A number of organizations have created documents to offer the Obama-Biden transition team guidance on priorities in the new administration. The issues are broad, including detainee rights, reproductive health, education, open government, security, and privacy, among others. This is Part Two of an unknown number of posts on such transition plans. I will post documents of interest as I find them. This post includes plans from CDT, Human Rights Watch, and the Cato Institute. Here is Part One.

The Center for Democracy and Technology focuses on, “The Internet in Transition: A Platform to Keep the Internet Open, Innovative and Free” in its document (pdf).

Restoring the Balance between Security and Liberty
[...] In order to restore the balance between security and liberty, the next President and Congress should take specific steps, including the following:

• [...] The next President and Congress should work together to enact legislation to update communications privacy laws to account for dramatic advances in technology.
• The next President and Congress should adopt a balanced framework for information sharing and analysis for counterterrorism purposes.
• The next President and Congress should revisit the REAL ID Act and ensure that all governmental identification programs are necessary and effective and subject to adequate privacy and security protections.
• The next President and Congress should work together to update the Privacy Act; the next President should assiduously enforce the Act’s protections.

Preserving Free Speech and Protecting Children Online
[...] In order to preserve free speech and protect children online, the next President and Congress should take specific steps, including the following: (more…)

The Swedish Data Inspector has criticized the use of surveillance cameras in the country’s schools, finding that they invade students’ privacy. He also raised the problem that such programs would create a generation of Swedes who accept constant surveillance. According to the Local:

Sweden’s Data Inspection Board (Datainspektionen – DI) has demanded that seven schools change their use of surveillance cameras in a decision it hopes will set a precedent for schools across the country.

The ruling follows an investigation by the Board revealed that seven different school were currently deploying surveillance cameras in a way which violated Swedish regulations governing the use of the cameras. [...]

Six of the schools were told they could no longer use any of their surveillance cameras when school is in session on the weekdays. (more…)

Last week, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation to implement the federal REAL ID national identification system. He also rejected several bills that would have strengthened the privacy rights of California residents, while approving a few that were privacy-protective.

The privacy-protective legislation Schwarzenegger signed was SB 31 and AB 2059.  SB 31 concerns radio frequency identification (RFID) technology, which transmits data wirelessly from a chip or tag to a reader. SB 31 reads:

(a) Except as provided in this section, a person or entity that intentionally remotely reads or attempts to remotely read a person’s identification document using radio frequency identification (RFID), for the purpose of reading that person’s identification document without that person’s knowledge and prior consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, a fine of not more than one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500), or both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) A person or entity that knowingly discloses, or causes to be disclosed, the operational system keys used in a contactless identification document system shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, a fine of not more than one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500), or both that fine and imprisonment.

SB 31 include some exceptions for law enforcement and medical personnel, among others.

AB 2059 requires marketers who send postal mail solicitations to disclose their identities and inform consumers they are waiving their do-not-call rights if they accept the marketers’ offers to receive phone calls about products. Also, with exceptions, “A violation of this section shall not be a crime [...] However, all available civil remedies that are applicable to a violation of this section may be employed.”

The privacy-protective legislation vetoed included: 

• AB 1906, which would have “add[ed] identity theft to the [...] list of insurance classes [in California]. The bill would provide that identity theft insurance includes insurance against costs associated with reestablishing credit, reclaiming financial identity, and communicating with banks, credit agencies, and other financial institutions, as specified.” (more…)

The Washington Post has an interesting story on school officials violating privacy laws by improperly disclosing student information. The city and school board ended up having to pay $775,000 to settle a lawsuit concerning the disclosures and related actions by investigators.

School officials in the City of Manassas admitted this week that they skirted federal privacy laws when they divulged personal information about a number of Hispanic students to city inspectors investigating anonymous complaints about overcrowded housing.

The 2005 disclosures — school officials were looking for Hispanic students with different last names living at the same address — led to late-night and often intrusive inspections. City zoning officials measured bedroom space, counted windows and electrical outlets, and quizzed occupants about their relationships to one another, according to a lawsuit filed by some of the victims. (more…)

I’ve blogged before about how information from social networking sites is being used against individuals. Such data has been used in criminal trials and against job applicants. Now, education services firm Kaplan reveals “a Kaplan survey of 320 admissions officers from the nation’s top colleges and universities revealed that one out of ten admissions officers has visited an applicant’s social networking Web site as part of the admissions decision-making process.” Kaplan also surveyed admissions officers at business, law and medical schools and found similar results.

Admissions officers at 9 percent of business schools, 15 percent of law schools and 14 percent of medical schools surveyed report having visited applicants’ social networking sites during the admissions decision-making process.

As you might expect, such site visits can lead to bad results for the school applicant.

The good news: a quarter of those who report viewing applicants’ sites say that these viewings have generally had a positive impact on their evaluation. The bad news: a greater percentage (38 percent) report that applicants’ social networking sites have generally had a negative impact on their admissions evaluation.

(more…)

Found via PogoWasRight.org.

France has backed down on plans to expand the collection, retention and sharing of private data on citizens after a huge backlash from the public. The Associated Press said ”Critics have collected some 130,000 signatures against the database — known by the acronym Edvige — which they contend is better suited for a police state than a modern European democracy.”

Reuters reports:

The French government will scrap a decree that would have allowed the police to store private information on politicians and unionists, the prime minister’s office said Thursday after the text caused an outcry.

The Edvige electronic database will still go ahead, but the government will come up with a new decree that significantly tightens the rules so that only people considered a security threat can be included.

“The decree will explicitly rule out the collection of any data on people’s sexual orientation or health,” the prime minister’s office said in a statement. The first decree had made it possible to store such data, drawing widespread criticism.

The statement also noted that the new decree will no longer allow the police to collect data on politicians, union activists or religious figures simply because of their activities.

The criteria for being included will now be related to perceived security threats.