There are more than 20,000 mental health apps on the market. Are your therapy session notes safe on these platforms? Is there a real person or a robot on the other side talking to you? Palki Sharma tells you.

Gravitas: Mental health apps and privacy risks

An advisor to the European Union's top court said on Thursday that Facebook could be sued by consumer groups for violation of privacy. The case pertains to a German online game and could pave the way for similar action in European Union.

The case started in 2012 and is one of several privacy and antitrust headaches facing Facebook in Europe, where regulators have introduced legislation to curb the power of so-called tech giants and ensure more transparency.

"Member states may allow consumer protection associations to bring representative actions against infringements of the protection of personal data," Richard de la Tour, advocate general at the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), said in an opinion.

He added that such actions must be based on infringement of rights derived directly from GDPR, referring to landmark EU privacy rules. These rules were adopted three years ago.

"We'll analyse the Advocate General's opinion. Legal clarity on scope and process of GDPR is important and we’re glad the Court of Justice of the European Union is considering the questions raised in this case.” said a spokesperson for Meta Platforms Inc.

GDPR stipulates that any requests to collect personal data should be subject to clear and informed consent.

De la Tour said consumer bodies that defend the collective interests of consumers are particularly suited to GDPR's objective of establishing a high level of personal data protection.

Facebook found itself in the dock after the Federation of German Consumer Organisations filed a lawsuit alleging that the social network had allowed operators of online games to improperly collect the personal data of gamers.

The games were offered on Facebook's App Center in 2012. By playing the games, users automatically agreed to share personal data including email addresses. At the end of the game, they would receive a message saying that the app could post their status, photos and other information.

A German lower court had ruled in favour of the German federation, leading Facebook to appeal to a higher court, which subsequently sought advice from the CJEU.

Facebook has since revamped its privacy settings.

(With inputs from agencies)

An advisor to the European Union's top court said on Thursday that Facebook could be sued by consumer groups for violation of privacy. The case pertains to a German online game and could pave the way for similar action in European Union.

An advisor to the European Union's top court said on Thursday that Facebook could be sued by consumer groups for violation of privacy. The case pertains to a German online game and could pave the way for similar action in European Union. The case started in 2012 and is one of several privacy and antitrust headaches facing Facebook in Europe, where regulators have introduced legislation to curb the power of so-called tech giants and ensure more transparency. "Member states may allow consumer protection associations to bring representative actions against infringements of the protection of personal data," Richard de la Tour, advocate general at the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), said in an opinion. He added that such actions must be based on infringement of rights derived directly from GDPR, referring to landmark EU privacy rules. These rules were adopted three years ago. "We'll analyse the Advocate General's opinion. Legal clarity on scope and process of GDPR is important and we’re glad the Court of Justice of the European Union is considering the questions raised in this case.” said a spokesperson for Meta Platforms Inc. GDPR stipulates that any requests to collect personal data should be subject to clear and informed consent. De la Tour said consumer bodies that defend the collective interests of consumers are particularly suited to GDPR's objective of establishing a high level of personal data protection. Facebook found itself in the dock after the Federation of German Consumer Organisations filed a lawsuit alleging that the social network had allowed operators of online games to improperly collect the personal data of gamers. The games were offered on Facebook's App Center in 2012. By playing the games, users automatically agreed to share personal data including email addresses. At the end of the game, they would receive a message saying that the app could post their status, photos and other information. A German lower court had ruled in favour of the German federation, leading Facebook to appeal to a higher court, which subsequently sought advice from the CJEU. Facebook has since revamped its privacy settings. (With inputs from agencies)

EU court adviser says Facebook can be sued by consumer groups

Seven Australian women who were strip-searched and forced to undergo invasive gynaecological examinations at the Doha airport last year are mulling to sue the Qatar government.

Damian Sturzaker, from Sydney-based Marque Lawyers, said on Monday that his clients were seeking compensation “for the fact that they were effected at the time and continue to suffer”.

The women alleged that they were ordered to disembark from the flight to Sydney and were checked whether they had given birth after a baby was found in a plastic bag bin at Hamad Airport in October 2020.

Describing their experience as “state-sanctioned assault”, the women said they did not give consent to the examinations and were not given explanations for what was happening to them.

The women, aged from their early 30s to late 50s, claimed that the examinations lasted about five minutes before they were escorted back to their flight.

The incident came to the fore when the women reported the matter to police after landing in Australia, sparking public attention and condemnation from several nations.

After the Australian government decried the incident, Qatar apologised and handed a suspended jail term for one airport official.

At the time, Qatar's Prime Minister Khalid bin Khalifa bin Abdulaziz Al Thani tweeted an apology saying, “We regret the unacceptable treatment of the female passengers... What took place does not reflect Qatar's laws or values.”

But the women say their cases have been ignored since then.

One of the women, who did not wish to be named, told the BBC she was “subjected to the most horrifically invasive physical exam”.

“I was certain that I was either going to be killed by one of the many men that had a gun, or that my husband on the plane was going to be killed,” she said in a statement from her lawyer.

Meanwhile, the airline has denied liability while the Qatar government said it was considering the women’s claim, Sturzaker said.

“We don’t hold out much hope in relation to anything other than a rejection of the claim,” Sturzaker said, indicating that the claim would go to trial.

(With inputs from agencies)

Seven Australian women who were strip-searched and forced to undergo invasive gynaecological examinations at the Doha airport last year are mulling to sue the Qatar government.

Seven Australian women who were strip-searched and forced to undergo invasive gynaecological examinations at the Doha airport last year are mulling to sue the Qatar government. Damian Sturzaker, from Sydney-based Marque Lawyers, said on Monday that his clients were seeking compensation “for the fact that they were effected at the time and continue to suffer”. The women alleged that they were ordered to disembark from the flight to Sydney and were checked whether they had given birth after a baby was found in a plastic bag bin at Hamad Airport in October 2020. Describing their experience as “state-sanctioned assault”, the women said they did not give consent to the examinations and were not given explanations for what was happening to them. The women, aged from their early 30s to late 50s, claimed that the examinations lasted about five minutes before they were escorted back to their flight. The incident came to the fore when the women reported the matter to police after landing in Australia, sparking public attention and condemnation from several nations. After the Australian government decried the incident, Qatar apologised and handed a suspended jail term for one airport official. At the time, Qatar's Prime Minister Khalid bin Khalifa bin Abdulaziz Al Thani tweeted an apology saying, “We regret the unacceptable treatment of the female passengers... What took place does not reflect Qatar's laws or values.” But the women say their cases have been ignored since then. One of the women, who did not wish to be named, told the BBC she was “subjected to the most horrifically invasive physical exam”. “I was certain that I was either going to be killed by one of the many men that had a gun, or that my husband on the plane was going to be killed,” she said in a statement from her lawyer. Meanwhile, the airline has denied liability while the Qatar government said it was considering the women’s claim, Sturzaker said. “We don’t hold out much hope in relation to anything other than a rejection of the claim,” Sturzaker said, indicating that the claim would go to trial. (With inputs from agencies)

7 Australian women to sue Qatar govt for ‘invasive’ strip search at Doha airport

The trial of patrol robots has sparked privacy concerns in Singapore. These robots are designed to blast warnings at people who are seen engaging in "undesirable social behaviour". &nbsp;

Singapore is seeing an explosion of tools to track inhabitants. These include CCTV cameras to lampposts kitted out with facial recognition tech.

Officials have long pushed for a vision of a hyper-efficient, tech-driven "smart nation". But this approach has drawn criticism from activists who say that privacy is being sacrificed&nbsp;and people have little control over what happens to their data.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/cosmic-music-check-out-nasa-post-on-heavenly-sounds-from-galaxys-centre-418128">'Cosmic Music': Check out NASA post on 'heavenly' sounds from galaxy's centre</a>

Singapore is frequently criticised for curbing civil liberties and people are accustomed to tight controls, but there is still growing unease at intrusive tech.

The government's latest surveillance devices are robots on wheels, with seven cameras, that issue warnings to the public and detect "undesirable social behaviour".

This includes smoking in prohibited areas, improperly parking bicycles, and breaching coronavirus social-distancing rules.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/before-chickens-early-humans-reared-one-of-the-most-dangerous-birds-study-417744">Before chickens, early humans reared one of the most dangerous birds: Study</a>

During a recent patrol, one of the "Xavier" robots wove its way through a housing estate and stopped in front of a group of elderly residents watching a chess match.

"Please keep one-metre distancing, please keep to five persons per group," a robotic voice blared out, as a camera on top of the machine trained its gaze on them.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/nasa-has-captured-image-of-eye-in-the-sky-418294">NASA has captured image of 'eye in the sky'</a>

During a three-week trial in September, two robots were deployed to patrol the housing estate and a shopping centre.

"It reminds me of Robocop," said Frannie Teo, a 34-year-old research assistant, who was walking through the mall.

It brings to mind a "dystopian world of robots... I'm just a bit hesitant about that kind of concept", she added.

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

The trial of patrol robots has sparked privacy concerns in Singapore. These robots are designed to blast warnings at people who are seen engaging in "undesirable social behaviour".

The trial of patrol robots has sparked privacy concerns in Singapore. These robots are designed to blast warnings at people who are seen engaging in "undesirable social behaviour". Singapore is seeing an explosion of tools to track inhabitants. These include CCTV cameras to lampposts kitted out with facial recognition tech. Officials have long pushed for a vision of a hyper-efficient, tech-driven "smart nation". But this approach has drawn criticism from activists who say that privacy is being sacrificed and people have little control over what happens to their data. Also Read | 'Cosmic Music': Check out NASA post on 'heavenly' sounds from galaxy's centre Singapore is frequently criticised for curbing civil liberties and people are accustomed to tight controls, but there is still growing unease at intrusive tech. The government's latest surveillance devices are robots on wheels, with seven cameras, that issue warnings to the public and detect "undesirable social behaviour". This includes smoking in prohibited areas, improperly parking bicycles, and breaching coronavirus social-distancing rules. Also Read | Before chickens, early humans reared one of the most dangerous birds: Study During a recent patrol, one of the "Xavier" robots wove its way through a housing estate and stopped in front of a group of elderly residents watching a chess match. "Please keep one-metre distancing, please keep to five persons per group," a robotic voice blared out, as a camera on top of the machine trained its gaze on them. Also Read | NASA has captured image of 'eye in the sky' During a three-week trial in September, two robots were deployed to patrol the housing estate and a shopping centre. "It reminds me of Robocop," said Frannie Teo, a 34-year-old research assistant, who was walking through the mall. It brings to mind a "dystopian world of robots... I'm just a bit hesitant about that kind of concept", she added. (With inputs from agencies)

Singapore: Patrol robots seeking 'undesirable social behaviour' spark privacy concerns

TikTok's lead data privacy regulator in the European Union has opened two inquiries into the Chinese-owned short-video platform related to the processing of children's personal data and transfers of personal data to China.

Ireland's Data Protection Commission, which is lead EU regulator for many of the world's top internet firms due to the location of their regional headquarters in Ireland, is allowed to impose fines of up to 4% of global revenue.

TikTok in August announced stricter privacy controls for teenagers, seeking to address criticism that it has failed to protect children from hidden advertising and inappropriate content.

Owned by China's ByteDance, TikTok has grown rapidly around the world, particularly among teenagers.

The first of the probes relates "to the processing of personal data in the context of platform settings for users under age 18 and age verification measures for persons under 13," the Data Protection Commission said in a statement.

The second probe will focus on transfers by TikTok of personal data to China and whether the company complies with EU data law in its transfers of personal data to countries outside the bloc, the statement said.

A spokesperson for TikTok said it had implemented extensive policies and controls to safeguard user data and relies on approved methods for data being transferred from Europe, such as standard contractual clauses.

"The privacy and safety of the TikTok community, particularly our youngest members, is our highest priority," the spokesperson said.

Ireland's data watchdog earlier this month levied a record 225 million euro ($265.64 million) fine on Facebook's WhatsApp under the EU's 2018 General Data Protection Regulation law (GDPR).

But the watchdog has faced criticism from other European regulators at the speed of its inquiries and the severeness of its sanctions.

The Irish regulator had 27 international inquiries in progress at the end of last year, including 14 into Facebook and its subsidiaries. 
&nbsp;

TikTok's lead data privacy regulator in the European Union has opened two inquiries into the Chinese-owned short-video platform related to the processing of children's personal data and transfers of personal data to China.

TikTok's lead data privacy regulator in the European Union has opened two inquiries into the Chinese-owned short-video platform related to the processing of children's personal data and transfers of personal data to China. Ireland's Data Protection Commission, which is lead EU regulator for many of the world's top internet firms due to the location of their regional headquarters in Ireland, is allowed to impose fines of up to 4% of global revenue. TikTok in August announced stricter privacy controls for teenagers, seeking to address criticism that it has failed to protect children from hidden advertising and inappropriate content. Owned by China's ByteDance, TikTok has grown rapidly around the world, particularly among teenagers. The first of the probes relates "to the processing of personal data in the context of platform settings for users under age 18 and age verification measures for persons under 13," the Data Protection Commission said in a statement. The second probe will focus on transfers by TikTok of personal data to China and whether the company complies with EU data law in its transfers of personal data to countries outside the bloc, the statement said. A spokesperson for TikTok said it had implemented extensive policies and controls to safeguard user data and relies on approved methods for data being transferred from Europe, such as standard contractual clauses. "The privacy and safety of the TikTok community, particularly our youngest members, is our highest priority," the spokesperson said. Ireland's data watchdog earlier this month levied a record 225 million euro ($265.64 million) fine on Facebook's WhatsApp under the EU's 2018 General Data Protection Regulation law (GDPR). But the watchdog has faced criticism from other European regulators at the speed of its inquiries and the severeness of its sanctions. The Irish regulator had 27 international inquiries in progress at the end of last year, including 14 into Facebook and its subsidiaries.

TikTok's lead EU regulator opens two data privacy probes

China passed a sweeping privacy law aimed at preventing businesses from collecting sensitive personal data Friday, as the country faces an uptick in internet scams and Beijing targets tech giants hoovering up personal data.

Under the new rules passed by China's top legislative body, state and private entities handling personal information will be required to reduce data collection and obtain user consent.

The Chinese state security apparatus will maintain access to swathes of personal data, however. Beijing has long been accused of harnessing big tech to accelerate repression in the northwestern Xinjiang province and elsewhere.

The new rules are also expected to further rattle China's tech sector, with companies like ride hailing giant Didi and gaming behemoth Tencent in regulators' crosshairs in recent months over misuse of personal data.

Chinese tech stocks including Alibaba and Tencent dipped after Friday morning's announcement.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/capitol-hill-bomb-threat-standoff-ends-as-suspect-surrenders-407037">Also read |&nbsp;Capitol Hill bomb threat standoff ends as suspect surrenders</a>

The law aims to protect those who "feel strongly about personal data being used for user profiling and by recommendation algorithms or the use of big data in setting prices," a spokesman for the National People's Congress told state news agency Xinhua earlier this week.

It will prevent companies from setting different prices for the same service based on clients' shopping history.

Tens of thousands of consumers have complained about having to pay more for hailing a taxi using an iPhone than a cheaper mobile phone model or for tickets if they are profiled as a business traveller, China's consumer protection watchdog said.&nbsp;

The law is modelled after the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, one of the world's strictest online privacy protection laws.

"China's new privacy regime is one of the toughest in the world," said Kendra Schaefer, a partner at Beijing-based consulting firm Trivium China. "China is not really looking at the short term with this law."

Instead, she said, it aims "to establish the foundations for the digital economy over the next 40 or 50 years."

The law, which comes into effect on November 1, also stipulates that the personal data of Chinese nationals cannot be transferred to countries with lower standards of data security than China -- rules which may present problems for foreign businesses.

Companies that fail to comply can face fines of up to 50 million yuan or five percent of their annual turnover.

The law says sensitive personal data includes information which if leaked can lead to "discrimination... or seriously threaten the safety of individuals" including race, ethnicity, religion, biometric data or a person's whereabouts.

But Chinese cities across the country are peppered with surveillance cameras, some outfitted for facial recognition, collecting biometric information daily.&nbsp;

In the restive region of Xinjiang, home to most of China's Uighur ethnic minority,&nbsp;rights groups say residents are forced to install software on their mobile phones that allow police to access their location, photos or text messages.

China passed a sweeping privacy law aimed at preventing businesses from collecting sensitive personal data Friday, as the country faces an uptick in internet scams and Beijing targets tech giants hoovering up personal data.

China passed a sweeping privacy law aimed at preventing businesses from collecting sensitive personal data Friday, as the country faces an uptick in internet scams and Beijing targets tech giants hoovering up personal data. Under the new rules passed by China's top legislative body, state and private entities handling personal information will be required to reduce data collection and obtain user consent. The Chinese state security apparatus will maintain access to swathes of personal data, however. Beijing has long been accused of harnessing big tech to accelerate repression in the northwestern Xinjiang province and elsewhere. The new rules are also expected to further rattle China's tech sector, with companies like ride hailing giant Didi and gaming behemoth Tencent in regulators' crosshairs in recent months over misuse of personal data. Chinese tech stocks including Alibaba and Tencent dipped after Friday morning's announcement. Also read | Capitol Hill bomb threat standoff ends as suspect surrenders The law aims to protect those who "feel strongly about personal data being used for user profiling and by recommendation algorithms or the use of big data in setting prices," a spokesman for the National People's Congress told state news agency Xinhua earlier this week. It will prevent companies from setting different prices for the same service based on clients' shopping history. Tens of thousands of consumers have complained about having to pay more for hailing a taxi using an iPhone than a cheaper mobile phone model or for tickets if they are profiled as a business traveller, China's consumer protection watchdog said. The law is modelled after the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, one of the world's strictest online privacy protection laws. "China's new privacy regime is one of the toughest in the world," said Kendra Schaefer, a partner at Beijing-based consulting firm Trivium China. "China is not really looking at the short term with this law." Instead, she said, it aims "to establish the foundations for the digital economy over the next 40 or 50 years." The law, which comes into effect on November 1, also stipulates that the personal data of Chinese nationals cannot be transferred to countries with lower standards of data security than China -- rules which may present problems for foreign businesses. Companies that fail to comply can face fines of up to 50 million yuan or five percent of their annual turnover. The law says sensitive personal data includes information which if leaked can lead to "discrimination... or seriously threaten the safety of individuals" including race, ethnicity, religion, biometric data or a person's whereabouts. But Chinese cities across the country are peppered with surveillance cameras, some outfitted for facial recognition, collecting biometric information daily. In the restive region of Xinjiang, home to most of China's Uighur ethnic minority, rights groups say residents are forced to install software on their mobile phones that allow police to access their location, photos or text messages.

China passes tough new online privacy law

Twitter has announced that its updated privacy policy comes into effect from Thursday, August 19.

In a blog post Twitter highlighted the changes in its privacy policy, including those around Twitter Blue, Twitter Spaces, payment features, and the like.

"The updated Privacy Policy will go into effect on August 19, 2021. We believe you should always know what data we collect from you and how we use it, and that you should have meaningful control over both. We want to empower you to make the best decisions about the information that you share with us. That’s the basic purpose of this Privacy Policy," read the blog.

One of the major updates include the introduction of Twitter spaces.

Twitter Spaces is a social audio feature that enables users to host or participate in a live-audio virtual environment.

It is a key part of the updated privacy policy.&nbsp;

Twitter said that it produces audio transcripts for the conversations taking place on the platform. This text is then scrutinised for any potential violations of Twitter's rules and guidelines.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/nadia-ghulam-the-woman-who-disguised-herself-as-a-man-for-10-years-to-survive-torture-of-taliban-406742">Also read |&nbsp;Nadia Ghulam: The woman who disguised herself as a man for 10 years to survive 'torture' of Taliban</a>

This is also used to make "improvements" to the way the Twitter Spaces feature works, the company said.

Twitter also highlighted that in order to improve user experience, the company works with third-party partners to display their video content on the platform.&nbsp;

"When you watch or otherwise interact with content from these partners, they may receive and process your personal data as described in their privacy policies," the social media giant said.&nbsp;

"If you do not want this content to play automatically, you can adjust your autoplay settings. If you’ve shared information like Direct Messages or protected Tweets with someone else who accesses Twitter through a third-party service, keep in mind that the information may be shared with the third-party service."

"Twitter does not sell your personal data. We’ve updated our Privacy Policy to make this clear, and also clarified how we protect your data when it is transferred outside the country you reside in," the firm said in the blog post.

Twitter has announced that its updated privacy policy comes into effect from Thursday, August 19. In a blog post Twitter highlighted the changes in its privacy policy, including those around Twitter Blue, Twitter Spaces, payment features, and the like.

Twitter has announced that its updated privacy policy comes into effect from Thursday, August 19. In a blog post Twitter highlighted the changes in its privacy policy, including those around Twitter Blue, Twitter Spaces, payment features, and the like. "The updated Privacy Policy will go into effect on August 19, 2021. We believe you should always know what data we collect from you and how we use it, and that you should have meaningful control over both. We want to empower you to make the best decisions about the information that you share with us. That’s the basic purpose of this Privacy Policy," read the blog. One of the major updates include the introduction of Twitter spaces. Twitter Spaces is a social audio feature that enables users to host or participate in a live-audio virtual environment. It is a key part of the updated privacy policy. Twitter said that it produces audio transcripts for the conversations taking place on the platform. This text is then scrutinised for any potential violations of Twitter's rules and guidelines. Also read | Nadia Ghulam: The woman who disguised herself as a man for 10 years to survive 'torture' of Taliban This is also used to make "improvements" to the way the Twitter Spaces feature works, the company said. Twitter also highlighted that in order to improve user experience, the company works with third-party partners to display their video content on the platform. "When you watch or otherwise interact with content from these partners, they may receive and process your personal data as described in their privacy policies," the social media giant said. "If you do not want this content to play automatically, you can adjust your autoplay settings. If you’ve shared information like Direct Messages or protected Tweets with someone else who accesses Twitter through a third-party service, keep in mind that the information may be shared with the third-party service." "Twitter does not sell your personal data. We’ve updated our Privacy Policy to make this clear, and also clarified how we protect your data when it is transferred outside the country you reside in," the firm said in the blog post.

Twitter's updated privacy policy to come into effect from today, read everything here

Dozens of US state attorneys general filed an antitrust lawsuit in federal court against Alphabet Inc's Google on Wednesday, according to an entry in the court docket.

The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint was not immediately available. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/antitrust-probes-fake-reviews-worker-ire-whats-in-store-for-amazons-new-ceo-andy-jassy-396262">Also read | Antitrust probes, fake reviews, worker ire: What's in store for Amazon's new CEO Andy Jassy?</a> 
 
The states have been expected to file a lawsuit saying that the search and advertising giant violates antitrust law in running its app store for Android phones, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The lawsuit, one of a series that has been filed against Google in the United States, follows complaints about Google's management of its app store, known as the Play Store, even though the company was originally seen as more open than Apple Inc.

Google bans apps with objectionable content from its store, and further requires that some apps use the company's payment tools and pay Google as much as 30% of their revenue.

Those and related policies prompted criticism from app developers, particularly when Google said in September it would ramp up enforcement. Google's Play Store is far more widely used than similar products from Amazon.com Inc, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and others.

Dozens of US state attorneys general filed an antitrust lawsuit in federal court against Alphabet Inc's Google on Wednesday, according to an entry in the court docket.

Dozens of US state attorneys general filed an antitrust lawsuit in federal court against Alphabet Inc's Google on Wednesday, according to an entry in the court docket. The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint was not immediately available. Also read | Antitrust probes, fake reviews, worker ire: What's in store for Amazon's new CEO Andy Jassy? The states have been expected to file a lawsuit saying that the search and advertising giant violates antitrust law in running its app store for Android phones, according to sources familiar with the matter. The lawsuit, one of a series that has been filed against Google in the United States, follows complaints about Google's management of its app store, known as the Play Store, even though the company was originally seen as more open than Apple Inc. Google bans apps with objectionable content from its store, and further requires that some apps use the company's payment tools and pay Google as much as 30% of their revenue. Those and related policies prompted criticism from app developers, particularly when Google said in September it would ramp up enforcement. Google's Play Store is far more widely used than similar products from Amazon.com Inc, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and others.

Big Tech in trouble: Dozens of US states sue Google alleging antitrust violations 

In what can be called a shocking decision, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/apple">Apple</a> has decided to g ahead with its unique privacy update to the software.

As per the new privacy update in the software, all app makers will have to specifically spell out what tracking information is being collected from customers' phones and where is it being used. The app developers will also have to take permission before gathering any information from users.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/us-senators-question-apple-and-google-on-app-store-dominance-379186" hreflang="en">US senators question Apple and Google on app store dominance</a>

Labelled as "privacy nutrition labels"&nbsp;the privacy update will be implemented in all iPhones across the globe from Monday and is assumed to be a nightmare for the advertising world.

The software update is an "App Tracking Transparency framework"&nbsp;that will stop the apps from tracking or collecting any information unless permission is identified.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/apple-packs-ipad-pros-with-faster-chips-slims-imacs-and-jumps-into-tracking-tags-378985" hreflang="en">Apple packs iPad Pros with faster chips, slims iMacs and jumps into tracking tags</a>

"Unless you receive permission from the user to enable tracking, the device's advertising identifier value will be all zeros and you may not track them," the tech company announced.

The software update has not been happily accepted by the social media platforms such as Google and Facebook.

"Apple has every incentive to use their dominant platform position to interfere with how our apps and other apps work, which they regularly do to preference their own," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said. "Apple may say that they're doing this to help people but the moves clearly track their competitive interests."

In what can be called a shocking decision, Apple has decided to g ahead with its unique privacy update to the software. As per the new privacy update in the software, all app makers will have to specifically spell out what tracking information is being collected from customers' phones and where is it being used.

In what can be called a shocking decision, Apple has decided to g ahead with its unique privacy update to the software. As per the new privacy update in the software, all app makers will have to specifically spell out what tracking information is being collected from customers' phones and where is it being used. The app developers will also have to take permission before gathering any information from users. Also read | US senators question Apple and Google on app store dominance Labelled as "privacy nutrition labels" the privacy update will be implemented in all iPhones across the globe from Monday and is assumed to be a nightmare for the advertising world. The software update is an "App Tracking Transparency framework" that will stop the apps from tracking or collecting any information unless permission is identified. Also read | Apple packs iPad Pros with faster chips, slims iMacs and jumps into tracking tags "Unless you receive permission from the user to enable tracking, the device's advertising identifier value will be all zeros and you may not track them," the tech company announced. The software update has not been happily accepted by the social media platforms such as Google and Facebook. "Apple has every incentive to use their dominant platform position to interfere with how our apps and other apps work, which they regularly do to preference their own," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said. "Apple may say that they're doing this to help people but the moves clearly track their competitive interests."

Apple to roll out new privacy update; Facebook, Google protest

Facebook has yet again come under scrutiny for its violation of privacy guidelines. Data of more than 500 million Facebook users have been leaked.

Facebook privacy controversy heats up

A US court has given a final approval to Facebook's $650 million payment to settle a privacy dispute between the group and users in the US state of Illinois.&nbsp;

According to a report in AFP, the decision was issued on Friday.

Chicago attorney Jay Edelson in 2015 accused Facebook of illegally collecting biometric data to identify faces in violation of a 2008 Illinois privacy law.&nbsp;

At the end of January 2020, Facebook agreed to pay $550 million after it failed to get the lawsuit -- filed as a class action in 2018 -- dismissed.&nbsp;In July 2020, however, the judge in the case, James Donato, ruled that the amount was insufficient.&nbsp;

During the trial, it emerged that Facebook was violating Illinois law by storing biometric data -- digital scans of people's faces, in support of its face-tagging feature -- without users' consent.&nbsp;

In 2019, Facebook proposed that the facial recognition feature be optional only.&nbsp;

(with inputs)

A US court has given a final approval to Facebook's $650 million payment to settle a privacy dispute between the group and users in the US state of Illinois. According to a report in AFP, the decision was issued on Friday.

A US court has given a final approval to Facebook's $650 million payment to settle a privacy dispute between the group and users in the US state of Illinois. According to a report in AFP, the decision was issued on Friday. Chicago attorney Jay Edelson in 2015 accused Facebook of illegally collecting biometric data to identify faces in violation of a 2008 Illinois privacy law. At the end of January 2020, Facebook agreed to pay $550 million after it failed to get the lawsuit -- filed as a class action in 2018 -- dismissed. In July 2020, however, the judge in the case, James Donato, ruled that the amount was insufficient. During the trial, it emerged that Facebook was violating Illinois law by storing biometric data -- digital scans of people's faces, in support of its face-tagging feature -- without users' consent. In 2019, Facebook proposed that the facial recognition feature be optional only. (with inputs)

Facebook to pay $650mn settlement over US privacy dispute

Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morison said that if Facebook wants to conduct business, it needs to work according to the data laws of the country. This statement comes after Facebook banned news content from Australia. UK's foreign secretary said 'there is need for sensible conversations between governments and technology giants'

'If FB wants to do business, needs to follow rules': Australian PM

WhatsApp has over 2 billion users, out of which 400 million are from India. Recently, many users in India changed their WhatsApp display pictures to "boycott WhatsApp" logos.

Now, messages are being circulated over the application urging people to stop using it.

The service is spending lakhs of rupees to retain users. And WhatsApp's parent company, with its abysmal track record in privacy, is now defining privacy for Indians. WhatsApp's biggest market is&nbsp;India, but Indian users are among the most vulnerable.

On Wednesday, India woke up to full-page advertisements that read - "WhatsApp respects and protects your privacy".

The ads went on to claim the following - "Respect for your privacy is coded into our DNA".

"We cannot see your private message or hear your calls... WhatsApp cannot see your shared location, and neither can Facebook", it added.

For the third time, WhatsApp was attempting to sell its new privacy policy. The ads were plastered on at least four leading Indian newspapers, and many were on the front page.

But why would WhatsApp spend so much money on this PR gimmick? As a free service, what could it lose?

WhatsApp is neither free, nor a service. It is a business, and we are paying kind, or in other words, data. WhatsApp says it will not share your personal chats with Facebook.

But what will it share? Whenever you message a business on WhatsApp, Facebook will know your payment method including shipping details, transaction amount. In addition, Facebook will use the data to show you similar ads on its platform and on Instagram.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/technology/it-stays-between-you-whatsapp-issues-clarification-after-update-in-privacy-policy-356211" hreflang="en">'It stays between you': WhatsApp issues clarification after update in privacy policy</a>

If you have a business account, Facebook will track your group name, group picture, group description, payments, or any other business features. It will also know whether you are online, and when you were last online.

Whatsapp says it won't read you personal chats, so there's no way it is breaching your privacy. But this basis is flawed, for it assumes that business chats are not private/ 
WhatsApp is rewriting the definition of privacy to suit its business. This is what the ad said - "We want to be clear that the policy update does not affect the privacy of your messages with friends or family in any way. Instead, this update includes changes related to messaging a business on WhatsApp".

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/technology/final-nail-in-coffin-telegram-again-trolls-whatsapp-over-new-privacy-update-356104" hreflang="en">Final nail in coffin: Telegram again trolls Whatsapp over new privacy update</a>

There's no scope for redressal in India, for the country does not have a data protection law. Whatsapp would not have been able to go ahead with this update in India with data protection in place.&nbsp;

Europe has the GDPR, or the General Data Protection Regulation. Owing to this law, European WhatsApp users cannot be forced to share their data with Facebook.

80 countries have data protection laws in place, and India is not one of them. Users now have two options - to either share their data, or to simply lose access to the application. And the update comes into force on February 8.

WhatsApp has over 2 billion users, out of which 400 million are from India. Recently, many users in India changed their WhatsApp display pictures to "boycott WhatsApp" logos.

WhatsApp has over 2 billion users, out of which 400 million are from India. Recently, many users in India changed their WhatsApp display pictures to "boycott WhatsApp" logos. Now, messages are being circulated over the application urging people to stop using it. The service is spending lakhs of rupees to retain users. And WhatsApp's parent company, with its abysmal track record in privacy, is now defining privacy for Indians. WhatsApp's biggest market is India, but Indian users are among the most vulnerable. On Wednesday, India woke up to full-page advertisements that read - "WhatsApp respects and protects your privacy". The ads went on to claim the following - "Respect for your privacy is coded into our DNA". "We cannot see your private message or hear your calls... WhatsApp cannot see your shared location, and neither can Facebook", it added. For the third time, WhatsApp was attempting to sell its new privacy policy. The ads were plastered on at least four leading Indian newspapers, and many were on the front page. But why would WhatsApp spend so much money on this PR gimmick? As a free service, what could it lose? WhatsApp is neither free, nor a service. It is a business, and we are paying kind, or in other words, data. WhatsApp says it will not share your personal chats with Facebook. But what will it share? Whenever you message a business on WhatsApp, Facebook will know your payment method including shipping details, transaction amount. In addition, Facebook will use the data to show you similar ads on its platform and on Instagram. Also read: 'It stays between you': WhatsApp issues clarification after update in privacy policy If you have a business account, Facebook will track your group name, group picture, group description, payments, or any other business features. It will also know whether you are online, and when you were last online. Whatsapp says it won't read you personal chats, so there's no way it is breaching your privacy. But this basis is flawed, for it assumes that business chats are not private/ WhatsApp is rewriting the definition of privacy to suit its business. This is what the ad said - "We want to be clear that the policy update does not affect the privacy of your messages with friends or family in any way. Instead, this update includes changes related to messaging a business on WhatsApp". Also read: Final nail in coffin: Telegram again trolls Whatsapp over new privacy update There's no scope for redressal in India, for the country does not have a data protection law. Whatsapp would not have been able to go ahead with this update in India with data protection in place. Europe has the GDPR, or the General Data Protection Regulation. Owing to this law, European WhatsApp users cannot be forced to share their data with Facebook. 80 countries have data protection laws in place, and India is not one of them. Users now have two options - to either share their data, or to simply lose access to the application. And the update comes into force on February 8.

WhatsApp is rewriting the definition of privacy to suit its business in India

Millions of WhatsApp users in India received an in-app notification from WhatsApp as part of an upcoming global roll-out, asking them to either accept the changes in its Terms of Service and privacy policy by February 8 or their accounts will be deleted.

The in-app notification did not elicit much details but clicking on the links clearly mentioned the key changes in how WhatsApp will collect and process users' information going forward, and the partnership with Facebook, its parent company, as part of a larger unification drive between the family of apps.

"WhatsApp must receive or collect some information to operate, provide, improve, understand, customise, support, and market our Services, including when you install, access, or use our Services," the updated policy read.

"Businesses you interact with using our Services may provide us with information about their interactions with you. We require each of these businesses to act in accordance with applicable law when providing any information to us," it further read.

WhatsApp's new Terms of Service and privacy policy will come into effect on February 8.

The mobile messaging platform said that it works with third-party service providers and "other Facebook Companies" to help it operate, provide, improve, understand, customise, support, and market its services.

"These companies may provide us with information about you in certain circumstances; for example, app stores may provide us with reports to help us diagnose and fix service issues."

Earlier in October, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the company is working hard to merge Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp so that they can start to function a little bit more like one connected interoperable system.

In a bid to allow cross-messaging among its family of apps, Facebook has reportedly started merging Instagram and Messenger chats. The social network has already integrated Messenger rooms with WhatsApp on the Web.

In its updated policy, WhatsApp said that if "you use our Services with such third-party services or Facebook Company Products, we may receive information about you from them".

"For example, if you use the WhatsApp share button on a news service to share a news article with your WhatsApp contacts, groups, or broadcast lists on our Services, or if you choose to access our Services through a mobile carrier's or device provider's promotion of our Services," the company said.

WhatsApp said as part of the Facebook Companies, it can make suggestions for you (for example, of friends or group connections, or of interesting content), like "personalising features and content, helping you complete purchases and transactions, and showing relevant offers and ads across the Facebook Company Products," along with "providing integrations which enable you to connect your WhatsApp experiences with other Facebook Company Products".

"For example, allowing you to connect your Facebook Pay account to pay for things on WhatsApp or enabling you to chat with your friends on other Facebook Company Products, such as Portal, by connecting your WhatsApp account," the new policy explained.

Millions of WhatsApp users in India received an in-app notification from WhatsApp as part of an upcoming global roll-out, asking them to either accept the changes in its Terms of Service and privacy policy by February 8 or their accounts will be deleted.

Millions of WhatsApp users in India received an in-app notification from WhatsApp as part of an upcoming global roll-out, asking them to either accept the changes in its Terms of Service and privacy policy by February 8 or their accounts will be deleted. The in-app notification did not elicit much details but clicking on the links clearly mentioned the key changes in how WhatsApp will collect and process users' information going forward, and the partnership with Facebook, its parent company, as part of a larger unification drive between the family of apps. "WhatsApp must receive or collect some information to operate, provide, improve, understand, customise, support, and market our Services, including when you install, access, or use our Services," the updated policy read. "Businesses you interact with using our Services may provide us with information about their interactions with you. We require each of these businesses to act in accordance with applicable law when providing any information to us," it further read. WhatsApp's new Terms of Service and privacy policy will come into effect on February 8. The mobile messaging platform said that it works with third-party service providers and "other Facebook Companies" to help it operate, provide, improve, understand, customise, support, and market its services. "These companies may provide us with information about you in certain circumstances; for example, app stores may provide us with reports to help us diagnose and fix service issues." Earlier in October, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the company is working hard to merge Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp so that they can start to function a little bit more like one connected interoperable system. In a bid to allow cross-messaging among its family of apps, Facebook has reportedly started merging Instagram and Messenger chats. The social network has already integrated Messenger rooms with WhatsApp on the Web. In its updated policy, WhatsApp said that if "you use our Services with such third-party services or Facebook Company Products, we may receive information about you from them". "For example, if you use the WhatsApp share button on a news service to share a news article with your WhatsApp contacts, groups, or broadcast lists on our Services, or if you choose to access our Services through a mobile carrier's or device provider's promotion of our Services," the company said. WhatsApp said as part of the Facebook Companies, it can make suggestions for you (for example, of friends or group connections, or of interesting content), like "personalising features and content, helping you complete purchases and transactions, and showing relevant offers and ads across the Facebook Company Products," along with "providing integrations which enable you to connect your WhatsApp experiences with other Facebook Company Products". "For example, allowing you to connect your Facebook Pay account to pay for things on WhatsApp or enabling you to chat with your friends on other Facebook Company Products, such as Portal, by connecting your WhatsApp account," the new policy explained.

WhatsApp updates privacy policy, asks users to accept terms or app will be deleted

Internet is a wonderful place but there are many pitfalls. With net neutrality going bye-bye and several other things changing over the years, it has been important to keep yourself and your identity online safe when needed. With data of whole of our lives going digital, it doesn't hurt to guard our privacy. With trackers, cookies and whatnot, this is increasingly becoming difficult. But there's a way to keep yourself safe online. Here we recommend privacy apps that'll help you surf the net freely and securely

1. Signal (Android, iOS)

There are messaging apps galore and each one claims to be supersafe for its users. There's WhatsApp, Telegram and more.

But if you are searching for a secure messenger app that has got good endorsements, then choose Signal.

Signal protects your text, voice messages and even videos with end-t-end encryption. This bit by Signal has even found to have been useful for protesters to protect their identities.

The open-source app has got endorsements from Amnesty International, Committee to Protect Journalists, Mozilla and even US Military.

The app is free.

 
2. Tor (Android)

Not even Google Chrome's incognito mode does what you think when it comes to anonymous web browsing. But by using Tor, its possible to come closest to true anonymity on the net.

Tor browser is available free to download for your desktop.&nbsp;

Whether you want to keep your web browsing a secret for the sake of your job or safety or you don't want companies tracking you as you surf the net, Tor browser is for you. It is available for Android but currently not for iOS.

&nbsp;

3. Onion Browser (iOS)

Don't sulk if you want to surf web anonymously and can't download Tor Browser because you don't have Android phone. Onion Browser does the same trick for iOS.

Onion browsers offers three levels of protection (gold, silver and bronze)

&nbsp;&nbsp; 
4. DuckDuckGo Privacy Browser (Android,iOS)

DuckDuckGo has become quite popular in this category because of the ease of its use. It doesn't block certain of your browsing habits like Tor Browser does but offers good protection from trackers on a particular website.

It automatically blocks third-party trackers and forces websites to use encrypted (more secure) connection when available.

 
5. ProtonMail (Android,iOS)

ProtonMail lets users encrypt and later self-destruct their e-mails so they don't remain lying around in your recipient's inbox for too much time and potentially letting crawlers get the info.

ProtonMail works like Gmail but it lets users put an extra layer of security on their e-mails.

 
6. Haven (Android)

Want to stop unwanted people from sneakily checking your phone when you are not around? Haven is for you.

Haven turns your phone into a motion-sensitive camera. It can detect light, sound and vibration too.

So if someone is to break into your home when you are taking a walk. Haven will not only detect it but also send you pictures of the person.

Internet is a wonderful place but there are many pitfalls. With net neutrality going bye-bye and several other things changing over the years, it has been important to keep yourself and your identity online safe when needed.

Internet is a wonderful place but there are many pitfalls. With net neutrality going bye-bye and several other things changing over the years, it has been important to keep yourself and your identity online safe when needed. With data of whole of our lives going digital, it doesn't hurt to guard our privacy. With trackers, cookies and whatnot, this is increasingly becoming difficult. But there's a way to keep yourself safe online. Here we recommend privacy apps that'll help you surf the net freely and securely 1. Signal (Android, iOS) There are messaging apps galore and each one claims to be supersafe for its users. There's WhatsApp, Telegram and more. But if you are searching for a secure messenger app that has got good endorsements, then choose Signal. Signal protects your text, voice messages and even videos with end-t-end encryption. This bit by Signal has even found to have been useful for protesters to protect their identities. The open-source app has got endorsements from Amnesty International, Committee to Protect Journalists, Mozilla and even US Military. The app is free. 2. Tor (Android) Not even Google Chrome's incognito mode does what you think when it comes to anonymous web browsing. But by using Tor, its possible to come closest to true anonymity on the net. Tor browser is available free to download for your desktop. Whether you want to keep your web browsing a secret for the sake of your job or safety or you don't want companies tracking you as you surf the net, Tor browser is for you. It is available for Android but currently not for iOS. 3. Onion Browser (iOS) Don't sulk if you want to surf web anonymously and can't download Tor Browser because you don't have Android phone. Onion Browser does the same trick for iOS. Onion browsers offers three levels of protection (gold, silver and bronze) 4. DuckDuckGo Privacy Browser (Android,iOS) DuckDuckGo has become quite popular in this category because of the ease of its use. It doesn't block certain of your browsing habits like Tor Browser does but offers good protection from trackers on a particular website. It automatically blocks third-party trackers and forces websites to use encrypted (more secure) connection when available. 5. ProtonMail (Android,iOS) ProtonMail lets users encrypt and later self-destruct their e-mails so they don't remain lying around in your recipient's inbox for too much time and potentially letting crawlers get the info. ProtonMail works like Gmail but it lets users put an extra layer of security on their e-mails. 6. Haven (Android) Want to stop unwanted people from sneakily checking your phone when you are not around? Haven is for you. Haven turns your phone into a motion-sensitive camera. It can detect light, sound and vibration too. So if someone is to break into your home when you are taking a walk. Haven will not only detect it but also send you pictures of the person.

Privacy apps you needed to have downloaded in 2020

Facebook, already under fire for its handling of misinformation and fake news, is going to launch its independent Oversight Board in mid to late October. This will put the board in action just before US Presidential elections due to take place on November 3. Facebook had plans to launch the Oversight Board last year but it was delayed due to coronavirus pandemic.

The board will initially have the power to review decisions to take down posts from Facebook and Instagram and recommend policy changes.

Oversight Board member Alan Rusbridger told Reuters in an interview that the board was now aiming for an October launch. A spokesman confirmed that timetable, saying the launch, originally planned for last year, had also been slowed by the coronavirus pandemic.

Rusbridger said he did not know whether the board would hear cases about content connected to the U.S. presidential election.

Also&nbsp;Read&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/thailand-takes-first-legal-action-against-facebook-twitter-over-content-329917">Thailand takes first legal action against Facebook, Twitter over content</a>

Although this is a step towards improving Facebook's handling of problematic content, some experts have said that that it will not be able to help combat misinformation as the board&nbsp;won't have authority to evaluate posts that the company decides to leave up.

Facebook has been on the receiving end of criticism about the kind of content it allows on its platform, especially political and social.

On Wednesday, Facebook took down pages that were created in China and were aimed at influencing US elections. Facebook said that people behind these activities tried to hide their location and identity using VPNs.

In addition to concerns surrounding content, Facebook is facing flak for privacy issues as well. On September 18, Bloomberg reported that a lawsuit was filed against Facebook for allegedly spying on Instagram users through phone camera. Facebook owns Instagram. Facebook had declined to comment at the time.

Facebook, already under fire for its handling of misinformation and fake news, is going to launch its independent Oversight Board in mid to late October. This will put the board in action just before US Presidential elections due to take place on November 3.

Facebook, already under fire for its handling of misinformation and fake news, is going to launch its independent Oversight Board in mid to late October. This will put the board in action just before US Presidential elections due to take place on November 3. Facebook had plans to launch the Oversight Board last year but it was delayed due to coronavirus pandemic. The board will initially have the power to review decisions to take down posts from Facebook and Instagram and recommend policy changes. Oversight Board member Alan Rusbridger told Reuters in an interview that the board was now aiming for an October launch. A spokesman confirmed that timetable, saying the launch, originally planned for last year, had also been slowed by the coronavirus pandemic. Rusbridger said he did not know whether the board would hear cases about content connected to the U.S. presidential election. Also Read | Thailand takes first legal action against Facebook, Twitter over content Although this is a step towards improving Facebook's handling of problematic content, some experts have said that that it will not be able to help combat misinformation as the board won't have authority to evaluate posts that the company decides to leave up. Facebook has been on the receiving end of criticism about the kind of content it allows on its platform, especially political and social. On Wednesday, Facebook took down pages that were created in China and were aimed at influencing US elections. Facebook said that people behind these activities tried to hide their location and identity using VPNs. In addition to concerns surrounding content, Facebook is facing flak for privacy issues as well. On September 18, Bloomberg reported that a lawsuit was filed against Facebook for allegedly spying on Instagram users through phone camera. Facebook owns Instagram. Facebook had declined to comment at the time.

Facebook to launch Oversight Board to combat misinformation just before US elections

A lawsuit filed against Facebook has accused the company of spying on its users through the phone camera via Instagram. Brittany Conditi, an Instagram user filed the lawsuit against Facebook in a Federal court in San Francisco, Bloomberg reported.

Conditi said that the app was using the phone camera intentionally to obtain “lucrative and valuable data on its users that it would not otherwise have access to”, said Bloomberg.

Facebook has declined to comment on this.

The fresh lawsuit is latest in a long list of allegations of privacy breach against Facebook.

In July this year, media reports suggesting Instagram accessed iPhone cameras in unauthorised manner were published. The reports said that such access was gained without the user's knowledge.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-corrects-users-post-under-new-singapore-fake-news-law-265378">Facebook corrects user's post under new Singapore fake news law</a> 
 
Facebook had refuted the claims and had blamed such an access on a bug.

The allegations did not stop after that. Facebook was accused of obtaining biometric data of its users using facial recognition technology. It was alleged that such data was gathered without the users' knowledge or consent.

Facebook had refuted the claims and had said that the photo-sharing app did not use facial-recognition technology.

A lawsuit filed against Facebook has accused the company of spying on its users through the phone camera via Instagram. Brittany Conditi, an Instagram user filed the lawsuit against Facebook in a Federal court in San Francisco, Bloomberg reported.

A lawsuit filed against Facebook has accused the company of spying on its users through the phone camera via Instagram. Brittany Conditi, an Instagram user filed the lawsuit against Facebook in a Federal court in San Francisco, Bloomberg reported. Conditi said that the app was using the phone camera intentionally to obtain “lucrative and valuable data on its users that it would not otherwise have access to”, said Bloomberg. Facebook has declined to comment on this. The fresh lawsuit is latest in a long list of allegations of privacy breach against Facebook. In July this year, media reports suggesting Instagram accessed iPhone cameras in unauthorised manner were published. The reports said that such access was gained without the user's knowledge. Also Read | Facebook corrects user's post under new Singapore fake news law Facebook had refuted the claims and had blamed such an access on a bug. The allegations did not stop after that. Facebook was accused of obtaining biometric data of its users using facial recognition technology. It was alleged that such data was gathered without the users' knowledge or consent. Facebook had refuted the claims and had said that the photo-sharing app did not use facial-recognition technology.

Facebook accused of snooping on Instagram users through phone cameras

Facebook Inc said on Thursday it has filed lawsuits against individuals in Europe and the United States for abusing its platforms to offer automated tools for scraping users’ personal data and gathering likes.

The social network said the defendant in the US lawsuit operated a data scraping service, called “Massroot8”, which improperly collected data by asking users to provide their Facebook login credentials. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/facebook-and-microsoft-allows-employees-to-work-from-home-till-end-of-year-297640">Also Read: Facebook and Microsoft allows employees to work from home till end of year</a>

The defendants in the European lawsuit operated a Spain-based fake engagement service that provided automation software to receive fake likes and comments on Instagram, Facebook said.

"This is one of the first times a social media company is using coordinated, multi-jurisdictional litigation to enforce its Terms and protect its users," the company said here in a blog post.&nbsp;

Facebook Inc said on Thursday it has filed lawsuits against individuals in Europe and the United States for abusing its platforms to offer automated tools for scraping users’ personal data and gathering likes.

Facebook Inc said on Thursday it has filed lawsuits against individuals in Europe and the United States for abusing its platforms to offer automated tools for scraping users’ personal data and gathering likes. The social network said the defendant in the US lawsuit operated a data scraping service, called “Massroot8”, which improperly collected data by asking users to provide their Facebook login credentials. Also Read: Facebook and Microsoft allows employees to work from home till end of year The defendants in the European lawsuit operated a Spain-based fake engagement service that provided automation software to receive fake likes and comments on Instagram, Facebook said. "This is one of the first times a social media company is using coordinated, multi-jurisdictional litigation to enforce its Terms and protect its users," the company said here in a blog post.

Facebook sues individuals for offering to extract data, gather likes

Video conferencing provider Zoom plans to strengthen encryption of video calls hosted by paying clients and institutions such as schools, but not by users of its free consumer accounts, a company official said on Friday.

The company, whose business has boomed with the coronavirus pandemic, discussed the move on a call with civil liberties groups and child-sex abuse fighters on Thursday, and Zoom security consultant Alex Stamos confirmed it on Friday.

In an interview, Stamos said the plan was subject to change and it was not yet clear which, if any, nonprofits or other users, such as political dissidents, might qualify for accounts allowing more secure video meetings.

He added that a combination of technological, safety and business factors went into the plan, which drew mixed reactions from privacy advocates.

Zoom has attracted millions of free and paying customers amid the pandemic, in part because users could join a meeting - something that now happens 300 million times a day - without registering.

But that has allowed opportunities for troublemakers to slip into meetings, sometimes after pretending to be invitees. 
Gennie Gebhart, a researcher with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who was on Thursday’s call, said she hoped Zoom would change course and offer protected video more widely.

But Jon Callas, a technology fellow of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the strategy seemed a reasonable compromise.

Safety experts and law enforcement have warned that sexual predators and other criminals are increasingly using encrypted communications to avoid detection.

"Those of us who are doing secure communication believe we need to do things about the real horrible stuff," said Callas, who previously sold paid encryption services.

"Charging money for end-to-end encryption is a way to get rid of the riff-raff," including spammers and other malicious users who take advantage of free services.

Zoom hired Stamos and other experts after a series of security failures led some institutions to ban its use. Last week Zoom released a technical paper on its encryption plans, without saying how widely they would reach.

"At the same time that Zoom is trying to improve security, they are also significantly upgrading their trust and safety," said Stamos, a former chief security officer at Facebook.

"The CEO is looking at different arguments. The current plan is paid customers plus enterprise accounts where the company knows who they are."

Full encryption for every meeting would leave Zoom’s trust and safety team unable to add itself as a participant in gatherings to tackle abuse in real time, Stamos added.

An end-to-end model, which means no one but the participants and their devices can see and hear what is happening, would also have to exclude people who call in from a telephone line.

From a business perspective, it is hard to earn money when offering a sophisticated and expensive encryption service for free. Facebook is planning to fully encrypt Messenger, but it earns enormous sums from its other services.

Other providers of encrypted communication either charge business users or act as nonprofits, such as the makers of Signal.

Zoom is also dealing with regulators such as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which is looking into its previous claims about encryption that have been criticized as exaggerated or false, said Stamos and another person familiar with the matter.

With the Justice Department and some members of Congress condemning strong encryption, Zoom could draw unwanted new attention through a major expansion in that area, privacy experts said.

An outside spokesman for Zoom, Nate Johnson, said its encryption was "a work in progress," including the engineering design and "which customers it would apply to."

Video conferencing provider Zoom plans to strengthen encryption of video calls hosted by paying clients and institutions such as schools, but not by users of its free consumer accounts, a company official said on Friday.

Video conferencing provider Zoom plans to strengthen encryption of video calls hosted by paying clients and institutions such as schools, but not by users of its free consumer accounts, a company official said on Friday. The company, whose business has boomed with the coronavirus pandemic, discussed the move on a call with civil liberties groups and child-sex abuse fighters on Thursday, and Zoom security consultant Alex Stamos confirmed it on Friday. In an interview, Stamos said the plan was subject to change and it was not yet clear which, if any, nonprofits or other users, such as political dissidents, might qualify for accounts allowing more secure video meetings. He added that a combination of technological, safety and business factors went into the plan, which drew mixed reactions from privacy advocates. Zoom has attracted millions of free and paying customers amid the pandemic, in part because users could join a meeting - something that now happens 300 million times a day - without registering. But that has allowed opportunities for troublemakers to slip into meetings, sometimes after pretending to be invitees. Gennie Gebhart, a researcher with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who was on Thursday’s call, said she hoped Zoom would change course and offer protected video more widely. But Jon Callas, a technology fellow of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the strategy seemed a reasonable compromise. Safety experts and law enforcement have warned that sexual predators and other criminals are increasingly using encrypted communications to avoid detection. "Those of us who are doing secure communication believe we need to do things about the real horrible stuff," said Callas, who previously sold paid encryption services. "Charging money for end-to-end encryption is a way to get rid of the riff-raff," including spammers and other malicious users who take advantage of free services. Zoom hired Stamos and other experts after a series of security failures led some institutions to ban its use. Last week Zoom released a technical paper on its encryption plans, without saying how widely they would reach. "At the same time that Zoom is trying to improve security, they are also significantly upgrading their trust and safety," said Stamos, a former chief security officer at Facebook. "The CEO is looking at different arguments. The current plan is paid customers plus enterprise accounts where the company knows who they are." Full encryption for every meeting would leave Zoom’s trust and safety team unable to add itself as a participant in gatherings to tackle abuse in real time, Stamos added. An end-to-end model, which means no one but the participants and their devices can see and hear what is happening, would also have to exclude people who call in from a telephone line. From a business perspective, it is hard to earn money when offering a sophisticated and expensive encryption service for free. Facebook is planning to fully encrypt Messenger, but it earns enormous sums from its other services. Other providers of encrypted communication either charge business users or act as nonprofits, such as the makers of Signal. Zoom is also dealing with regulators such as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which is looking into its previous claims about encryption that have been criticized as exaggerated or false, said Stamos and another person familiar with the matter. With the Justice Department and some members of Congress condemning strong encryption, Zoom could draw unwanted new attention through a major expansion in that area, privacy experts said. An outside spokesman for Zoom, Nate Johnson, said its encryption was "a work in progress," including the engineering design and "which customers it would apply to."

Zoom plans to roll out strong encryption for paying customers

Sprinklr has stated that the US-based company has destroyed all the backup COVID-19 data that the Kerala government had handed over to the company.

This comes after an affidavit was filed in a case challenging the usage of data by the company. The Kerala government had few days ago declared all COVID related data was transferred to the government-owned cloud web space in April itself.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
United States-based company Sprinklr, which was entrusted with handling data related to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/COVID19?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#COVID19</a> patients, has informed Kerala High Court that it has deleted all backup data shared with it by the state govt.
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1264151486126157824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 23, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Kerala&nbsp;government has also assured that no data was shared with Sprinklr after the data was transferred to the cloud. They also reassured the High Court that if any data had to be shared in the future, it will be anonymised.

The High Court has restrained the US-based company to use the data without anonymising it. Sprinklr has now confirmed that all the data that was entrusted by the Kerala government has been erased by the company.

The government has asked to make sure that if any data is shared with any third parties, the data has to be anonymised and a proper protocol has to be followed.

The state government, however, feels that the allegation from the opponent political party&nbsp;of breaching privacy of the public using the COVI patients data, was simply a move that was motivated with the intention of defaming the government.

Sprinklr has stated that the US-based company has destroyed all the backup COVID-19 data that the Kerala government had handed over to the company. This comes after an affidavit was filed in a case challenging the usage of data by the company.

Sprinklr has stated that the US-based company has destroyed all the backup COVID-19 data that the Kerala government had handed over to the company. This comes after an affidavit was filed in a case challenging the usage of data by the company. The Kerala government had few days ago declared all COVID related data was transferred to the government-owned cloud web space in April itself. United States-based company Sprinklr, which was entrusted with handling data related to #COVID19 patients, has informed Kerala High Court that it has deleted all backup data shared with it by the state govt. — ANI (@ANI) May 23, 2020 × Kerala government has also assured that no data was shared with Sprinklr after the data was transferred to the cloud. They also reassured the High Court that if any data had to be shared in the future, it will be anonymised. The High Court has restrained the US-based company to use the data without anonymising it. Sprinklr has now confirmed that all the data that was entrusted by the Kerala government has been erased by the company. The government has asked to make sure that if any data is shared with any third parties, the data has to be anonymised and a proper protocol has to be followed. The state government, however, feels that the allegation from the opponent political party of breaching privacy of the public using the COVI patients data, was simply a move that was motivated with the intention of defaming the government.

Sprinklr deletes all backup data on COVID-19 patients of Kerala

Apple and Google are two of the world's most powerful tech companies. Both giants have decided to ban location tracking in their contact tracing apps. They made this announcement together and this is a major decision.

Apple and Google are two of the world's most powerful tech companies. Both giants have decided to ban location tracking in their contact tracing apps. They made this announcement together and this is a major decision. One that affects almost 99 per cent of smartphone users in the world. Also read: Tweet once again gets Elon Musk into trouble as Tesla loses $14 billion Apple and Google say they are protecting user privacy. This grandstanding is a little hard to digest. Considering the fact that major tech companies are responsible for some of the biggest privacy debacles? Also read: Twitter swings to loss as pandemic hits advertising Google says it cares about user privacy. But, it runs is business on an advertising model that depends on the collection of personal information. It was around 20 years ago that Google introduced a privacy statement. But, the company hardly stays on the right side of it. Several privacy controversies have plagued the country in the past. Personal information has been leaked. Google themselves has been caught storing user location data. The search engine giant has been unable to shake off the privacy concerns. What about Apple? A couple of years back, Apple CEO Tim Cook had defined privacy as a fundamental right. Apple wants the user to believe that it is the only tech company it can trust. The company has positioned itself as a protector of users. To give credit where its due, Apple's own platform has not been caught in any major privacy scandal. But, it can't say the same about apple's business partners. This is where the app store comes it. Apple has one of the biggest app directories. It is highly profitable too. But, Apple has allowed privacy violators to freely operate on it. Even the kids were not spared. A journalist from the Wall Street Journal put out a story. She wrote about curious George. Sounds like a harmless game. But, it was collecting her son's age, name -- and data of whatever he tapped. The journalist ended up testing 80 apps. Most of them were promoted in the app stores "apps we love" section. She found that 79 apps used third party trackers for marketing, ads or analytics. On average --- there were at least four trackers in every app. So, its a bit rich when apple and google ban GPS tracking on contract tracing apps in the name of privacy. Contact tracing is common now. Experts consider it a crucial tool in the fight against the coronavirus. Yes, there are legitimate concerns over how certain contract tracing apps operate and collect data. But --- when tech companies try to draw the line between right and wrong.

Apple and Google decide to ban location tracking in their contact tracing apps

Privacy of 121 Indians breached, Journalists and Activists were targeted by Pegasus spyware

WION tracks WhatsApp Snoopgate: Privacy of 121 Indians breached

Facebook said Friday it suspended "tens of thousands" of apps on its platform as a result of a privacy practices review launched following a scandal involving Cambridge Analytica.

The review started in 2018 after revelations that the political consultancy hijacked personal data on millions of Facebook users, and it included attorneys, external investigators, data scientists, engineers, policy specialists and others, according to a Facebook statement.

The suspensions are "not necessarily an indication that these apps were posing a threat to people," said vice president of partnerships Ime Archibong, adding that some developers "did not respond to our request for information."

Archibong said the investigation "has addressed millions of apps. Of those, tens of thousands have been suspended for a variety of reasons while we continue to investigate."

The suspected apps were associated with about 400 developers, and many of the software programs were still in testing phases, according to Facebook.

The huge social network became the subject of intense scrutiny after acknowledging in 2018 that Cambridge Analytica misappropriated personal data on tens of millions of Facebook users as part of its work for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

Subsequently, Facebook said it would review all apps on the platform to determine how they used data and if they respect its privacy rules.

"In a few cases, we have banned apps completely," Archibong said.

Bans can be caused by violations including inappropriately sharing data obtained from Facebook or making data publicly available without protecting people's identities, according to the social network.

App crackdown

"One app banned was called myPersonality, which shared information with researchers and companies with only limited protections in place, and then refused our request to participate in an audit," Archibong said.

A year ago, Facebook said it had banned some 400 apps including one called myPersonality, which according to Archibong "shared information with researchers and companies with only limited protections in place," and refused to accept an audit.

Facebook said a recent agreement on privacy with the US Federal Trade Commission -- which included a record $5 billion fine -- calls for additional oversight on app developers.

It "requires developers to annually certify compliance with our policies," Archibong said. "Any developer that doesn't go along with these requirements will be held accountable."

Facebook earlier this year filed a lawsuit against South Korean data analytics firm Rankwave in California to make sure it isn't breaking the leading social network's rules.

Revamping controls

Along with slapping Facebook with a record fine for data protection violations, the settlement in July called for Facebook to create a privacy committee within its board of directors to be appointed by an independent nominating committee.

This would end "unfettered control" of decisions on privacy by Facebook's chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, the FTC statement said.&nbsp;

Facebook also will be required to conduct privacy reviews of every new or modified product, service or practice before it is implemented, including for its WhatsApp and Instagram services.

"We have a responsibility to protect people's privacy," Zuckerberg said at the time.

"We're going to set a completely new standard for our industry."

As the news was announced by Facebook, Zuckerberg was in Washington meeting with policymakers on questions about privacy and antitrust issues, and held talks at the White House with President Donald Trump.

Facebook said Friday it suspended "tens of thousands" of apps on its platform as a result of a privacy practices review launched following a scandal involving Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook said Friday it suspended "tens of thousands" of apps on its platform as a result of a privacy practices review launched following a scandal involving Cambridge Analytica. The review started in 2018 after revelations that the political consultancy hijacked personal data on millions of Facebook users, and it included attorneys, external investigators, data scientists, engineers, policy specialists and others, according to a Facebook statement. The suspensions are "not necessarily an indication that these apps were posing a threat to people," said vice president of partnerships Ime Archibong, adding that some developers "did not respond to our request for information." Archibong said the investigation "has addressed millions of apps. Of those, tens of thousands have been suspended for a variety of reasons while we continue to investigate." The suspected apps were associated with about 400 developers, and many of the software programs were still in testing phases, according to Facebook. The huge social network became the subject of intense scrutiny after acknowledging in 2018 that Cambridge Analytica misappropriated personal data on tens of millions of Facebook users as part of its work for Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Subsequently, Facebook said it would review all apps on the platform to determine how they used data and if they respect its privacy rules. "In a few cases, we have banned apps completely," Archibong said. Bans can be caused by violations including inappropriately sharing data obtained from Facebook or making data publicly available without protecting people's identities, according to the social network. App crackdown "One app banned was called myPersonality, which shared information with researchers and companies with only limited protections in place, and then refused our request to participate in an audit," Archibong said. A year ago, Facebook said it had banned some 400 apps including one called myPersonality, which according to Archibong "shared information with researchers and companies with only limited protections in place," and refused to accept an audit. Facebook said a recent agreement on privacy with the US Federal Trade Commission -- which included a record $5 billion fine -- calls for additional oversight on app developers. It "requires developers to annually certify compliance with our policies," Archibong said. "Any developer that doesn't go along with these requirements will be held accountable." Facebook earlier this year filed a lawsuit against South Korean data analytics firm Rankwave in California to make sure it isn't breaking the leading social network's rules. Revamping controls Along with slapping Facebook with a record fine for data protection violations, the settlement in July called for Facebook to create a privacy committee within its board of directors to be appointed by an independent nominating committee. This would end "unfettered control" of decisions on privacy by Facebook's chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, the FTC statement said. Facebook also will be required to conduct privacy reviews of every new or modified product, service or practice before it is implemented, including for its WhatsApp and Instagram services. "We have a responsibility to protect people's privacy," Zuckerberg said at the time. "We're going to set a completely new standard for our industry." As the news was announced by Facebook, Zuckerberg was in Washington meeting with policymakers on questions about privacy and antitrust issues, and held talks at the White House with President Donald Trump.

Facebook suspends 'tens of thousands' of apps in privacy review

Google will pay $150-200 million to settle allegations YouTube violated a children's privacy law while gathering data to better target its adverts, US media reports said Friday.

The US Federal Trade Commission agreed the amount of the settlement against YouTube parent Google, which if approved by the Justice Department would be the largest settlement in a case involving children's privacy, the New York Times reported.

The allegations against YouTube were made by privacy groups who said the platform had violated laws protecting children's privacy by gathering data on users under the age of 13 without obtaining permission from parents, Politico reported.

The FTC is expected to announce its decision on the settlement in September, the New York Times said.

US regulators have long argued Google fails to protect children from harmful content and data collection on its YouTube platform.

Advocacy group The Center for Digital Democracy said in a statement that the proposed settlement would be "woefully low" given Google's size and revenue, and called on the FTC to "enjoin Google from committing further violations" of children's privacy law.

Google remains the money-making engine for parent company Alphabet, with most of its revenue coming from digital ads, which accounted for $116 billion of the $136 billion the Silicon Valley-based company took in last year.

In January, France's CNIL data watchdog slapped Google with a record 50-million-euro fine for failing to meet the EU's tough General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force early last year.&nbsp;

Google is appealing the fine.

Fellow US tech giant Facebook recently settled a record $5 billion fine with the US Federal Trade Commission for misusing users' private data.

Google will pay $150-200 million to settle allegations YouTube violated a children's privacy law while gathering data to better target its adverts, US media reports said Friday.

Google will pay $150-200 million to settle allegations YouTube violated a children's privacy law while gathering data to better target its adverts, US media reports said Friday. The US Federal Trade Commission agreed the amount of the settlement against YouTube parent Google, which if approved by the Justice Department would be the largest settlement in a case involving children's privacy, the New York Times reported. The allegations against YouTube were made by privacy groups who said the platform had violated laws protecting children's privacy by gathering data on users under the age of 13 without obtaining permission from parents, Politico reported. The FTC is expected to announce its decision on the settlement in September, the New York Times said. US regulators have long argued Google fails to protect children from harmful content and data collection on its YouTube platform. Advocacy group The Center for Digital Democracy said in a statement that the proposed settlement would be "woefully low" given Google's size and revenue, and called on the FTC to "enjoin Google from committing further violations" of children's privacy law. Google remains the money-making engine for parent company Alphabet, with most of its revenue coming from digital ads, which accounted for $116 billion of the $136 billion the Silicon Valley-based company took in last year. In January, France's CNIL data watchdog slapped Google with a record 50-million-euro fine for failing to meet the EU's tough General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force early last year. Google is appealing the fine. Fellow US tech giant Facebook recently settled a record $5 billion fine with the US Federal Trade Commission for misusing users' private data.

Google to pay out $150-200 mn over YouTube privacy claims: Reports

Apple Inc said on Monday it will issue a software patch later this week for a bug that lets iPhone users hear audio from users who have not yet accepted a video call.

The bug, which Reuters was able to replicate, allows an iPhone user placing a call using Apple's FaceTime video-calling feature to hear audio from the recipient's phone even if the recipient has not yet picked up the call.

The bug appears to rely on Apple's group video-calling feature.

In certain situations, the bug also broadcast both video and audio from the recipient's phone, the technology news website the Verge noted.

"We're aware of this issue and have identified a fix that will be released in a software update later this week," an Apple spokesperson said.

Apple's group FaceTime was temporarily made unavailable due to an ongoing issue, according to Apple's system status webpage.

The Cupertino, California-based company was not immediately available to comment on the update on its system status page.

Users took to Twitter to tweet jokes and comments about the bug affecting Apple's group FaceTime service.

"Disable FaceTime for now until Apple fixes," Twitter Inc CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted.

Apple announced the feature last summer, but then removed it from early test versions of its iOS 12 operating system. The company launched the feature in October.

Apple Inc said on Monday it will issue a software patch later this week for a bug that lets iPhone users hear audio from users who have not yet accepted a video call.

Apple Inc said on Monday it will issue a software patch later this week for a bug that lets iPhone users hear audio from users who have not yet accepted a video call. The bug, which Reuters was able to replicate, allows an iPhone user placing a call using Apple's FaceTime video-calling feature to hear audio from the recipient's phone even if the recipient has not yet picked up the call. The bug appears to rely on Apple's group video-calling feature. In certain situations, the bug also broadcast both video and audio from the recipient's phone, the technology news website the Verge noted. "We're aware of this issue and have identified a fix that will be released in a software update later this week," an Apple spokesperson said. Apple's group FaceTime was temporarily made unavailable due to an ongoing issue, according to Apple's system status webpage. The Cupertino, California-based company was not immediately available to comment on the update on its system status page. Users took to Twitter to tweet jokes and comments about the bug affecting Apple's group FaceTime service. "Disable FaceTime for now until Apple fixes," Twitter Inc CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted. Apple announced the feature last summer, but then removed it from early test versions of its iOS 12 operating system. The company launched the feature in October.

Apple to patch privacy bug in video-calling feature

Facebook has moved to block referral of an Irish privacy case to Europe's top court, a lawyer for the U.S. tech giant said on Monday, seeking to avoid a potential ban on the legal instrument it uses to transfer users' data to the United States.

The case, taken by privacy activist Max Schrems, is the latest to question whether methods used by technology firms such as Google and Apple to transfer data outside the 28-nation European Union give EU consumers sufficient protection from U.S. surveillance.

The Irish High Court this month ordered the case to be referred to the EU's top court for a detailed assessment of whether the methods used for data transfers - including standard contractual clauses and the Privacy Shield agreement - were legal.

A ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against the legal arrangements could cause major headaches for thousands of firms, which make millions of these transfers every day.

The lawyer, Paul Gallagher, told the Irish High Court on Monday that Facebook was seeking a stay on the court's referral of the case to the ECJ to give the Irish Supreme Court time to decide if it would hear an appeal.

"The ideal thing we would be looking for would be a stay pending a determination by the Supreme Court," Gallagher told the court, adding that Facebook would seek an accelerated referral to the Supreme Court so it would take days, not months.

The case was taken in Ireland, the location of Facebook's headquarters for most markets outside the United States.

The judge earlier said the case raised well-founded concerns that there is an absence of an effective remedy in U.S. law compatible with EU legal requirements.

The case is the latest to question whether methods used by technology firms such as Google and Apple to transfer data outside the 28-nation European Union give EU consumers sufficient protection from U.S. surveillance

Facebook has moved to block referral of an Irish privacy case to Europe's top court, a lawyer for the U.S. tech giant said on Monday, seeking to avoid a potential ban on the legal instrument it uses to transfer users' data to the United States. The case, taken by privacy activist Max Schrems, is the latest to question whether methods used by technology firms such as Google and Apple to transfer data outside the 28-nation European Union give EU consumers sufficient protection from U.S. surveillance. The Irish High Court this month ordered the case to be referred to the EU's top court for a detailed assessment of whether the methods used for data transfers - including standard contractual clauses and the Privacy Shield agreement - were legal. A ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against the legal arrangements could cause major headaches for thousands of firms, which make millions of these transfers every day. The lawyer, Paul Gallagher, told the Irish High Court on Monday that Facebook was seeking a stay on the court's referral of the case to the ECJ to give the Irish Supreme Court time to decide if it would hear an appeal. "The ideal thing we would be looking for would be a stay pending a determination by the Supreme Court," Gallagher told the court, adding that Facebook would seek an accelerated referral to the Supreme Court so it would take days, not months. The case was taken in Ireland, the location of Facebook's headquarters for most markets outside the United States. The judge earlier said the case raised well-founded concerns that there is an absence of an effective remedy in U.S. law compatible with EU legal requirements.

Facebook seeks to block referral of privacy case to EU's top court

Facebook faces substantial business risks from new European Union privacy rules set to take effect in May, a looming reality that came into stark relief over the weekend with revelations that a controversial political consulting firm had improperly obtained personal data on 50 million Facebook users.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-republican-lawmakers-concerned-by-facebook-data-leak-36335" target="_blank">US Republican lawmakers concerned by </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-republican-lawmakers-concerned-by-facebook-data-leak-36335" target="_blank">Facebook</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-republican-lawmakers-concerned-by-facebook-data-leak-36335" target="_blank"> data leak</a>

Privacy experts said the disclosure that a researcher had sold Facebook data collected via a personality quiz to the consulting firm Cambridge Analytica is a prime example of the kinds of practices that the new General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, is supposed to prevent or punish.

The danger faced by Facebook going forward is two-fold: Complying with the rules means letting European users opt out of the highly targeted online ads that have made Facebook a money machine. Violating GDPR mandates could subject the California company to fines of up to 4 percent of annual revenues.

Had the Cambridge Analytica incident happened after GDPR becomes law on May 25, it &ldquo;would have cost Facebook 4 percent of their global revenue&rdquo;, said Austrian privacy campaigner and Facebook critic Max Schrems. Because a UK company was involved and because at least some of the people whose data was misused were almost certainly European, GDPR would have applied.

Shares in Facebook fell on Monday by 7 percent, their biggest drop since 2014, wiping nearly $40 billion off the value of the firm founded in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg.

Schrems first raised concerns in 2011 about how easy it would be for third-party apps to harvest data from the unwitting friends of Facebook users. Facebook says it has tightened its controls on such practices since it discovered the alleged abuses by Cambridge Analytica in 2015.

Schrems has founded a non-profit, called None Of Your Business (NOYB), that is hiring lawyers and exploring avenues for &ldquo;strategic litigation&rdquo; over GDPR privacy violations.

According to whistleblower Christopher Wylie, who formerly worked with Cambridge Analytica, the consulting firm used the data to help then-US presidential candidate Donald Trump to predict and influence choices at the ballot box.

&ldquo;The fact of the matter is that Facebook lost control of the data and wasn&rsquo;t adequately monitoring what third-parties were doing,&rdquo; said Scott Vernick, a partner and an expert in privacy and data security at the Philadelphia law firm Fox Rothschild.

Vernick said the maximum GDPR fine could come into play in an incident like this because of the number of users affected and what appears to have been inadequate monitoring of third-party data practices.

Facebook said it changed its policies in 2014 to &ldquo;to give much less data, especially about friends,&rdquo; Facebook Vice President Andrew Bosworth said in a Facebook post on Monday.

&ldquo;We conduct a robust review to identify potential policy violations and to assess whether the app has a legitimate use for the data,&rdquo; the company said on Monday. &ldquo;We actually reject a significant number of apps through this process.&rdquo;

Compliance with GDPR rules could cost Facebook a significant amount of money. Deutsche Bank analysts in January estimated that Facebook&rsquo;s overall revenue could be lowered by 4 percent in a scenario in which 30 percent of EU users opt out of targeted ads, reducing the effectiveness and likely price of ads shown by 50 percent.

The EU represents 24 percent of Facebook&rsquo;s ad revenue, so multiplying those figures, the bank said the regulations could have a 4 percent impact on overall Facebook revenue.

&ldquo;If this regulatory approach spreads to other countries or if GDPR ever becomes more onerous over the medium or long term, it would pose more risk,&rdquo; Deutsche Bank warned.

The firestorm over Cambridge Analytica has prompted a furious response from lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic, raising the prospect of just such an expansion of privacy protections.

Pivotal Research analyst Brian Wieser reiterated his &lsquo;sell&rsquo; rating on Facebook after the weekend reports. Wieser expressed concerns that the company&rsquo;s regulatory risks would intensify and that its sophisticated use of data in advertising was in jeopardy.

A December 2017 survey found that only 21 percent of European consumers know what GDPR is. But after the regulation was explained, 82 percent of respondents said they plan to exercise their new rights, according to the survey of 7,000 Europeans conducted by Cambridge, Mass.-based Pegasystems Inc, which makes sales and marketing software.

PageFair, an Irish startup that helps a website deliver non-targeted ads and avoid ad-blocking, estimates that only 3 percent of European social media users will opt-in to targeted ads, a potentially &ldquo;devastating&rdquo; blow for Facebook and other platforms, says Johnny Ryan, PageFair&rsquo;s head of ecosystem.

GIVING CONSUMERS CONTROL

The quandary for Facebook is readily apparent from a video it began showing customers in February: it teaches people how to delete their accounts.

GDPR gives users the right to access their data, delete it or transfer it to competing companies. Social networks will also need to regain Europeans&rsquo; consent every time they want to use their data in new ways, including for targeted advertising.

Lawmakers had social networks in mind when drafting GDPR, said Helen Dixon, the data protection commissioner of Ireland, which is the lead GDPR regulator for numerous tech companies including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

&ldquo;There was very big consideration of these newer types of platforms,&rdquo; she told Reuters.

Tough European rules stand in sharp contrast to the lack of privacy regulation in the United States and many other countries, raising the prospect that Facebook will begin to look much different from one country to the next.

For example, the social media giant in 2017 released new artificial intelligence features that detect when a user is at risk of suicide or when someone else uploads a picture of their face.

The company did not make those features available in Europe. Facebook did not specify a reason. But heightened scrutiny in Europe over such practices with GDPR looming may have been a factor.

Another challenge for social networks is GDPR provisions mandating how companies must obtain permissions. The regulation demands that requests for consent be presented &ldquo;in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language.&rdquo;

In other words, the days of extensive &ldquo;terms of service&rdquo; agreements written in a small text will no longer pass muster in Europe, numerous data privacy lawyers told Reuters.

In practice, social network users may find themselves seeing more &ldquo;permissions screens&rdquo; and being asked to check boxes every time a social network rolls out a new feature.

That could depress usage, Facebook Chief Financial Officer David Wehner said at an investor conference last month.

&ldquo;Whenever you walk people through permission screens, there&rsquo;s some potential that people decide they&rsquo;re not going to use the product,&rdquo; Wehner said. &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t think it will be big, but there could be some implication there.&rdquo;

Shares in Facebook fell on Monday by 7 percent, their biggest drop since 2014, wiping nearly $40 billion off the value of the firm founded in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg

Facebook faces substantial business risks from new European Union privacy rules set to take effect in May, a looming reality that came into stark relief over the weekend with revelations that a controversial political consulting firm had improperly obtained personal data on 50 million Facebook users. Also read: US Republican lawmakers concerned by Facebook data leak Privacy experts said the disclosure that a researcher had sold Facebook data collected via a personality quiz to the consulting firm Cambridge Analytica is a prime example of the kinds of practices that the new General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, is supposed to prevent or punish. The danger faced by Facebook going forward is two-fold: Complying with the rules means letting European users opt out of the highly targeted online ads that have made Facebook a money machine. Violating GDPR mandates could subject the California company to fines of up to 4 percent of annual revenues. Had the Cambridge Analytica incident happened after GDPR becomes law on May 25, it “would have cost Facebook 4 percent of their global revenue”, said Austrian privacy campaigner and Facebook critic Max Schrems. Because a UK company was involved and because at least some of the people whose data was misused were almost certainly European, GDPR would have applied. Shares in Facebook fell on Monday by 7 percent, their biggest drop since 2014, wiping nearly $40 billion off the value of the firm founded in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg. Schrems first raised concerns in 2011 about how easy it would be for third-party apps to harvest data from the unwitting friends of Facebook users. Facebook says it has tightened its controls on such practices since it discovered the alleged abuses by Cambridge Analytica in 2015. Schrems has founded a non-profit, called None Of Your Business (NOYB), that is hiring lawyers and exploring avenues for “strategic litigation” over GDPR privacy violations. According to whistleblower Christopher Wylie, who formerly worked with Cambridge Analytica, the consulting firm used the data to help then-US presidential candidate Donald Trump to predict and influence choices at the ballot box. “The fact of the matter is that Facebook lost control of the data and wasn’t adequately monitoring what third-parties were doing,” said Scott Vernick, a partner and an expert in privacy and data security at the Philadelphia law firm Fox Rothschild. Vernick said the maximum GDPR fine could come into play in an incident like this because of the number of users affected and what appears to have been inadequate monitoring of third-party data practices. Facebook said it changed its policies in 2014 to “to give much less data, especially about friends,” Facebook Vice President Andrew Bosworth said in a Facebook post on Monday. “We conduct a robust review to identify potential policy violations and to assess whether the app has a legitimate use for the data,” the company said on Monday. “We actually reject a significant number of apps through this process.” Compliance with GDPR rules could cost Facebook a significant amount of money. Deutsche Bank analysts in January estimated that Facebook’s overall revenue could be lowered by 4 percent in a scenario in which 30 percent of EU users opt out of targeted ads, reducing the effectiveness and likely price of ads shown by 50 percent. The EU represents 24 percent of Facebook’s ad revenue, so multiplying those figures, the bank said the regulations could have a 4 percent impact on overall Facebook revenue. “If this regulatory approach spreads to other countries or if GDPR ever becomes more onerous over the medium or long term, it would pose more risk,” Deutsche Bank warned. The firestorm over Cambridge Analytica has prompted a furious response from lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic, raising the prospect of just such an expansion of privacy protections. Pivotal Research analyst Brian Wieser reiterated his ‘sell’ rating on Facebook after the weekend reports. Wieser expressed concerns that the company’s regulatory risks would intensify and that its sophisticated use of data in advertising was in jeopardy. A December 2017 survey found that only 21 percent of European consumers know what GDPR is. But after the regulation was explained, 82 percent of respondents said they plan to exercise their new rights, according to the survey of 7,000 Europeans conducted by Cambridge, Mass.-based Pegasystems Inc, which makes sales and marketing software. PageFair, an Irish startup that helps a website deliver non-targeted ads and avoid ad-blocking, estimates that only 3 percent of European social media users will opt-in to targeted ads, a potentially “devastating” blow for Facebook and other platforms, says Johnny Ryan, PageFair’s head of ecosystem. GIVING CONSUMERS CONTROL The quandary for Facebook is readily apparent from a video it began showing customers in February: it teaches people how to delete their accounts. GDPR gives users the right to access their data, delete it or transfer it to competing companies. Social networks will also need to regain Europeans’ consent every time they want to use their data in new ways, including for targeted advertising. Lawmakers had social networks in mind when drafting GDPR, said Helen Dixon, the data protection commissioner of Ireland, which is the lead GDPR regulator for numerous tech companies including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. “There was very big consideration of these newer types of platforms,” she told Reuters. Tough European rules stand in sharp contrast to the lack of privacy regulation in the United States and many other countries, raising the prospect that Facebook will begin to look much different from one country to the next. For example, the social media giant in 2017 released new artificial intelligence features that detect when a user is at risk of suicide or when someone else uploads a picture of their face. The company did not make those features available in Europe. Facebook did not specify a reason. But heightened scrutiny in Europe over such practices with GDPR looming may have been a factor. Another challenge for social networks is GDPR provisions mandating how companies must obtain permissions. The regulation demands that requests for consent be presented “in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language.” In other words, the days of extensive “terms of service” agreements written in a small text will no longer pass muster in Europe, numerous data privacy lawyers told Reuters. In practice, social network users may find themselves seeing more “permissions screens” and being asked to check boxes every time a social network rolls out a new feature. That could depress usage, Facebook Chief Financial Officer David Wehner said at an investor conference last month. “Whenever you walk people through permission screens, there’s some potential that people decide they’re not going to use the product,” Wehner said. “We don’t think it will be big, but there could be some implication there.”

Privacy issues emerge as major business risk for Facebook

Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad today appealed not to &quot;overblow&quot; the issue of data breach, even as he asserted that innovations taking place in the country as part of digital revolution, cannot be killed under the garb of privacy.

Speaking at the inauguration of the 6th Annual International Commerce Conference here, he lamented that the country missed the industrial and entrepreneurial revolutions in the 80s and 90s due to licence raj.

&quot;But, it (India) should not miss the digital revolution,&quot; Prasad said while mentioning the Justice Srikrishna Committee, which is working on making a robust law for data protection and anonymity.

&quot;Travelling is your private affair. But everything is recorded if you take public transports like flights. What you eat is your personal choice, but if you eat in a restaurant it is recorded by a bill. Therefore, let us not overblow this issue of privacy,&quot; he said.

The law minister also said that innovations happening in the country cannot be killed under the garb of privacy.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/new-security-layer-in-aadhaar-is-like-locking-the-stable-after-horses-have-bolted-p-chidambaram-29179" target="_blank">New security layer in Aadhaar is like locking the stable after horses have bolted, says Chidambaram</a>

&quot;What is strictly private is medical and banking records. When you talk about privacy, there should be a balance between data availability, data utility, data anonymity and data privacy,&quot; he said.

Prasad also talked about how a number of fake accounts and teachers were identified with the help of Aadhaar cards, thus helping the government save precious resources.

&quot;Aadhaar does not contain community, religion, medical, educational or income reports. The system instead contains iris and finger prints kept in a safe and secure encrypted form which cannot be broken into even by the billionth of efforts,&quot; he said.

The two-day conference on &#39;Digital Outreach and Future of Marketing Practices&#39; was attended by Delhi University Vice Chancellor Yogesh K Tyagi among others.

A newspaper report had recently brought to the fore alleged Aadhaar data breach.

Delhi Police had on Monday registered an FIR on a complaint by an UIDAI official following the report on data breach of more than 1 billion Aadhaar cards, naming the journalist behind the story.

The police was informed by the official that the correspondent, posing as a buyer, had purchased a service being offered by anonymous sellers over WhatsApp that provided unrestricted access to details of Aadhaar numbers.&nbsp;

Ravi Shankar Prasad added that innovations cannot be killed under the garb of privacy

Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad today appealed not to "overblow" the issue of data breach, even as he asserted that innovations taking place in the country as part of digital revolution, cannot be killed under the garb of privacy. Speaking at the inauguration of the 6th Annual International Commerce Conference here, he lamented that the country missed the industrial and entrepreneurial revolutions in the 80s and 90s due to licence raj. "But, it (India) should not miss the digital revolution," Prasad said while mentioning the Justice Srikrishna Committee, which is working on making a robust law for data protection and anonymity. "Travelling is your private affair. But everything is recorded if you take public transports like flights. What you eat is your personal choice, but if you eat in a restaurant it is recorded by a bill. Therefore, let us not overblow this issue of privacy," he said. The law minister also said that innovations happening in the country cannot be killed under the garb of privacy. Also read: New security layer in Aadhaar is like locking the stable after horses have bolted, says Chidambaram "What is strictly private is medical and banking records. When you talk about privacy, there should be a balance between data availability, data utility, data anonymity and data privacy," he said. Prasad also talked about how a number of fake accounts and teachers were identified with the help of Aadhaar cards, thus helping the government save precious resources. "Aadhaar does not contain community, religion, medical, educational or income reports. The system instead contains iris and finger prints kept in a safe and secure encrypted form which cannot be broken into even by the billionth of efforts," he said. The two-day conference on 'Digital Outreach and Future of Marketing Practices' was attended by Delhi University Vice Chancellor Yogesh K Tyagi among others. A newspaper report had recently brought to the fore alleged Aadhaar data breach. Delhi Police had on Monday registered an FIR on a complaint by an UIDAI official following the report on data breach of more than 1 billion Aadhaar cards, naming the journalist behind the story. The police was informed by the official that the correspondent, posing as a buyer, had purchased a service being offered by anonymous sellers over WhatsApp that provided unrestricted access to details of Aadhaar numbers.

Aadhaar breach row: 'Let us not overblow this issue of privacy,' says Law Minister

Twitter has revised its rules on hate speech after the platform was criticised continually throughout the year for not doing enough to protect those targeted by abuse and hate speech.

In a first, it has suspended the accounts of two leaders of a British far-right group -- Paul Golding, Britain&#39;s First leader and deputy Jayda Fransen, as they allegedly posted anti-Muslim videos.

The suspension came on Monday after the social network&rsquo;s new rules came into effect.

Paul and Jayda can no longer tweet and their past posts no longer appear. Their organisation&#39;s official&nbsp;Twitter page has also been suspended with no access to previous tweets to users.&nbsp;

Twitter suspended their accounts after their posts feature anti-Islam videos that created a furore on the internet.

It came to the knowledge of people more when US President Donald Trump shared these tweets in November.&nbsp;

The strict action comes after Twitter announced in October that it planned on taking a tougher stance against hate symbols as well as those who posted messages that glorified or condoned violence.

It is also stated that those&nbsp;who express an affiliation with groups that use or celebrate violence to achieve their aims will be permanently suspended.

According to the guidelines, hateful imagery such as the Nazi swastika&nbsp;can still be posted, but will initially be hidden behind a &quot;sensitive media&quot; warning, that visitors must disable to proceed. However, such content will no longer be allowed on a person&#39;s profile page. Those who feature these on their profile will be asked to remove and repeat violators will be banned.&nbsp;

In a statement, Twitter said, &quot;The&nbsp;move would reduce the amount of abusive behaviour and hateful conduct&nbsp;on the network. If an account&#39;s profile information includes a violent threat or multiple slurs, epithets, racist or sexist tropes, incites fear, or reduces someone to less than human, it will be permanently suspended. We plan to develop internal tools to help us identify violating accounts to supplement user reports.&quot;

The two leaders were arrested before Twitter suspended their accounts -- on order of stirring up hatred on a separate incident

Twitter has revised its rules on hate speech after the platform was criticised continually throughout the year for not doing enough to protect those targeted by abuse and hate speech. In a first, it has suspended the accounts of two leaders of a British far-right group -- Paul Golding, Britain's First leader and deputy Jayda Fransen, as they allegedly posted anti-Muslim videos. The suspension came on Monday after the social network’s new rules came into effect. Paul and Jayda can no longer tweet and their past posts no longer appear. Their organisation's official Twitter page has also been suspended with no access to previous tweets to users. Twitter suspended their accounts after their posts feature anti-Islam videos that created a furore on the internet. It came to the knowledge of people more when US President Donald Trump shared these tweets in November. The strict action comes after Twitter announced in October that it planned on taking a tougher stance against hate symbols as well as those who posted messages that glorified or condoned violence. It is also stated that those who express an affiliation with groups that use or celebrate violence to achieve their aims will be permanently suspended. According to the guidelines, hateful imagery such as the Nazi swastika can still be posted, but will initially be hidden behind a "sensitive media" warning, that visitors must disable to proceed. However, such content will no longer be allowed on a person's profile page. Those who feature these on their profile will be asked to remove and repeat violators will be banned. In a statement, Twitter said, "The move would reduce the amount of abusive behaviour and hateful conduct on the network. If an account's profile information includes a violent threat or multiple slurs, epithets, racist or sexist tropes, incites fear, or reduces someone to less than human, it will be permanently suspended. We plan to develop internal tools to help us identify violating accounts to supplement user reports."

Twitter suspends Britain First leaders' accounts as it enforces new anti-abuse rules

In a manner that has become emblematic of the privacy discourse in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, today ruled in favor of denying employers access to their employees&rsquo; communications. The judgment further drives home the point of the differential treatment of privacy by various jurisdictions and notably, how the expectation of privacy varies significantly.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Article 8 provides for the right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Article 8 provides for the right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The case before the Grand Chamber of 17 judges first arose in 2007 and involved the termination of a Romanian national Bogdan Mihai Barbulescu by his then employer. Barbulescu was dismissed by his employer for using is Yahoo! Messenger account for his personal communications. Finding that the employer had not given prior notice to Barbulescu that his communications would be monitored and that the extent of monitoring was too intrusive, the Court held that his dismissal violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 provides for the right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence.&nbsp;

In its ruling, the Court balanced the need to protect the right to privacy of an individual against a company&rsquo;s imperative to ensure that its IT systems are not damaged or used for illegal activities. The judgment, however, in dismissing the latter as hypothetical harms appears to have inadequately applied its judicial mind to the issue. Much of the contours of the right to privacy along with the reasonable restrictions therein are decided on hypothetical harms. In part, this is because of the nature of technology and the impossibility of predicting the ways in which intrusive technology can evolve.&nbsp;Violations of the right to privacy are often not as easy to detect and remedy as other rights &ndash; illustrated by the NSA&rsquo;s unauthorised snooping that was brought to the light by&nbsp;Snowden.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>In a world where the Internet is ubiquitous and, vast amounts of personal activity is conducted online, denying access to personal information is no longer an option for most.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=In a world where the Internet is ubiquitous and, vast amounts of personal activity is conducted online, denying access to personal information is no longer an option for most. " target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The answer to this, however, does not lie in an evangelical conception of privacy where the only way of safeguarding rights is by denying access to information. In a world where the Internet is ubiquitous and, vast amounts of personal activity is conducted online, denying access to personal information is no longer an option for most. As Prof. Helen Nissenbaum, of the New York University, argues, privacy strengthening frameworks should focus on the manner in which information is used rather than controlling the flow of information or denying access to information.&nbsp;

Frameworks that advocate for securing information in a manner that renders it inaccessible, can not only stifle data-dependent innovation but also strike an unfair balancing act between the right to privacy and it&rsquo;s interaction with other rights. Take, for instance, an absolutist understanding of privacy that denies the state any interference with one&rsquo;s private/marital life. This can have the effect of enabling domestic violence and systemic abuse.

This is a central contribution when it comes to informational privacy. Due to the transient nature of the medium, often real time monitoring of communication is the only means of identifying foul play. This monitoring should necessarily be authorised by law and in keeping with the principles of necessity and proportionality, however, denying access to information altogether should not be the only recourse.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Monitoring should necessarily be authorised by law and in keeping with the principles of necessity and proportionality, however, denying access to information altogether should not be the only recourse.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Monitoring should necessarily be authorised by law and in keeping with the principles of necessity and proportionality, however, denying access to information altogether should not be the only recourse.?" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

In its judgement, the Court considered whether the stated objectives of the employer &ndash; ensuing safety of its IT systems and preventing illegal activity &ndash; could have been achieved through less intrusive means. The court found that the company had not employed means that were less intrusive and had thus run afoul of Article 8. This may not hold true in all cases.&nbsp;

Sensitive crimes such as transfer of trade secrets, unauthorised access to company servers etc. which are commonplace, can often only be detected by logging keystrokes or real time monitoring of employees&rsquo; activities.&nbsp;

The ways in which the judgement will affect the evolution of privacy in Europe remains to be seen, however, the rest of the world has much to learn from this understanding of the right. Emerging markets like India that are determining the contours of their right to privacy and data protection cannot afford to adopt a notion of privacy that denies innovation and curtails other rights.

Emerging markets like India that are determining the contours of their right to privacy and data protection cannot afford to adopt a notion of privacy that denies innovation and curtails other rights.

In a manner that has become emblematic of the privacy discourse in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, today ruled in favor of denying employers access to their employees’ communications. The judgment further drives home the point of the differential treatment of privacy by various jurisdictions and notably, how the expectation of privacy varies significantly. Article 8 provides for the right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence. × The case before the Grand Chamber of 17 judges first arose in 2007 and involved the termination of a Romanian national Bogdan Mihai Barbulescu by his then employer. Barbulescu was dismissed by his employer for using is Yahoo! Messenger account for his personal communications. Finding that the employer had not given prior notice to Barbulescu that his communications would be monitored and that the extent of monitoring was too intrusive, the Court held that his dismissal violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 provides for the right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence. In its ruling, the Court balanced the need to protect the right to privacy of an individual against a company’s imperative to ensure that its IT systems are not damaged or used for illegal activities. The judgment, however, in dismissing the latter as hypothetical harms appears to have inadequately applied its judicial mind to the issue. Much of the contours of the right to privacy along with the reasonable restrictions therein are decided on hypothetical harms. In part, this is because of the nature of technology and the impossibility of predicting the ways in which intrusive technology can evolve. Violations of the right to privacy are often not as easy to detect and remedy as other rights – illustrated by the NSA’s unauthorised snooping that was brought to the light by Snowden. In a world where the Internet is ubiquitous and, vast amounts of personal activity is conducted online, denying access to personal information is no longer an option for most. × The answer to this, however, does not lie in an evangelical conception of privacy where the only way of safeguarding rights is by denying access to information. In a world where the Internet is ubiquitous and, vast amounts of personal activity is conducted online, denying access to personal information is no longer an option for most. As Prof. Helen Nissenbaum, of the New York University, argues, privacy strengthening frameworks should focus on the manner in which information is used rather than controlling the flow of information or denying access to information. Frameworks that advocate for securing information in a manner that renders it inaccessible, can not only stifle data-dependent innovation but also strike an unfair balancing act between the right to privacy and it’s interaction with other rights. Take, for instance, an absolutist understanding of privacy that denies the state any interference with one’s private/marital life. This can have the effect of enabling domestic violence and systemic abuse. This is a central contribution when it comes to informational privacy. Due to the transient nature of the medium, often real time monitoring of communication is the only means of identifying foul play. This monitoring should necessarily be authorised by law and in keeping with the principles of necessity and proportionality, however, denying access to information altogether should not be the only recourse. Monitoring should necessarily be authorised by law and in keeping with the principles of necessity and proportionality, however, denying access to information altogether should not be the only recourse. × In its judgement, the Court considered whether the stated objectives of the employer – ensuing safety of its IT systems and preventing illegal activity – could have been achieved through less intrusive means. The court found that the company had not employed means that were less intrusive and had thus run afoul of Article 8. This may not hold true in all cases. Sensitive crimes such as transfer of trade secrets, unauthorised access to company servers etc. which are commonplace, can often only be detected by logging keystrokes or real time monitoring of employees’ activities. The ways in which the judgement will affect the evolution of privacy in Europe remains to be seen, however, the rest of the world has much to learn from this understanding of the right. Emerging markets like India that are determining the contours of their right to privacy and data protection cannot afford to adopt a notion of privacy that denies innovation and curtails other rights.

How the European Court of Human Rights verdict on privacy of employees impacts India

Companies need to make sure that employees are aware in advance of management monitoring of their work email accounts, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday in a landmark privacy case.

In a judgment in the case of a man fired 10 years ago for using a work messaging account to communicate with his family, the judges found that Romanian courts failed to protect Bogdan Barbulescu&#39;s private correspondence because his company had not given prior notice that it was monitoring his communications.

The company had presented him with printouts of his private messages to his brother and fianc&eacute;e on Yahoo Messenger as evidence of his breach of a company ban on such personal use.

The European court in Strasbourg ruled by an 11-6 majority that Romanian judges, in backing the employer, had failed to protect Barbulescu&#39;s right to private life and correspondence.

Romanian courts failed to protect Bogdan Barbulescu's private correspondence because his company had not given prior notice that it was monitoring his communications.

Companies need to make sure that employees are aware in advance of management monitoring of their work email accounts, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday in a landmark privacy case. In a judgment in the case of a man fired 10 years ago for using a work messaging account to communicate with his family, the judges found that Romanian courts failed to protect Bogdan Barbulescu's private correspondence because his company had not given prior notice that it was monitoring his communications. The company had presented him with printouts of his private messages to his brother and fiancée on Yahoo Messenger as evidence of his breach of a company ban on such personal use. The European court in Strasbourg ruled by an 11-6 majority that Romanian judges, in backing the employer, had failed to protect Barbulescu's right to private life and correspondence.

European court rules firms must tell employees of email checks

privacy

Privacy, News on Privacy, stories on Privacy, articles on Privacy, Privacy stories at Wion, Privacy news, Privacy latest news