<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.edri.org">
<channel>
 <title>EDRI - Camera surveillance</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/taxonomy/term/9/0</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>German Protests in over 30 cities against surveillance</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.13/german-protests-surveillance</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unwatched.org/node/1035&quot;&gt;deutscher Sprache&lt;/a&gt; verfügbar)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
On 31 May 2008, privacy activists organized new rallies in more than 30
cities across Germany.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Following the November 2007 protests under the motto &amp;quot;Freedom not
Fear&amp;quot;(&amp;quot;Freiheit statt Angst&amp;quot;), thousands of citizens participated in this
year street actions.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Numerous demonstrations, rallies, information events, as well as workshops
and art performances sent clear signals to protect constitutional rights and
limit the rampant proliferation of surveillance.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The rallies had the goal of demonstrating to the ruling grand coalition, a
decisive NO of citizens to the blanket collection and storage of data, as
well
as to the surveillance of all details of daily life. The activities were
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy">Privacy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/pnr">Airline Passenger Data</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/dataretention">Telecommunication data retention</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:57:55 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>UK MPs report: A Surveillance Society?</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.12/uk-surveillance-society</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unwatched.org/node/1021&quot;&gt;deutscher Sprache&lt;/a&gt; verfügbar)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
A report of the Home Affairs Committee shows concerns that Britain
might be in danger of becoming a Big Brother type of state and calls on the
UK ministers to take the necessary measures to provide safeguards and
minimize the amount of the citizen&#039;s information collected and stored in
databases.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The report shows concerns especially in relation to the ID card scheme that
might be used to spy on people. &amp;quot;We are concerned about the potential for
&#039;function creep&#039; in terms of the surveillance potential of the national
identity scheme. (...) Any ambiguity about the objectives of the scheme puts
in jeopardy the public&#039;s trust in the scheme itself and in the government&#039;s
ability to run it&amp;quot; says the Committee in its report.
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy">Privacy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:44:47 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Key privacy concerns in France 2007</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.2/privacy-france-2007</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unwatched.org/node/847&quot;&gt;deutscher Sprache&lt;/a&gt; verfügbar)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
6 January 2008 was the 30th anniversary of the French Data Protection Act.
But no one really cared. The only French contribution to this 2nd European
DP day has been the publication by the CNIL (French DP Authority) of a poll
result that it commissioned in November 2007. The poll indicates that 50% of
the asked persons know the CNIL. However, only 26% of them feel they are
informed well enough on their rights in terms of personal data protection,
and 61% consider that the constitution of databases is breaching their right
to privacy. Moreover, a former study on Internet usages conducted in June
2007 reveals that the mostly cited barrier to Internet use is the fear that
personal data are not protected enough (by 29% of the Internet users and 23%
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy">Privacy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/technology/biometrics">Biometrics</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:24:49 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Key privacy concerns in Czech Republik 2007</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.2/privacy-czech-2007</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unwatched.org/node/845&quot;&gt;deutscher Sprache&lt;/a&gt; verfügbar)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Last year has seen an increased number attempts from government bodies to
extend their powers and make it easier to access people&#039;s private
information. To name a few, there were legal proposals to increase the
number of agencies authorized to access and process electronic
communication data collected by telecommunication companies under the
Data Retention law, national DNA database enlargement, plans for various
administrative database sharing, introduction of even more CCTV systems
and the pressure on air travel operators to share records about their
passengers. The introduction of biometric into travel documents data as a
mean of identification and the use of contactless chip technologies
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/pnr">Airline Passenger Data</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/technology/biometrics">Biometrics</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/dataretention">Telecommunication data retention</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Key privacy concerns in Denmark 2007</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.2/privacy-denmark-2007</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unwatched.org/node/844&quot;&gt;deutscher Sprache&lt;/a&gt; verfügbar)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
a. Data Retention - a reality
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
15 September 2007 - data retention became a reality in Denmark. The
administrative order, which sets the scope and conditions for data
retention, was approved on 28 September 2006 with an implementation deadline
of one year. The order, which was drafted by the Ministry of Justice, had
been underway for more than four years. The Act providing for data retention
was approved by the Danish Parliament already in June 2002 as part of the
Danish &amp;quot;anti-terrorism package,&amp;quot; which extended the scope of Section 786 of
the Administration of Justice Act (Act No. 378 of 6 June 2002).
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The administrative order regulates in more details the obligations of the
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy">Privacy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/dataretention">Telecommunication data retention</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:17:10 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>PI: Leading surveillance societies in the EU and the World 2007</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.1/leading-surveillance-societies</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unwatched.org/node/823&quot;&gt;deutscher Sprache&lt;/a&gt; verfügbar)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
UK-based human rights group Privacy International (PI) published at the
end of last year the 2007 ranking assessment of the state of privacy in 47
countries, including all European Union member states.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The raking is based on the Privacy &amp;amp; Human Rights reports produced since
1997 by PI together with US-based Electronic Privacy Information Center and
is taking into consideration several criteria such as constitutional &amp;amp;
statutory protection and privacy enforcement, biometric ID
cards, data-sharing, video surveillance, communication interceptions and
data retention.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
According to the authors, the project wants to &amp;quot;recognize countries in which
privacy protection and respect for privacy is nurtured. This is done in the
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/id">Compulsory Identification</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy">Privacy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/dataretention">Telecommunication data retention</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:39:39 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Illegal video surveillance in Austria</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.20/austria</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unwatched.org/node/294&quot;&gt;deutscher Sprache&lt;/a&gt; verfügbar)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
During Infolaw legal forum on 17 October, Margot Artner, a Viennese lawyer,
expressed concerns regarding the existence of about 100 000 illegal
monitoring systems with recording functions in Austria. The estimation was
based on information obtained from vendors of monitoring software and
installing technicians.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Artner has waited for seven months in order to obtain from the data
protection commission the first permit for the operation of the video
monitoring system. The conditions required by the commission include the
deletion of records after 48h and the limitation of the access to the
recordings to only qualified staff that would have to work in pairs.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The only previous permit had been given to Wiener Linien (Vienna&#039;s public
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:13:31 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>EU Green paper on surveillance technology</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.16/surveillance</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.unwatched.org/node/231&quot;&gt;deutscher Sprache&lt;/a&gt; verfügbar)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The European Commission (EC) has adopted a green paper on surveillance
technology used by the civil society in the fight against terrorism, that
will be open for public consultation until the end of this year.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The green paper, resulted from a public conference (Public-Private
Security Dialogue: Detection Technologies and Associated Technologies in the
Fight against Terrorism) that took place in November 2005, is meant to find
the best technologies to be used &amp;quot;in the service of the security of its
citizens&amp;quot; as was stated by European Commission Directorate-General for
Justice, Freedom and Security.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Some of the issues on which the green paper is focused are: standardisation,
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy">Privacy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:58:54 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Public debate on draft anti-terror act in Denmark</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.9/denmark</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
On May 10 2006, a public hearing was held in the Danish Parliament on a new
proposal for an anti-terror act including surveillance measures. The
proposed law may increase camera surveillance, obliges carriers to store
passenger data for one year and introduces new measures for the intelligence
service. According to the proposal, the intelligence service may obtain
personal data from other authorities regardless of whether there may be
specific considerations for not forwarding the data (such as professional
secrecy). Data may be obtained regardless of whether there is a specific
suspect or the intelligence service wish to investigate all individuals
having done something specific such as passing by a certain location or
borrowing a certain book from the library. This is a measure which has
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/wiretapping">Wiretapping</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 10 May 2006 19:33:21 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>UK teachers are spied in classrooms</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.7/ukteachers</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
Teachers protest against the installation of 50 CCTV systems with
microphones in UK schools, used as surveillance measures by the school
management.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
While observation in class was supposed to help teachers in improving their
performances, the headmasters, who have also used two-way mirrors to survey
the teachers, grade them according to the way they perform in class under
observation.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
TES (The Times Educational Supplement) reported on 7 April that teachers
were being &amp;quot;observed to death&amp;quot; and that surveillance was being used more
like a punishment. Observed lessons are often graded on a scale of
outstanding to poor.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT),
the largest teachers&#039; union in UK, has proposed a conference motion to use
&amp;quot;all means necessary&amp;quot; to stop the &amp;quot;yet another example of management
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy">Privacy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:22:31 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>French Big Brother Awards 2006</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.3/frenchbba</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
The 6th edition of the French Big Brother Awards taking place in Paris on 3
February has chosen the following in the 5 different award sections, for
causing the most damage to personal privacy.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The Orwell Award for State official - the winner was Jean-Michel Charpin,
Directeur de l&#039;Insee (INES) for his participation in the INES project
(Electronically Secured National Identity card). By this project he created
a direct link to the Ministry of Interior Affairs ignoring the separation
between population statistics and police administration. The card will
include two biometric identifyers on a RFID chip.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The section for enterprises was won by Lidl (at close range to Carrefour)
for having installed 65 video cameras for the surveillance of 60 employees
in a store. The company has had similar policies in other countries as well.
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/id">Compulsory Identification</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/technology/rfid">RFID</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/technology/biometrics">Biometrics</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/bigbrother">Big Brother Awards</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>French anti-terrorism law not anti-constitutional</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.2/frenchlaw</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
The French constitutional council judged on 19 January 2006, that
the new national anti-terrorism law, submitted by the French Senators, was
not anti-constitutional.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The Senators were particularly concerned with two provisions of this
law. The first one was the provision allowing the police to obtain
communication data without any judicial order, in order to &amp;quot;prevent and
punish&amp;quot; acts of terrorism (article 6). The constitutional council only
found necessary to remove the word &amp;quot;punish&amp;quot; from the article, otherwise
considering the article in compliance with constitution, arguing that
prevention is indeed the role of police forces, and finding that enough
safeguards were already provided by this article.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The second one was the provision allowing the police to automatically
monitor cars on French roads and highways, taking picture of licence
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy">Privacy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/pnr">Airline Passenger Data</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2006 11:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comparison between US and European anti-terror policies</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.1/comparison</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
In a report titled &amp;quot; Threatening the Open Society: Comparing Anti-terror
Policies and Strategies in the U.S. and Europe&amp;quot; and released on 13 December
2005, Privacy International compared the anti-terrorism approaches in the
U.S. with those in Europe. The report finds that on every policy involving
mass surveillance of its citizens, the EU is prepared to go well beyond what
the U.S. Government finds acceptable, and violates the privacy of citizens.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The report is highlighting the differences between EU and US in terms of
access to communications data, retention of communications transactions
data, data profiling and data mining, access to passenger reservation files
and biometric registration and is concluding that in each case the EU is
implementing surveillance powers well beyond those in U.S., and with far
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/id">Compulsory Identification</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/governance/eupolicy">EU Policy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy">Privacy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/pnr">Airline Passenger Data</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/technology/biometrics">Biometrics</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/dataretention">Telecommunication data retention</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/wiretapping">Wiretapping</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:50:47 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>France adopts anti-terrorism law</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.1/frenchlaw</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
In November 23, the anti-terrorist draft law proposed by the Ministry on
Internal Affairs of France, Nicolas Sarzoky was voted by a large majority of
the deputies of the National Assembly. The law facilitates the surveillance
of communications allowing the police to obtain communication data from
telephone operators, Internet Services Providers, Internet cafes. ( see
EDRI-gram 3.18)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
In December, the Senate voted also (202 for and 122 against) the law, even
though it was harder than expected. Several members of the socialist and
communist groups sent the law to the Constitutional Council considering that
this law gives a too high power to the Internal Affairs taking at the same
time the issue out of the hands of the judges.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Adopted in an emergency procedure, this law comes after a series of other
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy">Privacy</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/dataretention">Telecommunication data retention</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:48:29 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Illegal video surveillance on Slovenian motorways</title>
 <link>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.24/cctv</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
In Slovenia the number of installed surveillance video cameras on the roads is increasing rapidly. Apart from the CCTV systems on sections of so called &amp;quot;smart motorways&amp;quot; - which enable real-time monitoring of important traffic parameters and the informing of drivers via traffic portals - a large number of surveillance video cameras is installed on the whole Slovenian motorway network.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Article 74 of Slovenian Personal Data Protection Act requires that &amp;quot;a public or private sector person that conducts video surveillance must publish a notice to that effect. Such notice must be visible and plainly made public in a manner that enables individuals to acquaint themselves with its implementation at the latest when the video surveillance begins.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
DARS (Motorway company in the Republic of Slovenia) has published such notices on toll collection booths. However, there are many sections (so called &amp;quot;open sections&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;half-open sections&amp;quot;) of motorways on which drivers do not have to cross toll collection station in order to use the motorway. The use of such sections is free of charge. These sections are also equipped with video surveillance systems, but the drivers have no opportunity to get informed that they are entering the zone of video surveillance.
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/camera">Camera surveillance</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
