Website Privacy Policy

Privacy Regulator’s Slam Google’s Privacy Protections

In response to recent criticisms made by regulator’s, Google has claimed that their privacy protections are good enough.

The ten privacy commissioner’s demanded that Google must improve its privacy policy for new products to protect users’ privacy online. Google’s privacy lawyers, Peter Fleischer and Jane Horvath, wrote to the ten privacy commissioners to reassure them that Google’s privacy protection policies were adequate to protect online users against privacy breaches when using Google’s latest products.

Concern was initially raised by Canadian Privacy Commissioner Jenifer Stoddart, whom initiated contact with Google by way of a letter, also signed by the UK Information Commissioner and EU Committee of Commissioners, to name but a few.

The letter detailed the concern of Google’s newly launched products which were believed to be being launched without the extent of internet users privacy being taken into great enough consideration.

The privacy commissioner’s stated that the integrity of a users’ privacy should not be compromised in a bid to push through a new product or service ahead of competitors.

Google has rejected the privacy commissioners stance and instead has insisted that it not only protects user’s privacy, but also informs all users of the process of the use of their personal data and information using website terms and conditions.

Google has faced strong criticism in the past from privacy campaigners regarding its policies on data retention and the creation of street view mapping, where people’s homes and cars could be clearly seen in certain pictures.  Google had not sought the permission of the owners of the property in their pictures.  Furthermore, Google recently introduced advertising technology in emails.

Google’s response to the privacy commissioner’s letter did not contain any provision or promises for reform of their privacy policy.

EU Parliament For Data Rights Charter

The European Parliament has stated that internet users should have the independent ability to request that their personal information and data is removed from any company’s system, even if that personal data was obtained with the user’s consent.

The parliament has approved a new policy called 2015.eu, which summarises the European Parliament’s for internet privacy policy for the next five years.  The EU Parliament has already begun this process with the passing of a resolution to affect changes and compel the European Commission to implement and enforce this scheme.

Further to this, the European Parliament stated that every household situated within the boundaries of the European Union should have consistent access to an affordable broadband connection within the next three years.  In accordance with the strategy in place, each household must have access to affordable high speed broadband by 2020.

The Parliament’s resolution has founded the policy’s aim to have complete and cost effective broadband coverage by 2013, and to enable mobile phone user’s affordable access to 3G networks by 2015.

The European Parliament’s strategy calls on the European Commission to endorse rapid growth in the domestic broadband and mobile network market place and ensure the law is amended from last years Telecoms Reform into the national law of the 27 Member States of the European Union.

Lawmakers in USA Publish Internet Privacy Bill

A proposed law to improve privacy protections for internet users in the US has been published by the House of Representatives subcommittee on Communications, Technology and Internet.  It is believed that by implementing such measures online users will be afforded greater protection under the privacy policy in the current market of online behavioural advertising by companies. 

It has long been debated throughout the globe to what extent data collection and data retention is acceptable to target consumers with specific advertising depending on their usage of ecommerce sites.

The new law contains a clause that states that a company shall not have the authority to collect, disclose or use certain personal information and data, called covered information, unless a privacy notice or privacy policy explaining why and how personal information will be collected and stored is present on the site.  Further to this, website owners must also ensure such a privacy policy contains a consent form for users to confirm they have read, understood and accept the terms of the websites data collection and data retention policies.

In accordance with the US lawmaker’s publication, the privacy policy must be clearly visible on the website and easily accessed by users from the homepage. 

The publication states that a user will have been deemed to have consented to the privacy policy of the website if they expressly grant their consent or if they do not decline to provide their consent.

The law will act to limit the scope by which a company may disclose user’s personal data to third parties.  In contrast, the law will not apply to government organisations or companies collecting the personal data of less than 5000 in any yearly period.

Last year there was some speculation regarding user’s online safety when disclosing their personal information over the web.  The European Union’s Consumer Affairs Commissioner stated that behavioural advertising techniques should be closely monitored.  Further to this, the Office of Fair Trading in the UK has been investigating the extent to which consumers should be protected in relation to the use of the personal information to decide what advertisements they get to see when searching online.

China Enforces Tightening on Secrecy

China has reinforced its clampdown on the communication of information that it believes may damage the interests of the country or Chinese commerce.

After the conviction of four Rio Tinto executives whom were accused of stealing commercial secrets from the state, the Chinese government has published a guide setting out what signifies a commercial secret and will pass a law to compel all telecommunications companies to take action should any state or commercial secret pass through their network.

Media reports of the trial of the Rio Tinto executives indicated that they undertook enquiries that would normally be considered routine market information in any other country.  The executives were sentenced to between seven and fourteen years in prison.  It was only after this case that the Chinese government decided to publicise guidance on what constitutes a commercial secret after speculation and concern grew over the discrepancies that were present.  However, it seems that the governments guide will not prove useful to companies trying to protect themselves as the governmental guide states that any information not already disclosed by a company shall be deemed a commercial secret.  Further to this, some commercial secrets may also be classified as a state secret.

The China Daily newspaper, which is state run, published an article explaining how telecommunications companies will be forced to work alongside investigators and must detect, disclose and delete all information that is a state secret.

China has long been known to control and monitor its’ citizens use of the internet after it demanded that service providers, including Google, blocked access to or at least censored all information and materials online.

Yahoo! Endured international condemnation after they handed the details of nonconformist bloggers to the Chinese government.  The bloggers were jailed for the opinion they had publicised online.

Google recently challenged the Chinese government by refusing to censor its search listings.  The result of this has seen the Chinese government censoring material listed in Google themselves.

Rise In Company Security Breaches

According to consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the majority of large firms based in the UK are suffering a rapid number of attacks and security breaches, despite companies spending a record amount on IT security over the past year.

A study undertaken by PwC established that, although the majority of companies have greatly enhanced spending on their security risk assessment procedures, there are still record levels of security breaches occurring, with more than double the amount of instances taking place since 2008.

The study showed that nearly 35% of companies are gravely dependent on third party software, with only 17% ensuring all confidential data stored with an external agent is heavily encrypted to maintain the integrity of that data.  The result of this is that companies are critically failing to protect themselves and the confidential data of which they must keep safe-guarded.

Attacks on companies large and small have dramatically increased over the past year, with large companies being inundated with illegitimate activity.  More than 62% of all companies asked were infected with malicious software.

When using technologies to store confidential data, companies are failing to ensure that the sensitive data they are allocating and storing is correctly encrypted.

Lawyers Protected From Disclosing Privacy Injunctions

In a recent case where the owner of a laptop that was stolen in a burglary sought the courts protection for the private information and photographs that were on the laptop, the High Court has ruled that the burglar does not have the right to view, store or circulate the information that was stored on that computer.  The Court added that the victim’s rights to privacy outweighed the burglar’s rights to freedom of expression while in possession of the laptop.

The result of this is that only media organisations with an interest in a story must be notified of a privacy court injunction.  Further to this, the Court added that, if the person in possession of the stolen laptop attempts to issue media organisations in the publication of information sourced from that computer, the victim’s lawyers are not required to inform all media organisations of the Court’s privacy-protecting injunction against the publication of such information.  The victim’s lawyers shall only have an obligation to disclose to an organisation with an interest in the information.

Mr Justice Eady commented that the result of this case will make clear the position of media organisations regarding the circumstances under which they should or should not be informed of an injunction that is in place.  The need for notification to media organisations should be approached on a case by case basis as media organisations enjoy other protections and may not need to always be directly informed of an injunction by the victim’s lawyers, as injunctions may be modified or withdrawn without notice by the Courts.

Electronic Devices Must Have Data Wipe Function Say EU

A European data privacy watchdog has stated that manufacturers of digital apparatus should be forced to include a data wipe function.  Further to this, they have recommended that the sale of second hand digital equipment should be banned unless the equipment has been properly cleared of all previous personal data.

The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), Peter Hustinx, is responsible for the regulation of European organisations privacy practices.  Mr Hustinx has also advised on the privacy policy and privacy legislation after publishing recommendations for the revision of the EU’s laws on the disposal of digital apparatus. 

The EDPS has said that the European Commission ought to have contemplated privacy risks from the beginning of the privacy legislation that has been put into force.  The European Commission has confirmed that it shall review the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive in an attempt to rectify any proven administrative, legal or technical concerns present within the WEEE Directive.  The Directive currently applies to the waste disposal and recycling of retailers of electronic goods.

Hustinx has further commented that he should be a part of this legislative process to ensure privacy is taken into greater consideration by the European Commission.    He further stated that the European Commission must be explicit when stating the Data Protection Directive is to apply to those retailers who fall under the scope of the WEEE disposal arrangements to enable such retailers to have a better understanding of their obligations and responsibilities under the Directive.

UKs Digital Economy Playing Catch Up

A California-based website encouraging anonymous comments about how good you are at your job is causing controversy in the UK.  UK libel lawyers are becoming frustrated at the website ‘unvarnished,’ which falls out of the reach of the UKs jurisdiction.

Websites based in the United States have different protections available than those that are based in the United Kingdom.  When parliament passed the Digital Economy Bill, they neglected to enter any such protections into the Act.

The website ‘unvarnished’ is being used as an example because it raises direct issues relating to the UKs digital culture.  A website of this nature would undoubtedly breach privacy policy rules in England and Wales. 

The website lists employee’s names and organisations, and gives them a star rating out of ten for productivity in the workplace, skill, integrity and relationships.  The star rating is rated anonymously by colleagues or anyone. Unvarnished is a place to poach workers from organisations who are highly regarded by rankings on the website.  It’s also a way of employers looking at potential employees stats.

A similar site for rating lawyers in the US is avvo.com, where a lawyers reputation can made, or broken, in the click of a button.  In the UK, this would be libellous.  Arguably from a legal perspective, the US provides ecommerce with legal perks by permitting certain actions that are prohibited in the UK online marketplace.

In the US, the Communications Decency Act provides the right to immunity from liability for comments written by users.  In contrast in the UK, there is no such protection, and it is important for a UK based website to have a privacy policy, website terms and conditions and even a website disclaimer in place to create a shield against liability against user’s comments.

Targeted Ads Violate Privacy

Consumer rights groups have requested the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate large online companies to review whether user’s rights are being violated by online advertising techniques such as targeted behavioural advertising.

US consumer groups are arguing that the targeting of advertisements violates user’s privacy.  Claims being made coincide with recent findings that personalised targeting creates a system whereby access to user’s information is bought and sold without the user’s permission as they are likely to be unaware of the scope of personal information passed to advertising agencies in the online marketplace.  Also, information regarding user’s offline life is being combined with online profiling techniques which, groups say, is eroding online privacy rights.

The Center for Digital Democracy, the World Privacy Forum and the Federation of Public Interest Research Groups are backing the complaints made by consumer groups in a bid to request the FTC to review online advertising practices and the implications for user’s privacy.

The basis of the complaint stems around real-time bidding, which is an intrusive method used to utilise an individual’s personal information.  The information is often manipulated to identify users at certain times so that advertisers can target those users online with their advert.

Consumer rights campaigners believe that the majority of users do not understand the way in which their personal information is manipulated by online advertisers as data is used as a bargaining tool between large online companies.

Digital Economy Bill Passed by House of Commons

The House of Commons passed the Digital Economy Bill yesterday for it to become law prior to the general election.  The Bill, which has been heavily criticised due to the timing of its implementation being so close to the general election, was designed to implement last summer’s Digital Britain Report.

It has been widely speculated that Business Secretary Lord Mandelson pushed the Bill through the Commons as several controversial insertions were entered into the Bill after its initial proposal had been approved by ministers in the House of Lords when the legislation was initially debated.

The Digital Economy Bill will provide ministers with the power to force internet service providers (ISPs) to disconnect households and companies and the ability to block online sites that are likely to be used for copyright infringement and illegal file sharing free from judicial guidance.

The above proposals were not in the original Digital Britain Report, but were instead inserted into the legislation by Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers when the Bill was originally debated in the House of Lords earlier this year.  Although the government initially retracted these amendments, similar insertions were created and placed in the final draft of the legislation before it was passed in the House of Commons.

It has been argued by digital rights groups and activists that the legislation was pushed through before Parliament was formally dissolved by the Queen, prior to this year’s general election on 6^th May.