Internet : Personal Privacy: Europe’s Expanding ‘Right to Be Forgotten ’" NYT comparing Apples and Pears"

European officials are pushing an idea that will encourage autocrats everywhere to demand greater censorship on the Internet. They want companies like Google and Microsoft to abide by the European Union’s recently recognized legal principle of a “right to be forgotten” not just in the 28 countries of the union but everywhere.

In May, the European Court of Justice ruled that individuals could ask Internet search sites to remove links to web pages that contained “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” information about them in the results page for searches of their names. Google, which is the dominant search engine in Europe, has removed more than 250,000 links since that ruling.

\

But the company says it only removes links from results displayed on its websites for European countries like Google.fr in France or Google.de in Germany but not from results on its non-European sites, including Google.com, the primary site in the United States. European policy makers say this approach fails to protect the “right to be forgotten” because it is easy for people to search on Google.com or using virtual private networks to find links that are not displayed in their countries.

As a result, European regulators and judges are demanding that Google and other companies remove links covered by the right-to-be-forgotten principle from all results pages in all countries and regardless of where the search takes place. This would allow Europeans to decide what information citizens of every other nation can access. Google has, so far, refused to comply with these demands, but it may find it harder to resist once European officials enshrine the right to be forgotten into law, which officials are negotiating now.

The European position is deeply troubling because it could lead to censorship by public officials who want to whitewash the past. It also sets a terrible example for officials in other countries who might also want to demand that Internet companies remove links they don’t like. For example, the military government of Thailand could decide that it wants Facebook and Twitter to remove content that runs afoul of that country’s strict lèse-majesté law everywhere in the world. Autocratic leaders like Vladimir Putin of Russia and Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey might feel emboldened to try to silence critics not just in their own countries but elsewhere by levying fines on Internet businesses or blocking their websites entirely.

European officials argue that it is unfair to liken the right to be forgotten to attempts to muzzle free speech in other countries. After all, the European Union is trying to protect the privacy of individuals, not squelch public debate. But if European regulators get their way, Internet companies would be left in the awkward position of determining when government requests to censor information universally are legitimate and when it is not. No business should have that power.

Note EU-Digest: The usually quite accurate NY Times in this editorial is completely off track and is comparing apples and pears. As the EU stated: the right to be forgotten is not an attempt to muzzle free speech in other countries. After all, the European Union is trying to protect the privacy of individuals, not squelch public debate. What it attempts to doin this case is to stop Social Media and other corporate entities to  sell, circulate, or distribute, personal information of private EU citizens to third parties,without their prior consent.

Read more: Europe’s Expanding ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ - NYTimes.com

USA - Patriot Act drama continues:Congress Girds For Patriot Act Fight Over NSA Spying - by Matt Sledge and Ali Watkins

Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, sat down to talk face to face with his fiercest critics in a House office in January.

The visit was more than just a courtesy call. With the legal authority for the NSA's phone data dragnet set to expire June 1, Rogers needs his enemies. Reformers are girding for a fight with congressional leaders, and the looming deadline to reauthorize several Patriot Act provisions gives the former group unprecedented leverage.

This time, "we're in a different moment. ... This is the first reauthorization debate that's happened post-Snowden," said Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, who was referring to whistleblower Edward Snowden's exposure of the spy agency's mass surveillance in 2013.

But House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) are dead-set against major reforms. So the legislative battle lines are drawn -- and no one knows who will win.

Civil liberties advocates in Congress almost certainly don't have the votes to kill the phone surveillance program outright. They may, however, be able to force a significant change supported by the White House: shifting the responsibility to hold onto Americans' phone records from the NSA to the phone companies.

President Barack Obama's administration has already asked for and received new limits from the secret court that permitted the bulk phone data collection in the first place, forcing the NSA to obtain approval from a judge for searches and limiting phone inquiries to two connections away from the initial search term. Congress could enshrine those limits into legislation.

Then there are the other surveillance programs authorized by the Patriot Act's expiring Section 215, which allows the government to seek companies' business records as part of foreign intelligence investigations.

Last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CIA is building a massive database of international money transfers that includes data on many Americans.

Some reform groups opposed legislation sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) last year on the grounds that it would not have limited non-telephone spy programs. But Senate Republicans filibustered even that bill's more modest reforms in November, setting a probable ceiling for changes in this Congress.

Since the November vote, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told HuffPost, the issue of NSA reform has been lingering in three corners of Capitol Hill: the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee and a joint effort of both chambers’ Judiciary committees. But none of those panels seems particularly likely to do much before the last minute.

Note EU-Digest: the obvious excuse for renewing the Patriot Act will obviously be : the Middle East, Ukraine, Kenya,  Yemen, etc.,  etc., and spying will go on happily ever after.

Read more: Congress Girds For Patriot Act Fight Over NSA Spying

Personal Privacy: Google Glass targeted as symbol by anti-tech crowd - Doug Gross

Glass, Google's high-profile entry into the world of wearable tech, may help launch a revolution if it's released later this year as expected. But test models already on the street have begun playing a more unlikely role -- as symbols in a simmering fight over Silicon Valley's impact on the city of San Francisco.

It's a local story, but one with ramifications everywhere as Google on Tuesday made the connected headsets available to the public for the first time in a one-day sale.

While our smartphones drop easily into pockets and tablets get zipped up in cases or backpacks, wearables such as Glass are, quite literally, in your face all the time.

The $1,500 device, which displays Web content on a tiny screen, signals its wearer as a likely member of an affluent tech elite. And Glass also can discreetly shoot photos or video, which some people view as invasive.

Recently, protesters picketed in front of the private home of Kevin Rose, co-founder of Digg and now a partner with Google Ventures. The protesters, who posted signs calling Rose a "parasite," claimed his group, which helps Google decide which startups to invest money in, has helped to inflate prices in the city.

Read more: Google Glass targeted as symbol by anti-tech crowd - CNN.com

EU Personal Privacy Violations: US judge orders Microsoft to produce emails held abroad - by Charles Cooper

A USA federal judge said Thursday that Microsoft can't prevent the US Department of Justice from obtaining emails stored in a data center overseas in a case that has raised concern among Internet privacy groups and technology companies.

Chief US District Judge Loretta Preska today ordered Microsoft to comply with a December warrant allowing the DOJ to obtain a customer's email-account data stored in Dublin, Ireland. The US government is seeking the emails in connection with a criminal investigation.

At the same time, the judge said she would stay her order temporarily, a decision that will let Microsoft appeal her decision to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The outcome of this debate may reinforce concerns around the world that the data of their citizens is not safe with Microsoft and other US tech companies if US intelligence or law enforcement seek to gain access to the information.

All this began last December when a New York judge issued a search warrant seeking records and emails from a Microsoft account in a case connected with a criminal investigation. After concluding that the emails investigators sought were located on one of its servers in Dublin, Ireland, Microsoft refused.

The company maintained that a US judge has no authority to hand out warrants for search and seizure of property or data abroad. The judge later rejected Microsoft's request to quash the warrant.
Read more: US judge orders Microsoft to produce emails held abroad - CNET

Personal Privacy: Never Give Stores Your ZIP Code. Here's Why - by Adam Tanner

Why do merchants sometimes ask us for our ZIP code when we buy something?

I recently visited the Mob Museum in Las Vegas, an interesting addition to Sin City’s attractions. I paid my admission with a credit card, prompting the museum ticket seller to ask me: “What’s your ZIP code?”
When I paused for a moment, she added: “It’s for marketing purposes.”

As much as I had heard good things about the museum, I was unlikely to return soon as I live far from Las Vegas, so I was not anxious to receive subsequent marketing. She said it was okay not to give the ZIP code, and then addressed me by name in wishing me a good visit.

Jo Anna Davis remembers one ZIP code request that did not end well. A California victim of domestic violence who works at a group to help other victims, she guards her privacy carefully. Over the years she became a loyal customer of Ulta, the beauty care company. On one occasion she purchased a skin care kit which caused an unpleasant reaction. She brought the kit back to the store for a refund, and the clerk asked for Davis’ ZIP code to process the transaction.

Read more: Never Give Stores Your ZIP Code. Here's Why - Forbes

How to Protect Your Privacy from Facebook Graph Search

You can run. You can hide. But you still won't be safe from Facebook's Graph Search.

After keeping it in beta for six months, the social networking site has finally unveiled its much-hyped new feature, which mines the data found in millions of Facebook profiles — and it could reveal more about you than you'd like.

Graph Search lets Facebook users put together seemingly unconnected bits of information about their friends, as well as friends of friends.

So if you want to know which friends from high school still live in your hometown, or which restaurants your friends in Boston "like," Graph Search can help you find out.

Read more: How to Protect Your Privacy from Facebook Graph Search | TechNewsDaily.com

Privacy Laws - WhatsApp: How much data privacy can you expect to have?

Is WhatsApp using your personal information?

Staying away from social media such as Facebook and Twitter and deliberately limiting the amount of personal information you disclose online may not be enough to protect yourself from having your private data exposed.

Last week, the mobile phone messaging client WhatsApp came under fire from Canadian and Dutch privacy czars for forcing those who download the app to upload their entire address book.

In a statement, the office of the Canadian privacy commissioner said it had "reasonable grounds" to believe the California-based developer was "collecting, using, disclosing and retaining personal information" of those who had never used the app, but may have given their phone numbers to a friend or contact who does use the app.

Although yesterday was Safer Internet Day, which promotes the responsible use of the web and mobile phones, given that we rely on technology to navigate almost every facet of our lives, how much privacy can we now realistically expect?

Very little, experts say.

Read more: How much data privacy can you expect to have? - Technology & Science - CBC News