International Privacy

Japan’s My Number program (マイナンバー法) gets independent Data Protection Authority Commissioner in early 2014

Japan — Under the mai nannbaa-ho (マイナンバー法) My Number Act (enacted May 13, 2013, also called the Social Benefits and Tax Number Act), Japan’s citizens will be assigned unique numbers to track income, social security, taxes, welfare and benefits, and certain information in disasters. Japan will start assigning numbers to its citizens in late 2015. The My Number Act brought with it concern about the use of the numbers as a unique national ID. As a result, Japan will establish a new independent Data Protection Authority called the Specific Personal Information Protection Commission, and will consist of a Chairman and six commission members. The Chairman and Commissioners will be appointed by Japan’s Prime Minister, and confirmed by Japan’s National Diet. The Commission will oversee the use of the new Social Security and Tax system numbers. Unlike many national ID numbering systems, Japan did not set up a centralized database for the numbers due to concerns about data breach and privacy.

Professor Hiroshi Miyashita from Japan’s Chuo University, and an Advisor to the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) — gave a talk Oct. 1 at a Privacy Laws & Business Asia Roundtable in London. He told PL& B that the new Commission is to “ensure the proper handling of personal numbers and other specific personal information, and provide guidance, advice and recommendations.” Professor Miyashita said enforcement powers will be limited to requiring reports and conducting on-site inspections. Additional documents regarding the new DPA indicate that there will be a role for the Commission in overseeing release of personal information in disasters, and that the Commission will also issue guidance regarding the use of identifying numbers.

Pam Dixon writes about India’s National ID Card in May/June issue of Foreign Policy Magazine

India’s national biometric ID card — In the May/June, 2013 issue of Foreign Policy Magazine, Pam Dixon writes about the privacy issues related to India’s national biometric ID card. In the piece, Mission Creep, Dixon discusses how government-issued biometric ID cards that serve as national ID cards and as the basis for employment and financial transactions create profound civil liberties and privacy challenges that are neither easily or well-constrained by government policy.

WPF to Speak on a Global Perspective on Consumer Privacy at FTC- IAPP Privacy Conference Workshop

Privacy in India and Developing Economies — World Privacy Forum Executive Director Pam Dixon will present WPF’s research and India privacy videos at the FTC – IAPP Global Privacy Conference workshop Wednesday, March 7. The session, Global Perspectives on Consumer Privacy, is the first session of its kind at IAPP or the FTC focused on privacy in developing economies. WPF has researched privacy extensively in India, and has documented a number of key privacy issues in a video series. So far, 5 videos in the series have been released. All of the videos were shot on location in India and feature Pam Dixon, with videographer Blake Hamilton. These videos offer a rare and early glimpse into privacy interactions and issues in India. WPF will be releasing one more video on biometric ID cards in India.

Privacy in India Video Series: WPF

India and Privacy — WPF has researched privacy extensively in India, and has documented a number of key privacy issues in a video series. So far, 5 videos in the series have been released. All of the videos were shot on location in India and feature Pam Dixon, with videographer Blake Hamilton. These videos offer a rare and early glimpse into privacy interactions and issues in India

Report: Many Failures: A Brief History of Privacy Self-Regulation | Section: Government Privacy Self-Regulatory Activities

This section reviews several other privacy self-regulatory activities that share some characteristics with the industry self-regulatory programs discussed above, but these activities differ in various ways. The most noticeable differences are the role of the government in the programs. The Department of Commerce is involved in the Safe Harbor Framework, and the Federal Trade Commission is involved in the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.