Obtaining adequate information about a public-private partnership is often difficult, especially when sensitive areas of government are involved, such as intelligence and law enforcement. Information about such activities is often purposefully withheld from the public and guarded by excessive laws and punishments.
According to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (‘UN Guiding Principles’), companies should respect human rights, meaning they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others, and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved (UN Guiding Principle 11).
Once you have a good understanding of how a technology works, you may then need to assess its various privacy and data protection implications. To do so, we have outlined here some general aspects of data processing that you can run through to identify any concerns.
Technologies at the heart of a public-private partnership can be surrounded by secrecy and opacity making it hard for external actors to assess the risks. From buzzwords to obscure technical terminology, getting a real sense of what the technology at stake is and what it actually does isn’t an easy job. This section is designed to guide you in finding more information about the technology, understanding it, and identifying potential flaws.
Another important aspect of assessing the governance of a public-private partnership requires analysing any accountability and oversight mechanisms in place, including any mechanisms through which the partnership was first established (e.g. public procurement processes).
Through our investigative work and the work of our partners around the world, we have identified a number of persistent governance issues common to public-private partnerships. We have detailed each of our concerns, and relevant corresponding safeguards, here. In this section we provide some high-level guidance on how to identify these types of concerns.
In advance of the anticipated publication of the Data Protection Reform Bill in the UK, PI publishes here our response to the consultation on data protection reform submitted in November 2021. We focus on the real world impact of the proposed removal of extensive protections, by drawing on examples of PI’s research, investigations and advocacy from around the world.
Privacy International's submitted its input to the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty ahead of the presentation of his thematic report to the UN Human Rights Council titled "Social protection: a reality check".
PI's submission highlights the impact of digitalisation, automation and intrusive data collection on access to social protection.
Privacy International has made a submission to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration inspection of the Home Office Satellite Tracking Service Programme. We highlighted some of our concerns about the intrusive nature of location data as well as systemic failures relating to the quality of tags and battery life of devices which have a significant impact on individuals, as battery depletion can result in criminal prosecution.
Este informe pretende mapear las actitudes y perspectivas de los reguladores de la competencia y de la sociedad civil de los diferentes países del mundo en materia de datos personales y competencia. Específicamente, explora el enfoque que han adoptado algunos reguladores al incorporar en sus análisis de competencia parámetros relacionados con los “datos personales”, así como los retos que enfrentan al adoptar este tipo de parámetros. El informe además busca identificar oportunidades de incidencia eficaces para las organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC), al discutir las diferentes herramientas que pueden utilizar para apoyar el trabajo programático de los reguladores al tiempo que defienden el bienestar de los consumidores en el entorno digital.
This report seeks to map the attitudes and perspectives of competition regulators and civil society across the world with regard to personal data and competition. Specifically, it explores the approach certain regulators have adopted by incorporating ‘personal data’ parameters in their competitive assessments, as well as the challenges faced by them in doing so. Furthermore, the report seeks to identify effective advocacy opportunities for civil society organisations (CSOs), by discussing the various tools they can use to support the regulators’ programmatic work while defending consumers’ well-being in the digital environment.
In 2021 Privacy International continued to produced real change by challenging governments and corporations that use data and technology to exploit us. And, we produced substantial impact that directly affects each of us.
The ‘Guide to Digital Safety and Privacy at Peaceful Protests’ has been produced by 7amleh - The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media. 7amleh has adapted the content of PI's UK Free to Protest guide to fit the Palestinian context. The guide is organized in three sub-guides: (1) a guide to
Privacy International submitted its input to the forthcoming report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR) on the practical application of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) to the activities of technology companies, to be presented at the 50th session of the Human Rights Council in June 2022.
Our submissions address the systemic lack of transparency and accountability of the technology industry, in particular in its relationships with governments and authorities. We recommend concrete measures to ensure human rights standards are applied and upheld in the activities of technology companies, and when their products and services are used by governments for surveillance and public decision-making.
Privacy International (PI) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) submitted their contribution for the second session of the Ad-Hoc Committee mandated to develop a UN Cybercrime Treaty. While the organisations are not convinced a global cybercrime treaty is necessary, we believe that any UN Cybercrime Treaty must ensure the respect and protection of human-rights.
While our fight against mass surveillance continues, the UK Government has settled two human rights claims brought under Articles 8 (right to privacy) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Two years ago, in the first half of 2020, private companies and governments alike were rolling the dice and betting on tech-solutionism to fight the global spread of SARS‑CoV‑2, better known as COVID19.
Today, the High Court ruled that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully and breached human rights and data protection laws by operating a secret, blanket policy of seizing, retaining and extracting data from the mobile phones of asylum seekers arriving by small boat. This claim for judicial review was