Data privacy Totally Explained

Everything about Data Privacy totally explained

Data privacy is the relationship between collection and dissemination of data, technology, the public expectation of privacy, and the legal issues surrounding them.
Privacy concerns exist wherever personally identifiable information is collected and stored - in digital form or otherwise. Improper or non-existent disclosure control can be the root cause for privacy issues. Data privacy issues can arise in response to information from a wide range of sources, such as:

Healthcare records
Criminal justice investigations and proceedings
Financial institutions and transactions
Biological traits, such as genetic material
Residence and geographic records
Ethnicity

The challenge in data privacy is to share data while protecting personally identifiable information. The fields of data security and information security design and utilize software, hardware and human resources to address this issue.

Legality

The legal protection of the right to privacy in general - and of data privacy in particular - varies greatly around the world.

Canada

In Canada, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) went into effect on 1 January, 2001, applicable to federally regulated organizations. All other organizations were included on 1 January, 2004. The PIPEDA brings Canada into compliance with the requirements of the European Commission's directive on data privacy.

Europe

The right to data privacy is heavily regulated and rigidly enforced in Europe. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions. The European Court of Human Rights has given this article a very broad interpretation in its jurisprudence. According to the Court's case law the collection of information by officials of the state about an individual without his consent always falls within the scope of Article 8. Thus, gathering information for the official census, recording fingerprints and photographs in a police register, collecting medical data or details of personal expenditures and implementing a system of personal identification have been judged to raise data privacy issues.
Any state interference with a person's privacy is only acceptable for the Court if three conditions are fulfilled:

The interference is in accordance with the law

The interference pursues a legitimate goal

The interference is necessary in a democratic society The government isn't the only entity which may pose a threat to data privacy. Other citizens, and private companies most importantly, engage in far more threatening activities, especially since the automated processing of data became widespread. The Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data was concluded within the Council of Europe in 1981. This convention obliges the signatories to enact legislation concerning the automatic processing of personal data, which many duly did.
As all the member states of the European Union are also signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, the European Commission was concerned that diverging data protection legislation would emerge and impede the free flow of data within the EU zone. Therefore the European Commission decided to harmonize data protection regulation and proposed the Directive on the protection of personal data, which member states had to transpose into law by the end of 1998.
The directive contains a number of key principles which must be complied with. Anyone processing personal data must comply with the eight enforceable principles of good practice. They state that the data must:

Fairly and lawfully processed.

Processed for limited purposes.

Adequate, relevant and not excessive.

Accurate.

Not kept longer than necessary.

Processed in accordance with the data subject's rights.

Secure.

Not transferred to countries without adequate protection. Personal data covers both facts and opinions about the individual. It also includes information regarding the intentions of the data controller towards the individual, although in some limited circumstances exemptions will apply. With processing, the definition is far wider than before. For example, it incorporates the concepts of 'obtaining', 'holding' and 'disclosing'.
All EU member states adopted legislation pursuant this directive or adapted their existing laws. Each country also has its own supervisory authority to monitor the level of protection.

France

France adapted its existing law, no. 78-17 of 6 January 1978 concerning information technology, files and civil liberties". More information

is available on the website of the CNIL (in French only).

Germany

In Germany both the federal government and the states enacted legislation.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom the Data Protection Act 1984 was repealed by the Data Protection Act 1998 (Information Commissioner).

Switzerland

Switzerland isn't a member of the European Union (EU) or of the European Economic Area. Therefore the EU Directive on the protection of personal data isn't applicable in Switzerland.
In Switzerland, the right to privacy is guaranteed in article 13 of the Swiss Federal Constitution. The Swiss Federal Data Protection Act (DPA)

and the Swiss Federal Data Protection Ordinance (DPO) entered into force on July 1, 1993. The latest amendments of the DPA and the DPO entered into force on January 1, 2008.
The DPA applies to the processing of personal data by private persons and federal government agencies. Unlike the data protection legislation of many other countries, the DPA protects both personal data pertaining to natural persons and legal entities(External Link

).
The Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner

in particular supervises compliance of the federal government agencies with the DPA, provides advice to private persons on data protection, conducts investigations and makes recommendations concerning data protection practices.
Some data files must be registered with the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner before they're created. In the case of a transfer of personal data outside of Switzerland, special requirements need to be met and, depending on the circumstances, the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner must be informed before the transfer is made(External Link

).
Most Swiss cantons have enacted their own data protection laws regulating the processing of personal data by cantonal and municipal bodies.

United States

Data privacy isn't highly legislated or regulated in the U.S.. In the United States, access to private data is culturally acceptable in many cases, such as credit reports for employment or housing purposes. Although partial regulations exist, for instance the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and HIPAA, there's no all-encompassing law regulating the use of personal data. The desire to minimise the power of the state in the U.S. may be a reason for the reluctance to trust the government to protect personal information. In the U.S. the first amendment protects free speech and in many instances privacy conflicts with this amendment. In many countries privacy has been used as a tool to suppress free speech.
The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to grant a right of privacy to individuals in Griswold v. Connecticut. Very few states, however, recognize an individual's right to privacy, a notable exception being California. An inalienable right to privacy is enshrined in the California Constitution's article 1, section 1, and the California legislature has enacted several pieces of legislation aimed at protecting this right. The California Online Privacy Protection Act (OPPA) of 2003 requires operators of commercial web sites or online services that collect personal information on California residents through a web site to conspicuously post a privacy policy on the site and to comply with its policy.
The safe harbor arrangement was developed by the US Department of Commerce in order to provide a means for US companies to demonstrate compliance with European Commission directives and thus to simplify relations between them and European businesses.

Safe Harbor Program and Passenger Name Record issues

The US Department of Commerce created the Safe Harbor certification program in response to the 1995 Directive on Data Protection (Directive 95/46/EC) of the European Commission. Directive 95/46/EC declares in Chapter IV Article 25 that personal data may only be transferred from the countries in the EEA to countries which provide adequate privacy protection. Historically, establishing adequacy required the creation of national laws broadly equivalent to those implemented by Directive 95/46/EU. Although there are exceptions to this blanket prohibition - for example where the disclosure to a country outside the EEA is made with the consent of the relevant individual (Article 26(1)(a)) - they're limited in practical scope. As a result, Article 25 created a legal risk to organisations which transfer personal data from Europe to the USA.
   The program has an important issue on the exchange of Passenger Name Record information between the EU and the US. According to the EU directive, personal data may only be transferred to third countries if that country provides an adequate level of protection. Some exceptions to this rule are provided, for instance when the controller himself can guarantee that the recipient will comply with the data protection rules.
   The European Commission has set up the "Working party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data," commonly known as the "Article 29 Working Party". The Working Party gives advice about the level of protection in the European Union and third countries.
   The Working Party negotiated with U.S. representatives about the protection of personal data, the Safe Harbor Principles were the result. Notwithstanding that approval, the self assessment approach of the Safe Harbor remains controversial with a number of European privacy regulators and commentators.
   The Safe Harbor program addresses this issue in a unique way: rather than a blanket law imposed on all organisations in the US, a voluntary program is enforced by the FTC. US organisations which register with this program, having self-assessed their compliance with a number of standards, are "deemed adequate" for the purposes of Article 25. Personal information can be sent to such organisations from the EEA without the sender being in breach of Article 25 or its EU national equivalents. The Safe Harbor was approved as providing adequate protection for personal data, for the purposes of Article 25(6), by the European Commission on 26 July 2000.
   The Safe Harbor isn't a perfect solution to the challenges posed by Article 25. In particular, adoptee organisations need to carefully consider their compliance with the onward transfer obligations, where personal data originating in the EU is transferred to the US Safe Harbor, and then onward to a third country). The alternative compliance approach of "Binding Corporate Rules", recommended by many EU privacy regulators, resolves this issue. In addition, any dispute arising in relation to the transfer of HR data to the US Safe Harbor must be heard by a panel of EU privacy regulators.
   In July 2007, a new, controversial A short time afterwards, the Bush administration gave exemption for the Department of Homeland Security, for the Arrival and Departure System (ADIS) and for the Automated Target System from the 1974 Privacy Act .
   In February 2008, Jonathan Faull, the head of the EU's Commission of Home Affairs, complaigned about the US bilateral policy concerning PNR . The US had signed in February 2008 a memorandum of understanding

(MOU) with the Czech Republic in exchange of a VISA waiver scheme, without concerting before with Brussels . The tensions between Washington and Brussels are mainly caused by a lesser level of data protection in the US, especially since foreigners don't benefit from the US Privacy Act of 1974. Other countries approached for bilateral MOU included the United Kingdom, Estonia, Germany and Greece .

Protecting privacy in information systems

As heterogeneous information systems with differing privacy rules are interconnected and information is shared, policy appliances will be required to reconcile, enforce and monitor an increasing amount of privacy policy rules (and laws). There are two categories of technology to address privacy protection in commercial IT systems: communication and enforcement.

Policy Communication

P3P - The Platform for Privacy Preferences. P3P is a standard for communicating privacy practices and comparing them to the preferences of individuals.

Policy Enforcement

XACML - The Extensible Access Control Markup Language together with its Privacy Profile is a standard for expressing privacy policies in a machine-readable language which a software system can use to enforce the policy in enterprise IT systems.

EPAL

- The Enterprise Privacy Authorization Language is very similar to XACML, but isn't yet a standard.

WS-Privacy - "Web Service Privacy" will be a specification for communicating privacy policy in web services. For example, it may specify how privacy policy information can be embedded in the SOAP envelope of a web service message.Further Information

Get more info on 'Data Privacy'.

External Link Exchanges

Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:

<a href="http://data_privacy.totallyexplained.com">Data privacy Totally Explained</a>

Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned.