The Department of Homeland Security’s Privacy Office has released a privacy impact assessment, “Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST)/Passive Methods for Precision Behavioral Screening, DHS/S&T/PIA-012(a)” (DHS pdf; archive pdf); this is an update to a Privacy Impact Assessment (pdf) released in 2008. FAST, which I wrote about four years ago, seeks to divine an individual’s criminal or benign intent from a bio scan, and members of Congress have raised privacy questions concerning the technology.

According to DHS, “FAST seeks to improve the screening process at transportation and other critical checkpoints by developing physiological and behavior-based screening techniques that will provide additional indicators to screeners to enable them to make more informed decisions. FAST is not intended to provide ―probable cause for law enforcement processes, nor would the technology replace or pre-empt the decisions of human screeners.”

Now, according to the new PIA:

The FAST research is adding a new type of research, the Passive Methods for Precision Behavioral Screening (hereinafter FAST/Passive). The purpose of the FAST/Passive study is to build upon existing FAST research using volunteers and increase the performance of FAST primary screening procedures and to increase the ability to differentiate malintent through the inclusion of passive stimuli. The aim of the FAST/Passive study is to devise passive stimuli that will evoke malintent cues and incorporate these stimuli into the FAST screening project. [...] Read more »

Wired reports on a case concerning the password protection of data on a computer:

Federal prosecutors want a judge to order a Colorado woman to provide the password to decrypt her laptop, which the government seized with a search warrant.

With backup from digital rights groups, the woman is fighting the feds, arguing that being forced to provide her password violates the Fifth Amendment’s protection against forced self-incrimination.

Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn is expected to rule any day on whether to force defendant Ramona Fricosu to decrypt her Toshiba Satellite M305, which authorities seized from her in 2010 with a court warrant while investigating financial fraud.

The case is being closely watched by digital rights groups, as the issue has never been squarely weighed in on by federal courts, and the Supreme Court has never addressed the issue. Read more »

Last year, there were a number of bills introduced in Congress concerning privacy and civil liberties, but most have stalled. Some bills introduced last year: Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced the “Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act of 2011″ (archive pdf; THOMAS status link for H.R. 2168); Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, introduced the Do-Not-Track Online Act of 2011 (pdf) (Do Not Track proposals would allow consumers to restrict the data gathered by Web sites and marketers on the consumers’ online browsing or purchases); Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, introduced the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2011 (archive pdf) (Leahy first introduced this legislation in 2005 and had sponsored the legislation three times since); Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), chairman of the subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011 (pdf); and, there has been much discussion of revising the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (“ECPA,” also known as Title 18 § 2511 of the United States Code) and several bills have been introduced, which are discussed in this CRS report.

Now, the National Journal reports that privacy will remain a hot topic, even though legislation on the issue has stalled in Congress.

While few expect Congress to pass broad privacy legislation, privacy will still get a lot of attention in 2012, starting with the release in the coming weeks of two highly anticipated federal reports providing guidance on protecting consumer privacy online.

Both the Commerce Department and the Federal Trade Commission are set to release separate final reports with recommendations on how to improve online privacy.

Commerce, which could release its final report the last week of January, will outline the Obama administration’s policy on the issue. Since issuing its draft report in December 2010, the administration has called on Congress to pass legislation that would provide consumers with privacy protections based on the Fair Information Practice Principles embraced by many countries. These include providing consumers with notice about the information being collected about them, choice, access to the information, and security to ensure the data is protected. Read more »

There have been increasing privacy and civil liberty questions raised as the use facial recognition technology has increased in companies’ advertising and criminal investigations. As identification technology becomes cheaper and more prevalent, it could easily unmask people and track their movements. Those who were previously part of the unnamed crowd could be singled out for identification.

I’ve discussed before the increasing use of facial recognition technology in advertising, especially in “digital signage.” Most people have heard of the term connected with billboards or other screens that have cameras (and facial-recognition technology) to watch people watching ads in order to improve their marketing. The digital signs log data such as gender, approximate age and how long someone looks at an advertisement. This is supposed to help build a better billboard — one that is tailored specifically to the individual standing in front of it. However, the data-gathering and surveillance practices raise substantial privacy questions. (Disclosure: The Center for Democracy and Technology has released a set of privacy guidelines for digital signage, which I consulted on and contributed to, in the report “Building the Digital Out-Of-Home Privacy Infrastructure.”)

There are also civil liberty questions of government use of the technology. See this previous post for a discussion about the First Amendment right to free speech and how widespread identification technologies can affect that. More of my thoughts on facial recognition in this older GCN interview.

The Federal Trade Commission, which recently held a workshop of facial recognition technology, is now seeking public comment about the use of this biometric technology. The deadline for filing is Jan. 31. Here’s more from the FTC press release: Read more »

Here’s some background: A privacy and civil liberties oversight board was recommended by the 9/11 Commission, and the board was created in 2004 and placed within the White House. In 2008, Congress passed and President Bush signed the “Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007,” which took the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board out of the White House and established it “as an independent agency within the executive branch.”

Terms for the original board expired in January 2008, but President Bush delayed the nomination of new board members for many months; none were confirmed by the Senate. President Obama last year nominated James X. Dempsey, Vice President for Public Policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Elisebeth Collins Cook, who worked in the Justice Department in the Bush administration. Privacy Lives has joined in the call to nominate and confirm experts to the board. (For more information on the board, here’s a 2008 Congressional Research Service report (pdf) on the board’s history and powers.)

Now, the White House has announced that President Obama has sent more nominations to the oversight board to the Senate: Read more »

In the last year, that has been increasing focus on the use of aerial drones (also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, “UAVs”) to conduct surveillance in the United States. The Washington Post had an in-depth report of possible privacy problems with the domestic use of aerial drones, which are commonly used in military operations. (Be sure to take a look at the Post’s graphic on the specs, abilities and uses of different UAVs.) The issue is also cropping up internationally. A couple of years ago, there were reports that the United Kingdom was considering the use aerial drones for surveillance of the British public. “The miniature aircraft could be fitted with cameras and heat-seeking equipment, allowing police to carry out aerial reconnaissance from a control room,” the Telegraph reported. The UK Home Office (equivalent to the US departments of Justice and Homeland Security) suggested the use of UAVs for domestic law enforcement purposes in its “Science and Innovation Strategy” report (pdf) for 2009-2012, saying “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are likely to become an increasingly useful tool for the police in the future.”

At some point, UAVs will become very effective, perhaps even including face recognition technology. That will lead to numerous privacy questions. Also, there are legal questions about the use of such technology.

Now, the ACLU has released a report on this technology, “Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft” (ACLU pdf; archive pdf). In a news release, the ACLU says, “Next month the Federal Aviation Administration is expected to propose new rules to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to gain permission to use drones in the U.S., and police departments and other government agencies are expected to greatly increase their use. If the FAA is unable to implement the needed privacy reforms, then Congress should act.”

Here’s information from the introduction: Read more »