerpt of a ruling by Judge Kenneth Johnson,
Indianapolis, Indiana
The great public interest in the reporting,
investigation and prosecution of child abuse trumps even
the patient's interest in privileged communication with
her physicians because, in the end, both the patient and
the state are benefited by the disclosure," Johnson
wrote.
Excerpt of a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court of New
Hampshire:
"A generalized concern for personal privacy is insufficient to
meet the state’s burden of demonstrating the existence of a
sufficiently compelling reason to prevent public access." The
state Supreme Court ruled that financial information people
disclose in divorce cases is not entitled to sweeping privacy
protections. The court said the right of access to court
proceedings and records predates both the state and federal
constitutions. The decision relied heavily on the New Hampshire
Constitution, which says power comes from the people. “To that
end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings
and records shall not be unreasonably restricted,” the
Constitution says. The Associated Press v. New Hampshire.
Excerpt of a ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court
In Davis v. Freedom of Information Commission, 259 Conn. 45
(2001)
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the DPPA does not apply
to other government agencies who receive personal information
from the State DMV in the course of their normal government
functions. Therefore, records compiled by the office of the tax
accessor, which were based on state motor vehicle records, were
publicly accessible.
Excerpt of a ruling by the 4th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S Supreme Court
In Doe v. Chao, coal miners claimed that in the
handling of their federal black-lung benefits, their
Social Security numbers were improperly released to
attorneys, judges and coal company representatives.
Several of the miners, using pseudonyms, sued the
government under the Privacy Act. But the 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the miners had not
shown that they suffered any “actual damages” from the
release. U.S. Supreme Court justices heard lengthy and
technical debate over whether actual harm must be shown
to win damages, or if proof of intentional violation of
the act is sufficient. Justice Stephen Breyer said that
with widespread release of Social Security numbers and
other information, “it is easy to imagine bankruptcy for
the federal treasury” if it were made too easy to win
damages. Government lawyer Malcolm Stewart also
cautioned against making it too easy to recover Privacy
Act damages. He said. “Social Security numbers are not
inherently secret or private.” |
Excerpt of a ruling in
Mattivi v. Russell
A newspaper is not liable under the federal Driver's
Privacy Protection Act for publishing an accident report
prepared by state police, a federal court has ruled. (Mattivi
v. Russell, Aug. 2, 2002.) This is one of several recent
decisions in which courts have rejected attempts to
expand the reach of the privacy protection act. |
Excerpt from U.S. District Court Judge Damon Keith:
"Democracy dies behind closed doors." |
Excerpt of a ruling by the Supreme Court of Nevada:
Records showing the telephone numbers of incoming
and outgoing calls on publicly owned cellular telephones
are not confidential or private, Nevada's highest state
court has ruled. (Las Vegas Review v. Board of County
Commissioners, Aug. 18, 2000.) |
Excerpts of rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada /
Cour suprême du Canada: The decisions of this Court
... recognize that there is a fundamental difference
between a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy in
his or her dealings with the state and the same person’s
reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her dealings
with ordinary citizens..... Many times it has been
urged that the ‘privacy’ of litigants requires that the
public be excluded from court proceedings. It is now
well established, however, that covertness is the
exception and openness the rule. ... As a general rule
the sensibilities of the individuals involved are no
basis for exclusion of the public from judicial
proceedings..... The public’s right to information,
supported by freedom of expression, places limits on the
right to respect for one’s private life in certain
circumstances. This is because the expectation of
privacy is reduced in certain cases... Aubry v. Éditions
Vice-Versa Inc., |
In a letter dated Nov 30, 2004 the Canadian Privacy
Commissioner's office stated that Canadian Privacy
regulations - PIPEDA do not
apply to Abika.com |
United Nations, Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers". |
Toby Mendel, Head of law programme at ARTICLE 19, a
leading international human rights organization based in
UK in various publications explains that as a human
right, privacy primarily relates to government actions
not private actions. Human rights guarantees do not
impose broad obligations on governments to protect
individuals against possible invasions of their privacy
by other individuals... Constitutional and international
guarantees require that restrictions on freedom of
expression, even in the interests of privacy, must meet
a very high standard of legality and necessity. This
implies, among other things, that governments must use
the least intrusive means available to protect privacy
interests. |
Anita L. Allen, Professor, University of Pennsylvania
School of Law in a paper published in the William &
Mary Law Review discusses how PRIVACY PERPETUATES
VIOLENCE AND SUBORDINATION AGAINST WOMEN, CHILDREN, AND
THE ELDERLY and how Vulnerable citizens cannot be
protected from domestic violence if unbreachable
boundaries of legally sanctioned privacy surround the
family. She calls the worthiness of the privacy ideal
into question as problems of domestic violence suggest a
need for more, rather than less, involvement in the
traditionally "private" spheres of home and family life.
Betsy Hart served on the White House Staff of Ronald
Reagan and in various columns for newspapers such as the
Chicago Sun Times, Denver Rocky Mountain News & The
Detroit News explains how Privacy hurts security,
perpetuates domestic discord and abuse, and puts teens
and other children at risk. Privacy discourages parental
involvement with children and that creates a rift which
in turn can lead to anti-social and criminal behavior.
Solveig Singleton of the Cato Institute in
various publications explains how privacy turns freedom
of speech and information on its head. From light
conversation, to journalism, to consumer credit
reporting, we rely on being able to freely communicate
details of one another's lives. She asks how can any
people be free if they are restricted from the most
basic human activity of learning more about real people?
Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself: How can one love their neighbor if
one is not allowed to learn about their neighbor?
Privacy perpetuates intolerance and hatred - How can
anyone accept me or learn to accept me as I am if they
are not allowed to know the real me? Privacy is
unhappiness - How can I be happy if I have to constantly
hide my true self from others.
Anita L. Allen-Castellitto, Henry R. Silverman
Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania in various
publications asks: In a free society, should
government force privacy? She discusses how privacy
could also be the door to censorship and oppression.
In speaking of the value of the First
Amendment, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote,
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious
encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without
understanding.
Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law comments in
various publications: Restrictions on information
have overwhelming free speech ramifications. We know
things about any individual we run across. We may write
down what we know or tell others. There are no rights to
stop people from talking about you, he says, just as we
talk about others -- and about the companies we deal
with.
Kevin Bankston, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier
Foundation comments in a news article: The fact is that addresses and phone
numbers and details of credit records aren't really that
private. In fact, they are sloshing around many databases,
bought and sold by data warehouses. The internet makes that
information available to everyone instead of just the moneyed
elites.
Harvard Law Professor Alan M. Dershowitz comments in his
various publications: Finally, there is the question of the
right to anonymity. I don't believe we can afford to recognize
such a right in this age of terrorism. No such right is hinted
at in the Constitution and no such right was hinted by the
founding fathers of the US.
Dennis Bailey consultant to the US State Department and a
participant in the Task force on National Security in his book
titled "The Open Society Paradox: Why the 21st Century Calls for
More Openness, Not Less", discusses how more openness
promises both security and freedom. The technologies of openness
(surveillance, facial recognition, data mining and much else)
can counter bad guys not by restricting people's freedom and
mobility or singling people out because of their race, religion
or beliefs, but by making everyone's public actions more
transparent, so that shady activities by bad guys are not hidden
under the cover of privacy but stand out for everyone to see.
David Brin Ph.D., Astrophysicist and renowned author
in his book "The Transparent Society" discusses how
our society has one great knack that no other ever
managed - that of holding the mighty accountable. He
discusses how citizens are empowered by demanding the
power to know and insisting that everybody get to see.
He explains how history shows that blinding the mighty
is a futile endeavor that has never worked and how
citizens are empowered when everybody has access to
information. Freedom thrives when there is openness and
accountability. He mentions an important thing to
remember, that anyone who claims a right to keep
something private is also claiming a right to deny
knowledge to others, to blind others. He also explains
how we are all better protected by knowing than by
forbidding others to know..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
FTC
drops push for stronger Net privacy laws
How Privacy regulation can damage consumers
Why Check up your Date? |
| |
Why Check up your Doctor? |
| |
Why Check up your Financial Advisor? |
| |
Psychological
testing in the workplace. |
| |
Assessing
behavior of potential employees. |
| |
Gain
a psychological advantage. |
| |
Profiling
Students |
| |
Psychological
Profiling in 2020 |
| |
Psychological
Profiling of Pilots |
| |
Psychological
Profiling for Security |
| |
Can
profiling prevent School Violence |
| |
Employee
Profiling |
| |
Psychological
testing can diagnose own weaknesses. |
|
List
of Fortune 500 Companies that use Psychological Profiling. |
|
Psychological
Tests, Inside Insight. |
|
Privacy |
|
|
|
|
