Nueva Zelanda multará a pasajeros que se nieguen a desbloquear su móvil

Nueva Zelanda multará a pasajeros que se nieguen a desbloquear su móvil

customs nz.jpg

A partir de esta semana, los pasajeros que ingresen a Nueva Zelanda estarán sujetos a nuevas regulaciones que pueden poner en juego su privacidad. El departamento de aduana impondrá multas a quienes se nieguen a compartir la contraseña de sus dispositivos.

Esta medida está causando polémica en Nueva Zelanda, pues los usuarios que no desbloqueen o no faciliten sus contraseñas para revisar su móvil, deberán pagar multas de hasta USD$ 5,000.

La normativa se debe a una actualización de la Ley de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales, que se ha puesto en marcha desde el 1 de octubre del año en curso. De acuerdo con el reporte de RNZ, esta ley se aplica tanto para extranjeros como a los nacidos en el país.

Terry Brown, un portavoz de aduanas, dijo que una vez que se proporcionara una contraseña, se realizarían “búsquedas preliminares” con el smartphone o computador de un viajero, explorando solo los archivos guardados en el dispositivo, no los historiales de navegación u otra información cargada en el almacenamiento en la nube.

Específicamente, esta norma establece que pueden monitorear los dispositivos móviles o equipos de un pasajero, si este tiene actitud sospechosa. No obstante, las autoridades pueden revisar tu dispositivo sin explicar por qué le pareces sospechoso.

Plane FInder, el sitio web que muestra la información de cualquier vuelo

El motivo de las inspecciones son los grupos criminales que usan cada vez maneras más sofisticadas de pasar cosas por la frontera“, argumenta el Ministro de Aduanas, Kris Faafoi.

Como es de esperarse, la normativa ha generado polémica, pues consideran que se trata de invasión a la privacidad de los pasajeros.

Thomas Beagle, portavoz de los defensores de las libertades civiles, afirma que los dispositivos digitales contienen mucha más información privada que el equipaje de una persona y, por lo tanto se trata de un “invasión injustificada de la privacidad“.

Katina Michael, profesora especializada en temas de vigilancia, dijo que las leyes de la mayoría de los países permitían a los funcionarios confiscar dispositivos, si no se proporcionaban contraseñas o se sospechaba actividad ilegal. Pero las nuevas multas en Nueva Zelanda agregaron un “factor de miedo” para presionar a las personas, para que entreguen sus contraseñas.

Los funcionarios afirman que para que haya un mayor control, los representantes de aduanas deberán notificar al Parlamento cuántos dispositivos han inspeccionado anualmente.

Citation: Por Rosselyn Barroyeta, October 2, 2018, “Nueva Zelanda multará a pasajeros que se nieguen a desbloquear su móvil”, TekCrispy, https://www.tekcrispy.com/2018/10/02/nueva-zelanda-multa-desbloqueo/

Fork Over Passwords or Pay the Price

Fork Over Passwords or Pay the Price, New Zealand Tells Travelers

air nz.jpg
As of this week, travelers who fail to unlock their devices risk prosecution and potential fines of 5,000 New Zealand dollars, about $3,295.

The law applies to both foreign visitors and returning New Zealand citizens.

Mr. Brown, the customs spokesman, said that once a password was supplied, “preliminary searches” would be carried out with a traveler’s phone or computer set to flight mode, and officers would explore only files saved to the device, not website histories or any information uploaded to cloud-based storage.

A device could be confiscated for further examination only if the preliminary search led officials to believe that was warranted, although Mr. Brown admitted that failure to provide a password could be grounds for seizure.

The move drew criticism from civil liberties advocates, who said digital devices contain far more private information about a person than luggage does and should therefore be subject to greater protection from searches.

Katina Michael, a professor at the University of Wollongong in Australia who specializes in surveillance issues, said most countries’ laws allowed officials to confiscate devices, often for a period of weeks, if passwords were not provided or illegal activity was suspected. But she said the new fines in New Zealand added a “scare factor” to pressure people, who often do not know their rights when entering a new country, to hand over their codes.
But a spokesman for New Zealand’s Council for Civil Liberties, Thomas Beagle, told Radio New Zealand that it was not clear what constituted “reasonable suspicion” and that there was no way for travelers to challenge a forced search of their devices.

In 2017, New Zealand border officials conducted 537 preliminary searches of devices, and customs officials said they did not expect that number to increase under the new law.

In the United States, forced searches of devices at the border have increased in recent years and have been subject to lawsuits, in which civil liberties activists claim the examinations are invasive and unlawful.

Professor Michael said there had also been an increase in digital searches and device confiscations at the Australian border.

Tech for Good: The Role of ICT in Achieving the SDGs

What opportunities and challenges do digital technologies present for the development of our society?

https://vimeo.com/288621991

https://vimeo.com/288621991

I truly believe that we can harness technology for good. That information and communication technology is key to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. But more than this? We need to be human. Being human means that we can achieve anything together through compassion, care, foresight, and long-term sustainability. Right now we use technology in ways that helps us to gain access to critical information, but also as a means to become more engrossed in ourselves and our personal interests alone. What about the public interest? What about public interest technologies like those being suggested by the SDG Academy an all of its speakers? Think on doing this rewarding course. It takes a mission critical view of how technology can be used (or abused) as a tool for dis(empowerment). We have a choice- from our perspective the choice is easy- we MUST use technology for good.

The trailer for the magnificent SDG Academy. Here are courses delivered by the SDG Academy. More about the free online courses here.

My involvement was in 3 MOOCS related to: privacy, data rights, security and ethics, with a heavy emphasis on human rights throughout. Stay tuned for more.

About this course

Tech for Good was developed by UNESCO and Cetic.br/NIC.br, the Brazilian Network Information Center’s Regional Center for Studies on the Development of the Information Society. It brings together thought leaders and changemakers in the fields of information and communication technologies (ICT) and sustainable development to show how digital technologies are empowering billions of people around the world by providing access to education, healthcare, banking, and government services; and how “big data” is being used to inform smarter, evidence-based policies to improve people’s lives in fundamental ways.

It also addresses the new challenges that technology can introduce, such as privacy, data management, risks to cybersecurity, e-waste, and the widening of social divides. Ultimately, Tech for Good looks at the ways in which stakeholders are coming together to answer big questions about what our future will look like in a hyper-digitized world.

This course is for:

Technology specialists who want to understand more about how ICT is being used to improve people’s lives around the world.
Sustainable development practitioners who need to understand the opportunities and limitations of technology in a development context.
Advanced undergraduates and graduate students interested in the key concepts and practices of this exciting and ever-changing field.

What you'll learn

  • ICT can improve access to knowledge and services, promote transparency, and encourage collaboration

  • Responsible collection and use of data requires governance, security, and trust

  • ICT projects should be contextualized and inclusive

  • Technology is not neutral! Be aware of bias in design and implementation

 Hide Course Syllabus

Course Syllabus

Module 1: Welcome to the Digital Age

  • Introduction to the Course

  • Bridging the Digital Divide

  • Three Approaches to ICT for the SDGs

Module 2: Technology for Governments and Citizens

  • Equity and Access to Services

  • User-Driven Public Administration

  • It's All About the Data

  • The Open Government Approach

  • Case Study: Aadhaar in India

  • The Challenges of Digital Government

Module 3: ICT Infrastructure

  • Enabling ICT: The Role of Infrastructure

  • Promoting Digital Inclusivity

  • Innovations in Infrastructure

  • Building Smart Sustainable Cities

  • ICT as Infrastructure: A Look at Societal Platforms

Module 4: ICT Innovations in Health

  • Achieving Universal Health Coverage

  • Improving Healthcare Delivery

  • Involving the Community

  • Evidence in Action: Success Stories of ICT and Health

  • Emerging Challenges and Opportunities

Module 5: Learning in Knowledge Societies

  • The Ecosystem of ICT for Education

  • Education for a Connected World

  • Sharing Knowledge: ICT, Openness, and Inclusion

  • Measuring ICT and Education: Frameworks

  • Measuring ICT and Education: Data and Indicators

  • Rethinking ICT for Education Policies

Module 6: Promoting Financial Inclusion

  • An Introduction to Financial Services

  • The Potential of Digital Platforms

  • Mobile Payments for Marginalized Communities

  • ICT for Enabling Access to Credit

  • Replacing the Cash Economy

  • The Challenges of ICT-enabled Financial Inclusion

Module 7: Measurement and Metrics

  • Managing Data for the SDGs

  • ICT Innovation for Statistical Development

  • Engaging with Data: Communications and Citizen Empowerment

  • Case Study: Brazil’s Cetic.br

  • Measuring ICT

  • ICT for Monitoring the SDGs

  • Limitations of ICT for Monitoring the SDGs

Module 8: Artificial Intelligence

  • An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence

  • Who Drives the Agenda on “AI for Good”?

  • Implications for Discrimination and Exclusion

  • The Human Side of AI: Risks and Ethics

Module 9: Concerns for our Digital Future

  • Privacy and the Importance of Trust

  • Knowing your Data Rights

  • Cybersecurity

  • The Downsides of Digital

Module 10: The Way Forward

  • The New Workforce: Six Points about the Future of Work

  • The Meaning of Work in the Digital Era

  • The Open Movement

  • Closing Thoughts on ICT for the SDGs

Original link here: https://www.edx.org/course/tech-for-good-the-role-of-ict-in-achieving-the-sdgs

What might MyHR mean for workers in Australia?

Unions are claiming employers could potentially get access to the record through third parties under the default clause and the government says this section below overrides the default clause.

optout.jpg

Pilots and GPs are just two candidate job types where employers may seek access to health records under the guise of "duty of care" or "due diligence" using the "third parties" clause. 

We are living in a society where people are being routinely socially sorted into "at risk" categories based on various digital and physical chronicles. Should a pilot who seeks help to manage stress levels be stood down? Should a GP who has gone through relationship problems due to long work hours and is mildly depressed have their license to practice suspended?

The government is backpedalling on claims that third parties will not have access to health records based on seemingly contradictory legislation (section 70).

Fundamentally, what is new here? Is that while law enforcement has ALWAYS had the right to over-ride someone's privacy based on the proportionality principle from the very beginning of the enactment of the Privacy Act of Australia, letting third parties have access to sensitive information (of which health is) is a completely different proposition. The fact that the legislation is seemingly contradictory leaves Australian workers second guessing whether their individual case will be dealt with differently based on their employer's interpretation of the law.

It is one thing for an existing employee to have their license to practice revoked based on MyHealthRecord, and an almost completely different circumstances when a candidate is not hired for a job based on their MyHealthRecord. How would they ever know? It used to be that social media profiles of potential employees were screened for "best fit", but the future might be: "show us how mentally and physically healthy you are, and we will tell you how likely we are to hire you".

There are many GPs who have deleted their electronic health record to ensure they don't fall victim to such retrospective uses of the MyHealthRecord. 

Section 14(2) of the Healthcare Identifers Act 2010 :

(2) This section does not authorise the collection, use or disclosure of the healthcare identifier of a healthcare recipient for the purpose of communicating or managing health information as part of:
(a) underwriting a contract of insurance that covers the healthcare recipient; or
(b) determining whether to enter into a contract of insurance that covers the healthcare recipient (whether alone or as a member of a class); or
(c) determining whether a contract of insurance covers the healthcare recipient in relation to a particular event; or
(d) employing the healthcare recipient.

MY HEALTH RECORDS ACT 2012 - SECT 61 Collection, use and disclosure for providing healthcare
MY HEALTH RECORDS ACT 2012 - SECT 61[1]
Collection, use and disclosure for providing healthcare
(1) A participant in the My Health Record system is authorised to collect, use and disclose health information included in a registered healthcare recipient's My Health Record if the collection, use or disclosure of the health information is:

(a) for the purpose of providing healthcare to the registered healthcare recipient; and
(b) in accordance with:
(i) the access controls set by the registered healthcare recipient; or
(ii) if the registered healthcare recipient has not set access controls--the default access controls specified by the My Health Records Rules or, if the My Health Records Rules do not specify default access controls, by the System Operator.


MY HEALTH RECORDS ACT 2012 - SECT 5 Definitions[2]
MY HEALTH RECORDS ACT 2012 - SECT 5
Definitions
"healthcare" means health service within the meaning of subsection 6(1) of the Privacy Act 1988 .

PRIVACY ACT 1988 - SECT 6FB Meaning of health service[3]
PRIVACY ACT 1988 - SECT 6FB
Meaning of health service
(1) An activity performed in relation to an individual is a health service if the activity is intended or claimed (expressly or otherwise) by the individual or the person performing it:

(a) to assess, maintain or improve the individual's health; or
(b) where the individual's health cannot be maintained or improved--to manage the individual's health; or
(c) to diagnose the individual's illness, disability or injury; or
(d) to treat the individual's illness, disability or injury or suspected illness, disability or injury; or
(e) to record the individual's health for the purposes of assessing, maintaining, improving or managing the individual's health.

So a provider can assess, diagnose and record information subject to the “access controls” set by the user. This is where the issue of default settings comes into play.


Default Settings of My Health Record
https://www.myhealthrecord.gov.au/for-healthcare-professionals/patient-access-controls
How is consent managed in the My Health Record system?
By default, when an individual registers for a My Health Record they give standing consent for all registered healthcare provider organisations to access and upload information to their My Health Record. Healthcare professionals working in healthcare provider organisations can:
Access the individual's My Health Record during, or in regard to, a consultation or clinical event involving the individual; and
View all documents in the My Health Record system and upload documents to the My Health Record, unless the individual specifically requests the healthcare professional not to upload the document.

Face to face with Big Brother

drivers license oz.jpg
  • National biometric database to fight terrorism, identity theft and serious crimes 
  • Drivers' licences to start to be loaded into Home Affairs new database soon
  • The new database can also be used in the prevent outbreaks of serious diseases

A national facial recognition database system is set to become Australia's latest weapon in the crackdown against terrorism, identity theft and serious crimes.

Millions of driver's licences will start to be loaded into the Department of Home Affairs new biometric database within months, which every Australian drivers licence could be linked within 18 months, The Courier-Mail has revealed.

Police are currently being trained to use the Driver Licence Facial Recognition Solution, the publication reported.

Firearms, fishing and proof-of-age cards can also be uploaded into the system which can hold up to 30 million licences.

The aim of the database is to give national and state law enforcement agencies a new crime fighting tool in their crackdown against terrorism, identity theft and serious crime. 

To solve serious crimes, police will be able to run CCTV through the database, which will bring up to 20 possible suspects.

The database will also prevent outbreaks of serious diseases, where health agencies can request police to track down members of the public who came into contact with someone carrying a disease.

While all states and territories agreed to the identity-matching services last year, the  federal government is yet to get new laws passed through parliament.

Privacy has been raised as a concern, along with the vulnerabilities of biometrics.

Around half of Australia's population already have some type of visual biometric stored in a nationally-accessible database, according to technology and legal expert Professor Katina Michael.

She told the ABC earlier this year that figure to grow will 80 per cent with the inclusion of drivers licences.

'It's not like a one-on-one match, where you put (in) an individual's face and say: 'they're a suspect',' Professor Michael said.

'But rather what you get returned is a number of possibilities … you might get back 15, or 20, or 30, or 50 matches.'

Citation: Kylie Stevens, August 6, 2018, "Face to face with Big Brother: Millions of driver's licences to be linked to proposed national facial recognition database", DailyMail: Australia, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6028795/Millions-drivers-licences-linked-proposed-national-facial-recognition-database.html

Stare into the Lights my Pretties by Jordan Brown

stare.jpg

We live in a world of screens. The average adult spends the majority of their waking hours in front of some sort of screen or device. We’re enthralled, we’re addicted to these machines. How did we get here? Who benefits? What are the cumulative impacts on people, society and the environment? What may come next if this culture is left unchecked, to its end trajectory, and is that what we want?

Stare Into The Lights My Pretties investigates these questions with an urge to return to the real physical world, to form a critical view of technological escalation driven by rapacious and pervasive corporate interest. Covering themes of addiction, privacy, surveillance, information manipulation, behaviour modification and social control, the film lays the foundations as to why we may feel like we’re sleeprunning into some dystopian nightmare with the machines at the helm. Because we are, if we don’t seriously avert our eyes to stop this culture from destroying what is left of the real world.

Program title: Stare Into The Lights My Pretties.

Duration: 120 minutes.

Year of Production: 2017.

Website: https://stareintothelightsmypretties.jore.cc/

Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/videoplayer/vi666155033

Full version screener: https://stareintothelightsmypretties.jore.cc/files/StareIntoTheLightsMyPretties_1080p-4982k.mp4

IMDB Entry: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7762882/