Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ochr Privacy Ifla
Ochr Privacy Ifla
Privacy is the “right to be free from unwarranted intrusion and to keep certain matters
from public view” (Law 2015). As such, “privacy is an important element in the
autonomy of the individual. Much of what makes us human comes from our interactions
with others within a private sphere where we assume no one is observing. Privacy thus
relates to what we say, what we do, and perhaps even what we feel” (MacMenemy
2016).
As set out in IFLA’s own Statement on Privacy in the Library Environment, ‘excessive
data collection and use threatens individual users’ privacy and has other social and legal
consequences. When Internet users are aware of large-scale data collection and
surveillance, they may self-censor their behaviour due to the fear of unexpected
consequences. Excessive data collection can then have a chilling effect on society,
narrowing an individual’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression
because of this perceived threat. Limiting freedom of speech and expression has the
potential to compromise democracy and greatly limit civil engagement by making us
“predictable” in our actions and thoughts (Cohen, 2016).
Data collection, through hacking or simple data harvesting, allows governments and
commercial entities to amass huge banks of information about common citizens and
their online behaviour. Privacy incursions occur frequently, affecting our search and
digital behaviour patterns. These incursions are not only about a person or in this case
a user – they can also affect a group, a family, a community.
Automated data gathering is carried out by government and private actors. Government
surveillance includes communications interception, bulk data collection and
1
processing, targeted intrusions in ICT systems and issues relating to cross-border
surveillance and access to personal data.
Businesses can also contribute to surveillance activities based on data automation and
collection and so encroach on our privacy. The latest scandal involves Facebook users
and Cambridge Analytica researchers mishandling the data of over 40 million users.
The dubious data gathering tactic included the use of Facebook Graphs API (application
program interface) “that makes possible all the interconnectivity and the data delivery
Facebook boasts when claiming that the platform was building a web where the default
option is sharing” (Albright 2018). What is worrisome is that FB claims that its interface
is based on the pretence that users are in control of what it is shared. In actuality,
Facebook users have next to no control what is covertly shared about them – meaning
the information and metadata others can extract.
Whether the threat comes from governments or private entities, these occurrences pose
a significant question as to the right to live without arbitrary attacks on privacy (Article
12 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights) and how our right to safeguard
privacy can be defended.
Laws Are Not Enough
While data protection legislation has the potential to cut back on speculative data
collection by companies, data privacy laws are not well placed to protect individuals'
rights vis-a-vis automated technologies and privacy can all too often be undermined by
laws elsewhere.
There are already voices against blanket surveillance. The Council of Europe has called
on Member States to refrain from indiscriminate mass digital surveillance. In 2016 the
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) “delivered a judgement on secret
surveillance in the case Szabo and Vissy vs, Hungary. The court found that Hungary’s
2011 legislation on secret surveillance violated article 8 of the ECHR because it failed
to safeguard against abuse” (Fundamental Right Report 2017).
Referring to the “Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) judgment in Digital
Rights Ireland v. Minister of Communications & Others, the ECtHR stated that, where
national rules enable large-scale or strategic interception and where this interference
may result in particularly invasive interferences with private life”, the “guarantees
2
required by the extant Convention case-law on interceptions need to be enhanced so as
to address the issue of such surveillance practices” (Fundamental Right Report 2017).
Regarding current legislation, even under the General Data Protection Regulation,
governments still have ample scope to claim that national security – for right or for
wrong – justifies attacks on privacy. This is not to say that steps to ensure that firms
and others will have to be clearer about what information they are gathering, and how
it will be used, are not welcome, alongside the possibility for citizens to ask to see what
data is held, and for it to be deleted.
Nonetheless, faced with an uneven – and sometimes contradictory legal landscape, the
most effective response is to empower the individual, giving them the knowledge and
tools necessary to look after themselves.
Best practices for the promotion and protection of the Right to Privacy: the role
of libraries
The benefits of digital technology in our daily lives are many. However, while enjoying
these benefits, the amount of data we disseminate in living our lives online has serious
implications for our privacy. While we may deem technology in and of itself as neutral,
its impacts are not, and we need to address these. But how?
Libraries can play a powerful role in the promotion and protection of privacy given
their long experience in working with information and helping users. Librarians agree
that data privacy is a vital part of broader digital literacy – the ability to get the best out
of the opportunities that digital technologies offer. Libraries can make the difference in
the field of empowering individuals: teaching the meaning of digital privacy
undoubtedly enhances security practices.
Libraries also promote best practices by determining what user data they collect to limit
information held about their users. Libraries can push partners (commercial or
otherwise) to limit personal data collection and develop procedures to protect user
privacy. In addition, to minimize the amount of data libraries’ computers collect, many
libraries instituted a set of practices where “Web browsers have temporary Internet files
set to 2 MB, history retention set to 0 days, form-filling memory turned off, password
memory turned off, and downloads turned off. In some libraries, all computers have
special products installed to restore them to a standard template when rebooted.
Computers will be set up to reboot after a set time of inactivity. This will clear any
individual who forgot to log off and delete his activities from the computer” (Coombs
2005).
3
When there is a deep, systemic problem such as the current attacks to our privacy, the
solution does not come from ad hoc deletion of problematic software or applications,
but it comes from education, digital literacy, global cooperation and tirelessly
advocating on best practices.
Conclusions
The growing prominence of the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age over the past years
would not have occurred without the presence of a robust and expert civil society
constituency.
This engaged constituency strived to achieve consensus on key issues ranging from the
disproportionality of mass surveillance to the dangers associated with the bulk retention
and acquisition of metadata. Also, the requirement to obtain legal authorization prior to
the collection of personal data also remains central to consensus building. Civil society
organizations have been highly effective in influencing the evolving discourse on the
right to privacy in the digital age. They should continue to have a strong voice in the
discussions.
Libraries and libraries associations, as important members of the civil society, can
advance the Right to Privacy in the Digital age by cooperating with partner
organizations in this area, both in order to advance relevant legislation, and to give their
users the knowledge and skills required to protect themselves. They should, in this,
receive the support necessary to keep abreast of continually advancing technologies and
their implications for Privacy and human rights, and to help users.
4
References
Ahmed, A.& Perlroth, N. (2017, 19 June). ‘Somos los nuevos enemigos del Estado’: el
espionaje a activistas y periodistas en Mexico. The New York Times. Accessed online
on 04/04/2018
https://www.nytimes.com/es/2017/06/19/mexico-pegasus-nso-group-espionaje/
Albright, J. (2018). The Graph API: Key Points in the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica
Debacle Accessed on line at:
https://medium.com/tow-center/the-graph-api-key-points-in-the-facebook-and-
cambridge-analytica-debacle-b69fe692d747
Cohen, J.E. (2013) What is Privacy for? Harvard Law Review 126.
Coombs, K.A. (2005). Protecting USER PRIVACY in the Age of DIGITAL LIBRARIES.
Computers in Libraries 25(6), 16-20.
Morozov, E. (2013). The Real Privacy Problem. MIT Technology Review. Accessed online at:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520426/the-real-privacy-problem/