The controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill (‘Policing Bill’) includes provisions for ‘extraction of information from electronic devices’ by immigration officers. The provisions to seize and extract rely solely on ‘voluntary provision’ of devices and ‘agreement’ to extract data.
We are concerned immigration officers not only lack requisite skills, the power imbalance between state and migrant calls into question whether provision of a device can ever be truly voluntary.
This proposal comes at a time when there is a total lack of transparency around Home Office use of mobile phone extraction.
The controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill includes provisions for 'extraction of information from electronic devices'. It relies solely on voluntary provision and agreement. We analyse the power imbalance between the State and individual - which calls into question 'voluntary provision' and 'agreement' as a basis for seizure of a device and extraction of data.
Privacy InternationaI, Liberty, Defend Digital Me, Open Rights Group and Big Brother Watch submitted a response to the College of Policing's public consultation on the Police use of live facial recognition technology.
In the response, we make it clear that all the aforementioned organisations believe that LFRT poses significant and unmitigable risks to our society.
In this briefing, PI together with Amnesty International and SOMO seek to aid civil society efforts toward greater oversight, accountability and remedy of corporate structures that have been reported to contribute to government surveillance of individuals, including human rights defenders.
Countering the Spread of Biometrics: three case studies from differing contexts illustrate the looming dangers of the untransparent and unregulated collection of biometric data in the name of combating terrorism.
On 25 May 2021, a Grand Chamber judgment against the UK broke new ground in the regulation of bulk interception capabilities requiring enhanced safeguards to protect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression against abuse. It is a complex judgment with lights and shades, and the fight against mass surveillance is not over. Find here our initial take on the judgment and what comes next.
Today, the Constitutional Court of South Africa in a historic judgment declared that bulk interception by the South African National Communications Centre is unlawful and invalid. The judgment is a confirmation of the High Court of South Africa in Pretoria’s powerful rejection of years of secret and
Privacy International investigates the use of personal data in political campaigning, focusing on the ecosystem of private companies hired by political parties, the policies of online platforms, and the laws that regulate micro-targeting around the world.
PI presents here 5 profiles of companies involved in political campaigning in order to provide a snapshot of how the digital political campaign sector works and further highlight the opacity and concerns for privacy.
Hablamos con representantes de organizaciones transgénero en Argentina, Francia y en Filipinas para entender cómo los sistemas de identificación están impactando sus vidas, y los marcos legales que les están ayudando.
We won our judicial review challenge to a 2016 decision by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). The UK High Court has held that the security and intelligence services can no longer rely on ‘general warrants’ to interfere with property, including computers.
