Here here, Roger. Especially agree with you regarding the 'spineless' laws in Victoria.
Kirstie
________________________________
From: Research and teaching on surveillance on behalf of Roger Clarke
Sent: Thu 17/01/2008 11:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: worker surveillance
At 9:25 +0000 17/1/08, K.S.Ball wrote:
>As predicted in 'A Report on the Surveillance Society' the routine
>corporeal surveillance and biometricisation of workers is on the
>cards:
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3193480.ece
><http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3193480.ece>
>
>And I seem to remember publishing something on this in 2005....
><sigh>
Below is a personal response to an enquiry from Australian business
mdeia earlier today (which has been submitted to the Australian
Privacy Foundation as a draft policy).
Preamble
In approved, cold engineering language (which would have made Mengele
proud), the patent refers to people as "system resources".
The Patent Application relates to an application for drawing together
and managing information flows, in particular "the user's
physiological state", as distinct from an artefact that gathers data
that describes "the user's physiological state". It presumes that
such artefacts exist (and they do, such as the seriously discredited
polygraph / 'lie detector').
Draft APF Position:
The APF has for some time now had serious concerns about workplace
surveillance generally. There's been a tendency for employers to
intrude quite grossly into many aspects of their employees' privacy,
and with thoroughly inadequate justification.
The invasiveness has affected all dimensions of privacy, including
data privacy, communications privacy, behavioural privacy and
physical privacy. There have been a number of instances of invasions
of privacy of the person, e.g. demands for body fluids and the
conduct of substance abuse tests.
There are of course circumstances in which employers have a claim
that conflicts with the privacy interests of the employee. The usual
examples are in the area of public safety, particularly airline
pilots.
But employers should not be simply imposing surveillance. They
should be undertaking impact studies, and demonstrating that the
justification for imposing surveillance outweighs the personal
interests involved.
It's one thing to think about applying such ideas to astronauts and
to pilots in high-performance combat aircraft. It's quite another to
contemplate permanent monitoring of employees sitting at a work-desk.
It's appalling that Microsoft has failed to recognise the emormous
implications of their work in this area, and has refused to respond
to the media enquiry.
Should we be charitable? Could it be that Microsoft has applied for
this as a defensive patent, thereby enabling them to slow down
developments in other organisations that are less interested in human
rights than they are?
What this patent underlines more than anything else is the critical
need for Parliaments to measure up to the public's expectations.
The first requirement is that all organisations be required to
conduct privacy impact assessments into proposals that have
significant privacy implications. **
The second requirement is that human rights be provided with
statutory protection*, by outlawing seriously intrusive technologies
and practices, and requiring explicit legislative authority for those
limited circumstances in which the intrusions have been publicly
demonstrated to be justified.
* Utterly spineless statutes have been passed in recent years in the
ACT and Victoria, but thankfully nonesuch exists at federal level
(yet)
** At the ever-present risk of self-promotion, see:
__________________________________________________________________________
On 11 December 2007, the U.K. Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
published two documents relating to Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs).
1. An International Study of PIA Law, Policies and Practices
http://www.ico.gov.uk/Home/about_us/research/data_protection.aspx
There are 9 appendices of which 5 are country reports
2. A PIA Handbook
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pia_handbook_html/html/1-intro.html
__________________________________________________________________________
--
Roger Clarke http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:[log in to unmask] http://www.xamax.com.au/
Visiting Professor in Info Science & Eng Australian National University
Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program University of Hong Kong
Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre Uni of NSW
****************************************************
This is a message from the SURVEILLANCE listserv
for research and teaching in surveillance studies.
To unsubscribe, please send the following message to
<[log in to unmask]>:
UNSUBSCRIBE SURVEILLANCE
For further help, please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help
****************************************************
****************************************************
This is a message from the SURVEILLANCE listserv
for research and teaching in surveillance studies.
To unsubscribe, please send the following message to
<[log in to unmask]>:
UNSUBSCRIBE SURVEILLANCE
For further help, please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help
****************************************************
|
