Showing posts with label No-fly list. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No-fly list. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Privacy Rights and Terror Investigations
Two recent developments on the international cooperation front provide some redress to concerns about privacy and information-sharing between governments. The introduction of no-fly lists in the U.S., Canada and the E.U., as well as the increasingly globalised nature of personal information in data banks has raised questions about how this information will be shared with and used by foreign governments.A tragic example of the failure to provide protection to citizens in these areas is the story of Maher Arar, a story familiar to most Canadians:
Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to his family in Canada. He was held in solitary confinement in the U.S. for nearly two weeks, interrogated, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The Bush administration labeled him a member of Al Qaeda and rendered him, not to Canada, his home and country of citizenship, but to Syrian intelligence authorities, known by the U.S. government to practice torture.While in Syria, he was regularly tortured for almost a year before being released to Canada. Both the Canadian and Syrian governments have publicly cleared Arar of any links to terrorism. The United States government, however, refuses to clear Arar’s name and continues to have both him and his family on a watchlist.
Mr. Arar’s incarceration was the result, in part, of misleading information provided by the RCMP, which eventually led to the resignation of the RCMP commissioner. Following Mr. Arar’s return to Canada, there were several intentional disclosures to the public from his file, which appeared to be made in order to justify the actions of the security agencies involved. These disclosures were in violation of Mr. Arar’s privacy rights.
In our increasingly globalised economy, the volume of personal data crossing borders represents a growing threat to personal privacy. In an effort to counter the threat, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has issued a report proposing amendments to data privacy legislation as well as enhancements to international cooperation in the field of privacy protection:
When personal information moves across borders it may put at increased risk the
ability of individuals to exercise privacy rights to protect themselves from the
unlawful use or disclosure of that information. At the same time, the authorities charged with enforcing privacy laws may find that they are unable to pursue complaints or conduct investigations relating to the activities of organisations outside their borders. Their efforts to work together in the cross-border context may also be hampered by insufficient preventative or remedial powers, inconsistent legal regimes, and practical obstacles like resource constraints. In this context, a consensus has emerged on the need to promote closer co-operation among privacy law enforcement authorities to help them exchange information and carry out investigations with their foreign counterparts.
While most OECD member countries have enacted privacy legislation, Canada's Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddard has pointed out that different rules in different countries were not only causing unease among citizens and companies, but were also leading to more red tape and higher costs.
Meanwhile, The European Union and the U.S. have reached a provisional deal on exchanging information about transatlantic air passengers. According to a TechWorld News story, the U.S. will be required to adhere to "strict data retention obligations," including retaining both used and unused data for no more than five years.
The United States and European Union share views on combating terrorism butWhile privacy protections need to go even further than these two initiatives, it is encouraging to see some developments that attempt to preserve individual privacy rights and hopefully prevent a recurrence of the nightmare that Maher Arar experienced.
"these activities should be done in full respect for fundamental rights," said
Franco Frattini, the EU's justice and home affairs commissioner.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Canada's No-Fly list could be linked to biometrics
Canada new “no-fly” list, to be known as “Passenger Protect”, takes effect on June 18th and according to an Ottawa Citizen report, the federal transport minister isn’t ruling out linking the names to biometric data in the long term. The Canadian no-fly list will have hundreds of names, rather than the tens of thousands on the U.S. list. Names will be added to the list based on information supplied by CSIS and the RCMP.In an earlier post, I wrote about the risks associated with biometrics and DNA-enabled travel documents, data security and the potential impact on individual privacy. The first steps toward collecting biometric data are already underway in both the U.S. and Canada:
Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart has spoken out against the no-fly list, along with other privacy advocates such as Pippa Lawson, director of CIPPIC. Citizens could be the subject of mistaken identity and personal information collected by governments could make citizens vulnerable when traveling abroad or if their information is stolen or abused. The potential for abuse was highlighted at the Air India inquiry, where a Transport Minister acknowledged that the no-fly list could be shared with foreign governments.The United States already scans the fingerprints of foreign visitors entering the country and stores the information in a database. Visitors from Canada and some countries are excluded from the program.
Meanwhile, Transport Canada has bulked up security at airports by issuing biometric ID cards to staff who work in "restricted areas."
While airlines could be fined up to $25,000 if they disclose personal information about individuals on the list, there appear to be little safeguards provided to prevent foreign governments from using or abusing this information. Passengers who feel they have been mistakenly placed on the no-fly list can appeal to the Office of Reconsideration, but are not allowed to know why their name was originally placed on the list.
Canadians are entitled to strong and rigorous guarantees from their federal government about the uses and limits of the collection and dissemination of personal information. The implications of misuse and abuse are far too serious for anything less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
