European lawmakers Call for Clarity on EU-US Data Transfers Over Privacy Fears.

European lawmakers Call for Clarity on EU-US Data Transfers Over Privacy Fears. (SP).

The lawmakers are debating the proposed text of the latest agreement with the US over the privacy of data related to EU citizens, held on US servers by multinational companies — called Privacy Shield.

The agreement has been under negotiation for months ever since the European Court of Justice ruled in October 2015 that the previous EU-US data agreement — Safe Harbor — was invalid. The issue arises from the strict EU laws — enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — to the privacy of their personal data.

The Safe Harbor agreement was a quasi-judicial understanding that the US undertook to agree that it would ensure that EU citizens' data on US servers would be held and protected under the same restrictions as it would be under EU law and directives. The data covers a huge array of information — from Internet and communications usage, to sales transactions, import and exports.

The new proposed replacement — known as Privacy Shield — has been agreed after months of negotiation between the US and the EU and promises that: "for the first time, the US government has given the EU written assurance from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that any access of public authorities for national security purposes will be subject to clear limitations, safeguards and oversight mechanisms, preventing generalized access to personal data […] through an Ombudsperson mechanism within the Department of State, who will be independent from national security services."

However, lawmakers on the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee in the European Parliament have called-in the details over fears Privacy Shield has been drafted too loosely and will not protect the personal data of EU citizens.

Speaking on the Commission's proposal, the committee chair Claude Moraes said:

"The new framework […] has no written text and my first concern is that it has too much in common with the previous Safe Harbor decision. The announcement does not indicate any measures which are legally binding on either party, but relies on 'declaration' by the US authorities on their interpretation of the legal situation regarding surveillance by the US intelligence services.

"Another key concern is that the creation of an Ombudsman which could be a positive step forward in assessing the complaints of citizens does not seem to be underpinned in the current statement by sufficient legal powers," he said. Read the full story here. 

Montreal deploying fleet of facial recognition drones for 24/7 patrols.

Montreal deploying fleet of facial recognition drones for 24/7 patrols.(RT).

"It's very exciting," the chief of police for the borough where the drones will be deployed, Montreal North, told the Montreal Journal.

“The drones with facial recognition will patrol the streets 24 hours a day. Officers will interrogate individuals suspected of criminal acts or searched directly through speakers and microphones installed in the drones, but soon they can be provided with equipment capable of neutralizing on-site suspects pending the intervention of the law enforcement officers. It will mainly make our work less dangerous, especially in an area where there is a lot of social tension," he said.

When asked to clarify what intermediate weapons would be used to neutralize suspects, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) spokesman told the Journal the "UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] will carry persuasive technologies, but non-lethal types, such as electric shock, blinding or paralyzing gases."

He added that despite the seemingly limitless possibilities, only non-lethal weapons are “intended for the moment.”The drones are set to be deployed in early 2014.

Despite the $400-million- plus price tag, the drones are intended to facilitate cutbacks to the city’s police force in line with nationwide efforts to curb RCMP expenditures, which have doubled over the last 15 years.
Employing new technology to create leaner, more effective law enforcements agencies, however, remains highly contentious.

A late 2012 poll conducted by Jennifer Stoddart, the privacy commissioner of Canada, found the public remains ambivalent about the use of UAVs in policing.

While 80 percent of those surveyed were comfortable with police use of drones for search-and-rescue missions, only 40 percent of respondents felt comfortable with their use in monitoring public events or protests.
"Considering the capacity of UAVs for surreptitious operation, the potential for the technology to be used for general surveillance purposes, and their increasing prevalence -- including for civilian purposes -- our office will be closely following their expanded use," the report read.

"We will also continue to engage federal government institutions to ensure that any planned operation of UAVs is done in accordance with privacy requirements."

The RCMP national drone is thus far in its infancy, with Mounties promising they will not be used to conduct general surveillance against the public.

A study released last month – Unmanned Eyes in the Sky – found that despite drones’ potential benefits for police, law enforcement had not "sought feedback from the public on how UAVs should or should not be adopted as a tool to serve the public interest," the Canadian Press reported.


The study concluded that in light of the "potential for intrusive and massive surveillance," Canadians needed reassurances that they would not be spied on once the drone program goes into full swing. Hmmmm.........Ooooooh Canada.