Surveillance

WPF: FAA must clarify and enhance drone privacy practices

Commercial drone privacy — In comments filed with the FAA, the World Privacy Forum urged the agency to establish a robust privacy committee to focus on drone privacy and to clarify the applicability of the Privacy Act of 1974 to UAS test site operators. WPF also requested the FAA conduct mandatory Privacy Impact Assessments and provide a FIPS-compliant privacy notice. “We have offered our comments to the FAA with the acknowledgement that everyone has much to learn in the area of commercial drone privacy. Our suggestions to the FAA seek to increase general knowledge about drones and their effect on privacy,” said Pam Dixon.

WPF on CES Panel on Facial Recognition

Facial recognition — Pam Dixon spoke at a CES panel on privacy issues in facial recognition technologies as part of the Leaders in Technology program at CES. The panel was moderated by Tony Romm of Politico and included FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen and Harley Geiger, legislative counsel for Representative Zoe Lofgren. Dixon spoke on the need for increased work on consumer options in a “sensor rich environment where there is no option to opt out by walking out.” Referenced in the panel was WPF’s report on digital signage and facial recognition, The One-Way Mirror Society.

US Supreme Court delivers opinion about GPS tracking

01/23/2012 GPS tracking | United States v. Jones — The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police must get a warrant before using GPS devices to track criminal suspects. This case was narrow and dealt specifically with a GPS device physically attached to a suspect’s vehicle. The concurring opinion of Justice Sotomayor points out that the subtler issues of digital era tracking were not dealt with in this case, for example, cell phone tracking, web site tracking, etc. She wrote: “More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976).” She continued: “This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.”

Public Comments: August 2008 – Border Crossing Information, System of Records Notice, DHS-2007-0040

The World Privacy Forum filed comments regarding DHS’s proposed Border Crossing Information system of records, finding that many of the Routine Uses proposed for the system were impermissible and illegal under the Privacy Act of 1974. The comments focus on the Routine Uses, rather than the system itself.