In this briefing, Privacy International (PI)outlines its analysis of some key provisions on the Revised Draft Text of the UN Cybercrime Convention, with the aim to provide delegations of Member States and other stakeholders with our recommendations to strengthen the draft and to bring it in line with human rights law. This briefing builds upon the submissions made by PI at the previous sessions of the AHC and reflects upon some of the amendments proposed by Member States. While not aiming to be comprehensive, it covers in particular the following Articles: 3, 5, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 47 and 54.
Support systems are undergoing significant digitisation and automation under the banner of efficiency. Privacy International calls for the impacts of these innovations on the rights of people with disabilities to be comprehensively assessed and addressed.
Privacy International sent a letter expressing its concerns and observations on the position of the Council in the current interinstitutional negotiations (trilogues) of the Platform Workers Directive (PWD).
Privacy International (PI) has just published new research into UK Members of Parliament’s (startling lack of) knowledge on the use of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) in public spaces, even within their own constituencies.
In June 2023, PI conducted a survey of UK MPs through YouGov, which highlighted their startling lack of knowledge of the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) in their own constituencies, inspiring our new campaign about 'The End of Privacy in Public'.
Privacy International's response to the South African Parliament's call for submissions on the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Amendment Bill (the RICA Bill).
New research from our partners at the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) reveals Indian health websites and apps are sharing intimate health-related data with third parties such as Facebook and Google.
PI together with ARTICLE 19 intervened at the European Court of Human Rights to submit that digital device seizures and extraction performed at the border interfere with the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, in particular when performed on journalists.
Introduction The 28th of September marks International Safe Abortion Day. It remains a day necessary to mobilise and raise awareness of the continued struggles women and girls face when accessing reproductive healthcare, including
In 2023, Privacy International continues to produce real change by challenging governments and corporations that use data and technology to exploit us. Since the beginning of the year, we had some significant achievements we're proud of and want to share with you. Take a look below to see how we are
In this briefing Privacy International outlines its analysis of some key provisions on the draft text of the UN Cybercrime Convention, with the aim to provide delegations of Member States and other stakeholders with our recommendations to strengthen the draft and bring it into line with human rights law. This briefing builds upon the submissions made by PI at the previous sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee and reflects upon some of the amendments proposed by Member States. While not aiming to be comprehensive, it covers in particular the following Articles: 2, 3, 5, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 47 and 54.
On International Identity Day, we are highlighting that the technology-driven ID systems being implemented around the world are leading to new forms of surveillance and exclusion. Last September, PI and its global network of partners launched Identity Crisis - a campaign to change the narrative on
Today the European Court of Human Rights held the United Kingdom accountable for its digital spying , even when that spying affects people outside of the UK’s borders. In this case, Mr Weider and Mr Guarnieri, both researchers who work on information security and privacy, challenged the lack of
Among the myriad of surveillance powers it already possesses, the UK government wants the power to stop companies - anywhere in the world - from making security improvements to their services without approval. To fall under this power, the company only has to service UK users, and yet the effects will be felt by every user, every where.
PI provided input to the UN Secretary General's Report on the Human Rights of Migrants, calling for better protection of migrants against uses of technology for border governance and immigration control.
Outraged by Big Tech’s attitude towards privacy? Vexed by the government power grab during the Covid-19 pandemic? Exasperated by indiscriminate mass surveillence? Join us to stay informed on all things privacy, human rights and tech!
Choose what you’re interested in and keep up to date about our latest work and action against corporate and government exploitation.
In this joint submission, Privacy International (PI) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) provide observations and recommendations on the proposed draft text of the UN Cybercrime Convention for the August 2023 session.
As EU institutions start decisive meetings on the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, a broad civil society coalition is urging them to prioritise people and fundamental rights in this landmark legislation.
PI’s submission regarding Colombia’s compliance with the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights highlights concerns regarding changes in electoral law, the continued surveillance of human rights defenders, and the emergence of new OSINT tactics.
Our 2018 complaint against French AdTech company Criteo led to a €40 million fine for failing to ensure that data subjects had provided their consent to processing, to sufficiently inform them and to enable them to exercise their rights.
Following on from our initial reaction, we answer some questions about the decision below.
Suite à une plainte de Privacy International déposée en 2018, la société française d'AdTech Criteo s'est vue infliger une amende de 40 millions d'euros pour avoir failli à s'assurer que les personnes concernées avaient donné leur consentement au traitement de leurs données, ainsi que pour le manque d'information et de transparence qui leur était fourni par Criteo, et l'impossibilité d'exercer pleinement leurs droits.