Jul 172018
 July 17, 2018  Posted by  Surveillance, U.S.

Hmmm.  I had missed this one, but thankfully, Joe Cadillic didn’t.  Frank Bajak of Associated Press reported:

In the first known case of its kind, U.S. drug agents supplied unwitting cocaine-trafficking suspects in California with smartphones they thought were encrypted but had been rigged to allow eavesdropping, Human Rights Watch reported Friday.

The advocacy group said it feared the technique could be abused to violate the privacy of non-criminals.

Read more on Courthouse News.

Jul 172018
 July 17, 2018  Posted by  Business, Surveillance, U.S.

Joe Cadillic writes:

Golf fans will be happy to know that the LPGA considers every fan a potential terrorist.

Last week an article in Sport Techie revealed that the LPGA is using NEC’s biometric NeoFace facial recognition technology to identify every fan.

Why would the LGPA use facial recognition to spy on fans?

If you guessed public safety, give yourself a gold star.

Read more on MassPrivateI.

Jul 172018
 July 17, 2018  Posted by  Featured News, Healthcare, Non-U.S.

Frances Cook reports:

A stoush has erupted over patient medical records, with a claim the privacy of up to 800,000 Auckland patients has been put at risk.

Four New Zealand and Australasian healthcare IT companies, Healthlink, Medtech Global, My Practice, and Best Practice Software New Zealand, have jointly contacted the Privacy Commissioner to flag the issue.

They said primary health organisation (PHO) ProCare Health was putting private information of up to 800,000 Auckland patients into a large database, including patient name, age, address, and all financial, demographic, and clinical information.

ProCare Health runs a network of community-based healthcare services, including GPs, throughout Auckland. It strongly denies patient privacy is being compromised.

Read more on New Zealand Herald.

Jul 162018
 July 16, 2018  Posted by  Non-U.S.

The Himalayan Times has an editorial today about privacy.  It begins:

In the run-up to the provincial and federal parliamentary elections, one of the measures parties had resorted to seeking votes was sending text messages to people on their mobile phones. This in today’s modern world did not come as a surprise to many. But some did wonder how the messages were being sent – or how parties or contestants were accessing individuals’ mobile numbers. Questions were asked whether it was a privacy breach. Then, elections were held, and people spent little time pondering over the matter, as these polls were of paramount importance, for, above every other reason, they were the first under the new constitution. The issue ultimately died down. Nonetheless, since questions were raised – even if they were not raised with a lot of force – it did bring the privacy issue to the fore. Individual privacy has been guaranteed by the constitution. Article 28 says: “The privacy of any person, his or her residence, property, documents, data, correspondences and matters related to character shall, except in accordance with law, be inviolable.”

Read more on The Himalayan Times.