Privacy and data protection in India and Germany: A comparative analysis

This research report offers a comparative analysis of privacy and data protection in Germany and India. It compares the two regimes on four counts. First, it examines how the right to privacy and/or its allied rights have developed in the two countries historically. In this, it explores the political factors contributing to the understanding and acceptability of the principles of privacy in the decades after the Second World War. Second, it delves into the instruments and forms of state surveillance employed by both the countries and analyses how the presence of parliamentary and judicial oversight on intelligence agencies impacts individual privacy. In the third section, it compares how biometric identity systems have been deployed in the two countries, the safeguards designed around the same, and the legal challenges they have thrown up. Lastly, it evaluates data subject rights as defined under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) together with the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz-Neu (BDSG-Neu) and how they compare with those as defined under the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 in the Indian context

Social Norms in Fourth Amendment Law

Courts often look to existing social norms to resolve difficult questions in Fourth Amendment law. In theory, these norms can provide an objective basis for courts’ constitutional decisions, grounding Fourth Amendment law in familiar societal attitudes and beliefs. In reality, however, social norms can shift rapidly, are constantly being contested, and frequently reflect outmoded and discriminatory concepts. This Article draws on contemporary sociological literatures on norms and technology to reveal how courts’ reliance on norms leads to several identifiable errors in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.Courts assessing social norms generally adopt what we call the closure principle, or the idea that social norms can be permanently settled. Meanwhile, courts confronting new technologies often adopt the nonintervention principle, or the idea that courts should refrain from addressing the Fourth Amendment implications of new surveillance practices until the relevant social norms become clear. Both of these approaches are flawed, and they have substantial negative effects for equality and privacy. By adopting norms perceived as closed, courts may embed antiquated norms in Fourth Amendment law—norms that often involve discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or class. By declining to intervene when norms are undeveloped, courts cede power over norm creation to companies that design new technologies based on data-extractive business models. Further, judicial norm-reliance and nonintervention facilitate surveillance creep, where familiar data-gathering infrastructures are used for new types of surveillance and monitoring. This Article provides, for the first time, a full, critical account of the role of social norms in Fourth Amendment law. It details and challenges courts’ reliance on social norms in virtually every aspect of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. And it explores potential new directions for Fourth Amendment law, including novel doctrinal paradigms, different conceptions of stare decisis in the Fourth Amendment context, and alternative institutional regimes for regulating government surveillance

The Impact of Security Scanners at Airports and Ethnic Minority Travellers’ Experience

Today, airports have a rigorous security focus on operational consistency from legislative and policy mandates being a priority rather than allowing airport operators satisfactory autonomy to adapt policy to their requirements (Poole 2009). Poole and Passantino (2003) stated that there is a tendency to try to treat all passengers the same, which can mean resources are not allocated to areas of greater risk. Resources are diverted to better technology and reducing staffing to process large numbers of passengers. Despite technological changes there are concerns security at airports can often focus on ethnic minority passenger

Forensic dna databasing: retention regimes and efficacy

Three legislative regimes have governed the England and Wales National DNA Database (NDNAD). These are broadly described as restrictive (1995 – 2001), expansive (2001 – 2013) and semi-restrictive/Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) regimes (2013 – present). The actual effectiveness of the three regimes remains abstruse. This research aimed to assess the efficacy of the different regimes to advance any reforms that may maximise the utility of the database and enhance the protection of public security and the individual’s right to privacy. The research focused on the societal and individual interest outcomes of DNA databasing. The methodology involved a document analysis of reports of oversight bodies, contributing to the establishment of the benefits, challenges and risks of the current regime. Secondly, a literature review of research into DNA databasing was conducted. Thisidentified key effectiveness indicators for the assessment of NDNAD regimes. A self-administered semi-structured questionnaire was used to assess the perception of the public about the statutory functions and ethical implications of the NDNAD. The questionnaire also asked about views on the most appropriate inclusion and retention criteria for the database. Lastly, a stakeholder survey was conducted to determine the views of experts on the efficacy of the NDNAD regimes against the effectiveness indicators. Overall, a majority of the 201 participants who answered the public survey perceived the NDNAD to be effective in detecting, investigating and prosecuting crime. The participants were sceptical about the ability of the NDNAD to prevent crime. This suggests a reform of the statutory purpose of DNA retention to represent actual outcomes. Most participants favoured the inclusion and retention of DNA data from arrested, charged or convicted individuals. A selective regime based on offence seriousness was preferred by participants for the retention of DNA data from convicted adults. This indicates a reform of the current blanket rule which allows indefinite retention. The surveyed expert group (n = 31, mainly law enforcement officers) perceived the expansive regime to be the most effective for public security, implementation cost and efficiency reasons. The findings imply discrepancies with the current law governing the NDNAD. Whilst participants of the public survey support further restrictions to the PoFA regime, the expert group favoured the expansive regime. The survey evidence suggests a need for a statutory requirement to generate systematic data about the actual effectiveness of the NDNAD. Further, a consultation scheme should be established to account for the acceptability of the NDNAD regime among a representative sample of the public. These reforms will help improve the legitimacy of the law and ensure a balanced approach in ‘shaping’ the proportionality of the NDNAD regime

Towards more foundational humanitarian Self-Sovereign Identity systems: Exploring strategies for humanitarian organizations to nurture support for SSI systems in Kenya, as a way to facilitate in-name SIM- and mobile money registration of un(der)documented, by using a design-oriented approach

Situation: A large portion of the beneficiaries of humanitarian aid have little to no proof of their identity, this is especially the case in African countries, in which humanitarian intervention is common. In order to facilitate aid to these individuals, humanitarian organizations (HOs) leverage their on-the-ground capacity to create identity profiles and risk assessments of these people. However, in-kind aid is being increasingly replaced by Cash Transfer Programs (CTPs). In CTPs, beneficiaries are provided with funding to self-procure their necessities. Complication: For efficient CTPs, these humanitarian identities need to be accepted beyond the boundaries of humanitarian aid. However, by relying on traditional identity management systems, HOs expose the beneficiaries to security and function creep risks. In order to share beneficiary identity information in a more responsible way, HOs have started to leverage Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) systems. These SSI systems need to be scaled up to a more foundational nature in order to facilitate private-sector services. For this a collaboration with national public- and private stakeholders is required. In order to realize that, there is a need for a process design. Which among other things ensures support from crucial stakeholders. Approach: This study used a Design Science Research inspired approach, combined with a Systems Engineering perspective to explicate the problem, define support driving and constraining circumstances and conditions, generate principles for the humanitarian sector to create support driving circumstances and conditions in Kenya and validate these principles using the input of industry experts. This research approach had a focus of practical insights over theoretical insights. Results: A set of five validated support nurturing principles were established with which humanitarian organizations can nurture support for a more foundational humanitarian SSI system in Kenya. Additionally, a framework has been composed with which local circumstances and conditions in a country can be assessed. Next steps: Further research should focus on establishing a more complete process design for a collaboration process, which also deals with participation of stakeholders, structures commitment and defines process rules for different phases of the process. Additionally, further research should explore the capacity and willingness of beneficiaries to control their own identity. And finally, the effect of international innovation initiation on the willingness of national stakeholders should be explored.Complex Systems Engineering and Management (CoSEM