The Wall Street Journal reports on new privacy safeguards in the latest version of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer Web browser.

Last Thursday, Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft released Internet Explorer 8, commonly known as IE8. The browser has features that when activated can stop advertising networks from seeing which sites Web surfers have visited, which is data needed for the growing – and controversial – field of behaviorally targeted advertising.

The browser’s blocking features may address concerns expressed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which wants user privacy protected, but Microsoft’s ability to collect data needed to deliver targeted ads is still preserved. That’s because the privacy settings are cumbersome, so analysts think few Web surfers will likely turn them on.

One key feature, called InPrivate Filtering, allows users to block third-party ad networks – including Microsoft’s – from tracking their online behavior, an important part of compiling user profiles that help them deliver ads catered to each consumer’s interests. That function needs to be activated for each new browsing session. [...]

Matt Rosoff, an analyst at Directions on Microsoft, speculated that the company likely watered down privacy functions to allay concerns from its own advertising unit that stringent controls could hamper its attempts to collect data.

“The easiest thing would have been to give users a single button,” Rosoff said, adding that in beta versions of IE8 InPrivate Filtering and InPrivate Browsing were incorporated in a single function and later separated.

The Associated Press is reporting that Mississippi’s governor has signed a bill that will ban red-light traffic cameras in the state. (TheNewspaper.com has studies on negative effects of red-light cameras.)

Mississippi’s capital city will stop issuing tickets and collecting fines when automatic cameras snap pictures of vehicles running red lights, city attorney Sarah O’Reilly Evans says.

The change in Jackson is being made immediately, even though a new state law sets an Oct. 1 deadline for the cameras to be taken down in the only two cities already using them – Jackson and Columbus. [...]

The cameras take pictures of the license plates of vehicles that run red lights. A photograph is sent to a vehicle’s owner, along with a ticket. Cities share revenue with the private companies that have contracts to operate the cameras. [...] Read more »

Stoppt die Vorratsdatenspeicherung! reports on a decision by the Administrative Court of Wiesbaden in Germany.

The Administrative Court of Wiesbaden has found the blanket recording of the entire population’s telephone, mobile phone, e-mail and Internet usage (known as data retention) disproportionate.

The decision published today by the Working Group on Data Retention (decision of 27.02.2009, file 6 K 1045/08.WI) reads: “The court is of the opinion that data retention violates the fundamental right to privacy. It is not necessary in a democratic society. The individual does not provoke the interference but can be intimidated by the risks of abuse and the feeling of being under surveillance [...] The directive [on data retention] does not respect the principle of proportionality guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR (pdf), which is why it is invalid.” [...]

In early March, the Federal Council of Germany (Bundesrat) also warned that the proposed “storage of all Internet usage data without a specific cause or with blanket coverage violates” the Constitution.

The Economist is currently having an Oxford-style online debate concerning the ethics of DNA databasing. Here’s how it works: The debate “revolves around an assertion that is defended on one side (the ‘proposition’) and assailed on another (the ‘opposition’) in a contest hosted and overseen by a moderator. Each side has three chances to persuade readers: opening, rebuttal and closing. In Economist Debates, proposition and opposition each consist of a single speaker, experts in the issue at hand. [...] Those attending an Oxford-style debate participate in two ways: by voting to determine the debate’s winner and by addressing comments to the moderator. The same holds here. As a reader, you are encouraged to vote. As long as the debate is open, you may change your vote as many times as you change your mind. And you are encouraged to air your own views by sending comments to the moderator.”

The proposition: This house believes that people’s DNA sequences are their business, and nobody else’s.

Defending the proposition is Arthur Caplan, Emmanuel and Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics and Director, Centre for Bioethics, Penn University.

There are, it is increasingly said, plenty of reasons why people you know and many you don’t ought to have access to your DNA or data that are derived from it. Have you ever had sexual relations outside a single, monogamous relationship? Well then, any children who resulted from your hanky-panky might legitimately want access to your DNA to establish paternity or maternity.

Against the proposition is J. Craig Venter, Founder and president of the J. Craig Venter Institute and founder and CEO of Synthetic Genomic.

As we progress from the first human genome to sequence hundreds, then thousands and then millions of individual genomes, the value for medicine and humanity will only come from the availability and analysis of comprehensive, public databases containing all these genome sequences along with as complete as possible phenotype descriptions of the individuals.

I encourage you to join the debate.

The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust released a report (pdf), “The Database State – scrap it, fix it or keep it?” BBC News has a good story on the report, and there are various other news stories covering the study. From the executive summary:

In recent years, the Government has built or extended many central databases that hold information on every aspect of our lives, from health and education to welfare, law–enforcement and tax. This ‘Transformational Government’ programme was supposed to make public services better or cheaper, but it has been repeatedly challenged by controversies over effectiveness, privacy, legality and cost.

Many question the consequences of giving increasing numbers of civil servants daily access to our personal information. Objections range from cost through efficiency to privacy. The emphasis on data capture, form-filling, mechanical assessment and profiling damages professional responsibility and alienates the citizen from the state. Over two-thirds of the population no longer trust the government with their personal data.

This report charts these databases, creating the most comprehensive map so far of what has become Britain’s Database State.

All of these systems had a rationale and purpose. But this report shows how, in too many cases, the public are neither served nor protected by the increasingly complex and intrusive holdings of personal information invading every aspect of our lives.

The report assesses 46 databases across the major government departments, and finds that: Read more »

The Department of Homeland Security released the prepared “Testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Kathleen Kraninger, Screening Coordination, and Director Robert A. Mocny, US-VISIT, National Protection and Programs Directorate, before the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, ‘Biometric Identification.’” A couple of interesting sections discussed future plans for biometric ID and privacy questions:

The Future of Biometric Screening

Biometrics offer real opportunities to dramatically increase the efficiency of identifying people. The Department is researching emerging technologies to expand our screening and identification capabilities. We recognize that future identity management systems will require increased assurance, efficiency, ease of use, and flexibility.

As DHS implements biometric exit procedures, both at airports and land border [Points of Entry], we are looking for more efficient, less invasive technologies to verify visitors’ departures. Particularly at the land border, we are looking for technologies that might meet our needs better than requiring visitors to have their fingerprints scanned while driving at speed through a POE. Read more »