The Vancouver Sun reports:

An Insurance Corporation of B.C. investigation, sparked by a recent controversy, has uncovered two more cases where lawyers acting for the organization breached the privacy of jurors in a civil trial.

On Thursday, ICBC president and CEO Jon Schubert said the investigation found two cases — one in 2000, another in 2006 — in which lawyers acting on behalf of the company had “inappropriate access” to the claims history of jurors.

The discovery follows a case in April in which a defence lawyer for ICBC sought and received jurors’ claims history information from an ICBC adjuster. [...] Read more »

From the Web page: 

Fusion Centers: Domestic Spying or Sensible Surveillance?

POLICY FORUM
Thursday, June 11, 2009
12:00 PM (Luncheon to Follow)

Featuring Bruce Fein, Constitutional Attorney, The Lichfield Group; Harvey Eisenberg, Chief, National Security Section, Office of United States Attorney, District of Maryland; and Michael German, Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union. Moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.

Police departments across the country are starting to create networks of databases called “fusion centers” in an effort to detect and prevent acts of terrorism. The ultimate objective is to create a nationwide reporting system of suspicious behaviors so that the authorities can “connect the dots” before an attack can occur. Civil liberties groups claim these fusion centers are beset with legal and practical problems. One legal problem is that the police should not be opening files on people because they exercised their right to free speech, such as demonstrating against the foreign policies of the United States. One practical problem is that the police are gathering so much mundane information that practically anyone could end up on a list of “suspicious” persons because some official arbitrarily decided to fill out a tip sheet. Join us for a discussion of the pros and cons of this newly proposed system of policing. Read more »

Congress Daily reports that the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board has sent a letter (pdf) to Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, calling for an overhaul of federal privacy laws and regulations, including the Privacy Act of 1974.

In the letter, the Board explains:

Attached to this letter is a Board report that analyzes issues and makes recommendations around updating privacy law and policy in light of technological change. The Privacy Act of 1974 is the basis for much of the legal and policy framework by which the U.S. Government handles personal information. At the same time, vast changes in technology since 1974 have transformed how Federal agencies collect, use, and distribute information in major ways. While the fundamentals of the Act—the principles of fair information practices—remain relevant and current, the letter of the Act and related law and policy may not reflect the realities of current technologies and information systems and do not protect against many important threats to privacy. Moreover, new technologies, not covered by the Act, are generating new questions and concerns; and government use of private-sector databases now allows the collection and use of detailed personal information with little privacy protection. Read more »

Computers, Freedom and Privacy is an annual conference to discuss the privacy, security and civil liberty questions raised by emerging technologies or new uses of old technologies. This year’s theme is “Creating the Future.”

The conference runs from June 1 to June 4 in Washington, DC. You can still register. Note that government employees and the press may attend for free, but you will have to show identification proving your status when you check in at the registration table. 

There are a number of interesting panels on the program, including two panels that I am moderating: 

On Wednesday June 3 from 2 p.m. to 3:15 p.m., I will be moderating a panel on airport behavior detection programs. The panelists are:

Paul Ekman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, UCSF Manager, Paul Ekman Group LLC 
Peter Pietra, Director, Privacy Policy & Compliance, Transportation Security Administration 
Peter Swire, Ohio State University, Center for American Progress; former Chief Counselor for Privacy for US Government 
Bruce Schneier, CSTO, BT 

Here’s the blurb: Read more »

In an analysis for the New York Times, Adam Liptak reviews Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s rulings. One of her dissents concerns the privacy rights of children. The case is: N.G. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2004).

In a 2004 dissent, Judge Sotomayor seemed to be in agreement with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s observation in a recent interview with USA Today that female judges can be more sensitive to claims that strip searches of young girls are unduly intrusive.

The majority opinion in the 2004 case, by two male judges, upheld the legality of some strip searches of girls held at juvenile detention centers in Connecticut. Read more »

Considering the dismal state of tech security in the federal government, I am pleased to hear that President Obama will soon appoint a cybersecurity czar. Last year, the federal government slightly improved its overall computer security grade from C-minus to C, according to the FY 2007 Computer Security Report Card (pdf) released by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

The Washington Post reports: 

President Obama is expected to announce late this week that he will create a “cyber czar,” a senior White House official who will have broad authority to develop strategy to protect the nation’s government-run and private computer networks, according to people who have been briefed on the plan.

The adviser will have the most comprehensive mandate granted to such an official to date and will probably be a member of the National Security Council but will report to the national security adviser as well as the senior White House economic adviser, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are not final.

Read more »