This article presents some of the tools and techniques deployed as part surveillance practices and data-driven immigration policies routinely leading to discriminatory treatment of peoplee and undermining peoples’ dignity, with a particular focus on the UK.
At a time where the mass surveillance of protests has been at the forefront, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights released a timely report on the impact of new technologies on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of assemblies, including peaceful protests. The new report
No Tech For Tyrants, a UK grassroots organisation, is explaining Palantir's involvement with the UK government, including their partnership with the NHS. They explore the concerns public-private partnerships between Palantir and governments raise , and what this means for our rights.
Unwanted Witness, our partner organisation based in Uganda, explore critical questions around Huawei's surveillance dealings with the Ugandan government raise. While Huawei's relationship with the government raises concerns for human rights, many of these concerns remain unaddressed.
SHARE, an organisation based in Belgrade, are investigating Huawei's dealings with the Serbian government. In this case study, they explain what obstacles they faced and how they used public action to overcome them.
IMSI catchers, and intrusive surveillance technology is increasingly used during protests, permitting authorities to record everyone that attended and interfere with their communications. In the UK we've been fighting for transparency for years to no avail.
A new ICO report, which comes as a result of a complaint PI made in 2018, criticises the UK Police for the way in which they are taking data from people's phones, including the victims of crimes. The report calls for reforms and safeguards so that people's data and privacy is protected from unnecessarily intrusive practices.
Privacy International (PI), Fundaciòn Datos Protegidos, Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales (R3D) and Statewatch submission highlights examples on how digital technologies deployed in the context of border enforcement and administration reproduce, reinforce, and compound racial discrimination.
As migration continues to be high on the social and political agenda, Western countries are increasingly adopting an approach that criminalises people at the border. Asylum seekers are often targeted with intrusive surveillance technologies and afforded only limited rights (including in relation to data protection), often having the effect of being treated as “guilty until proven innocent”.
A recent report explains how the central German migration authority uses mobile phone extraction technology in the asylum application procedure, and why it is highly problematic.
As Google notifies the European Commission of its proposed acquisition of the health and fitness tracker Fitbit, Privacy International calls for the merger to be blocked because of concerns over Google’s growing digital dominance.
Here are a few suggested tips, based on our own experience with Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs). This is based on DSARs under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), but we hope our tips may be useful in other jurisdictions too.