The right to know and the duty to remember

“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.” Attributed to Spanish-American philosopher Jorge Santayana, these words signify not only the duty to remember, but more, the right to know. 

We remember that which we know. How can we remember that which we do not know: that which has been hidden from our view? 

Unfortunately, our society, most conveniently, is, at times, more interested in promoting the right to forget, or better still, the right to be forgotten! Forgetting and consequently ignoring the past always has disastrous consequences.

Transparency is a basic value in any democracy worthy of its name. Without transparency there is no possibility of having any form of accountability. Hiding information, ensuring that it is not accessible, is a common stratagem used by those who want to avoid accountability. Data protection is unfortunately continuously being used and abused in order to avoid accountability.

Data protection rights are unfortunately continuously being abused, as a result, at times, shielding criminal activity. Though well intentioned, the recent decision of the Data Protection Commissioner on the publication of online chats between Yorgen Fenech and Rosianne Cutajar is part of this (unintended) fallout of privacy rights. Though in fairness it has to be stated that it is the publication of the full chats which has irked the Data Protection Commissioner and not the information contained therein.

Reading through the Yorgen/Rosienne chats decision of the Data Protection Commissioner reveals the tightrope negotiated by the Commissioner to try and protect both privacy as well as the right to be informed. It is appreciated that it is always difficult to draw a line as to where privacy ends and public interest reigns.

But then having the full chats published instead of a synthesis, as indirectly suggested by the Commissioner, served the purpose of not quoting out of context. The full context of the chats is essential as this clearly shows the toxic development of a mix of the power of money, sex, and political power. Through what was published it is clear how money and expensive gifts was the price through which a young politician was purchased. This is definitely in the public interest to know.

The right to know is not the satisfaction of a curiosity thirst. In any democracy, the free flow of information is basic and essential. Withholding information or obstruction of access to it should only be an exceptional occurrence.

Unfortunately, rather than being exceptional, the withholding of information or access to it, is fast becoming a normality.

Our Courts are resorting too often to withholding the publication of sensitive information. The court case of the NGO Repubblika challenging the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute top Pilatus Bank officials will no longer be heard behind closed doors as the original decision has now been reversed. This was another instance where our right to know was being stifled by those same authorities entrusted to defend us! Fortunately, the doors are now open. We have the right to know whether it is correct to state that the Attorney General acted abusively in defending criminality instead of prosecuting it! Has the criminal world captured the state institutions? This is what is at stake in this case! We have the right to know.

The reluctance of government to adhere to Freedom of Information Tribunal decisions is another disturbing matter.  For example, the Shift online news portal has won 40 cases at the Information Tribunal and 18 cases in Court relative to information requested on consultancy contracts and payments made to Saviour Balzan and his companies. Millions of euros of public funds have been used. Government is however refusing to be accountable for this use of these public funds.

What is the purpose of this secrecy? Has the state purchased the collaboration of a section of the media? This is what is at stake here. We have the right to know.

The right to know is basic in any democracy. Transparency and accountability work in tandem. Without transparency, accountability is hampered. A lack of transparency is an essential first step in order to ensure that accountability is avoided altogether.

Transparency is the indispensable foundation of good governance. In contrast, bad governance is generally wrapped in secrecy through the withholding of information which should be in the public domain. Without transparency, accountability is a dead letter: devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Accountability is about responsibility: it signifies the acknowledgement and assumption of responsibility for our actions. This cannot be achieved unless and until transparency is entrenched as an essential element of the operation of the state and public institutions.

Whenever government, public bodies or state institutions are secretive about information which they hold, and refuse or oppose without valid reason requests to release information they give ample proof of their governance credentials.

We deserve better than that.

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday: 28 January 2024

Uġiegħ ta’ ras għal Manwel Mallia

 

Malta mhiex l-uniku pajjiż fejn is-Servizz tas-Sigurta’ hu l-kawża ta’ diskussjoni. Dan joħroġ min-natura tas-Servizz tas-Sigurta’ li hi neċessarjament waħda ta’ segretezza intiza biex tiġġieled kontra l-kriminalita’ organizzata kif ukoll kontra t-theddid għas-sigurta’ tal-istat. Is-Servizz ta’ Sigurta’ għandu ukoll poteri kbar, meħtieġa biex jitwettqu l-obbligi tas-Servizz. Imma tant huma poteri kbar li kullimkien (f’kull pajjiż) jistgħu jwasslu għal abbuż ta’ poter. Abbuż li xi drabi jibqa’ għaddej bla ma ħadd jinduna. Imma hemm drabi meta dawn l-abbużi nindunaw bihom u meta jiġri hekk hemm l-obbligu ta’ diskussjoni pubblika li għandhom iwasslu biex jittieħdu l-passi meħtieġa. Għax ħadd m’għandu jkun il-fuq mil-liġi, l-anqas is-Servizz tas-Sigurta’.

L-abbuż l-iktar komuni illum f’diversi pajjiżi mhux għax ittieħdet azzjoni partikolari flok oħra imma dwar il-mod kif issir sorveljanza għal ġbir ta’ informazzjoni fuq in-nies. Dwar l-informazzjoni li tinġabar u tinħażen u dwar in-nuqqas ta’ sensittivita’ għall-privatezza taċ-ċittadin.

Meta f’Malta ma kellniex Servizz ta’ Sigurta’ din il-funzjoni kienet issir mill-Pulizija: pulizija pajżana li ħafna drabi kienu jiffurmaw parti mid-Dipartiment tal-Investigazzjoni Kriminali fil-Korp tal-Pulizija, is-CID.  Attivita’ li kienet l-iżjed ovvja u dokumentata fir-rigward tal-“rvellijiet” fis-snin 50 u f’perjodi oħra mqanqlin tal-istorja Maltija. Anke’ dakinnhar kien hemm il-kontroversja dwar kemm minn din il-ħidma kienet sorveljanza kontra l-kriminalita’ u kemm minnha kienet sorveljanza politika. Linja fina li f’mumenti partikolari diffiċli ħafna biex issibha. Perjodu sensittiv għal kulħadd, li kien jirrikjedi l-għaqal ta’ min imexxi li ma jħallix l-entużjażmu żejjed ta’ uħud iwassal għal abbuż. Kemm dan sar fil-passat jew kemm qiegħed isir illum, fl-aħħar, hu ġudizzju li għad trid tgħaddih l-istorja.

Issa kulħadd jaqbel li fil-ħidma biex ikunu evitati delitti (kbar u żgħar) il-forzi tal-ordni, inkluż is-Servizz ta’ Sigurta, għandhom rwol importanti ħafna, inkluż li jiġbru l-informazzjoni neċessarja biex jagħmlu xogħolhom sewwa.

M’huwiex dejjem faċli li taqta’ linja bejn dak li hu neċessarju u aċċettabbli u dak li m’huwiex. L-informazzjoni l-anqas m’hi faċli biex tiksibha. Sakemm l-informazzjoni tista’ tiksibha billi tosserva dak li qed jiġri ftit hemm diffikultajiet. Id-diffikultajiet jibdew meta biex tinkiseb l-informazzjoni tkun meħtieġa li tixxellef il-privatezza taċ-ċittadini individwali. Dan jista’ jkun neċessarju, imma min ser jiddeċiedi meta hu neċessarju? Kontra dak li jiġri f’Malta fejn jiddeċiedi l-Ministru, normalment tkun il-Qorti li tiddeċiedi u tagħti l-permess biex issir sorveljanza u dan minħabba l-ħtieġa ta’ l-imparzjalita’ f’deċiżjoniiet bħal dawn. Il-Ministru mhux dejjem l-aħjar garanzija għall-imparzjalita’. Minkejja d-difetti ta’ uħud mill-ġudikanti, is-sistema ġudizzjarja f’Malta tul is-snin uriet li kapaċi f’mumenti ta’ diffikultajiet kbar isservi ta’ tarka għad-drittijiet ta’ kull wieħed u waħda minnha ferm iżjed minn uħud mill-politiċi.

Dan iżda mhux biżżejjed. Minħabba l-poteri enormi li għandhom is-Servizzi tas-Sigurta jeħtieġu li jkollhom min jissorveljhom kontinwament. Is-sorveljanza tas-Servizzi tas-Sigurta’ tirrikjedi enerġija u attenzjoni kbira.  Dan għandu jkun rifless fil-persuna li tintagħżel biex tagħmel din il-ħidma.

Is-soċjeta’ demokratika tirrikonoxxi li hemm ċirkustanzi fejn id-drittijiet individwali jistgħu jkunu imxelfin. Imma dan għandu jsir biss meta jkun meħtieġ għall-ġid komuni. Għalhekk hemm l-awtoritajiet u l-liġijiet biex kulħadd ikun jaf fejn hu.

M’huwiex aċċettabbli li s-Servizzi tas-Sigurta’ jintużaw għal skop ta’ politika partiġġjana bħalma ntużaw f’Ħal-Għaxaq f’Diċembru 2009. L-anqas m’għandhom ikollhom aċċess għal informazzjoni personali mingħajr ħtieġa u mingħajr awtorizzazzjoni. Jekk dan isirx jiddependi minn kemm inkunu viġilanti.

Hu għalhekk li Alternattiva Demokratika ilha tinsisti fuq il-ħtieġa ta’ drittijiet diġitali. Dan kien wieħed mill-punti li sħaqna dwaru waqt il-Kampanja Elettorali għall-Parlament Ewropew. Dakinnhar kemm il-PN kif ukoll il-PL baqgħu b’ħalqhom magħluq.  Anke l-media injorat l-issue dakinnhar. Għalhekk huwa ta’ sodisfazzjoni li issa hemm min beda jistenbaħ.

Qatt m’hu tard.

 

https://carmelcacopardo.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/meta-s-servizz-tas-sigurta-mar-hal-ghaxaq-14-ta-dicembru-2009/

Ħarsien tal-privatezza f’era diġitali

 

Ix-xahar li għadda l-Qorti Ewropeja tal-Ġustizzja (ECJ) ħassret Direttiva tal-Unjoni Ewopeja (Data Retention Directive) li kienet tippermetti l-ħażna u l-użu ta’ data elettronika personali mill-awtoritajiet fl-istati membri. Dan l-ECJ għamlitu wara li kienet mitluba mill-għola Qrati fl-Irlanda u l-Awstrija biex teżamina din id-Direttiva minħabba numru ta’ kawżi dwar dan li kienu pendenti f’dawk il-pajjiżi.

Id-dinja diġitali hi l-fruntiera l-ġdida tad-drittijiet tagħna. Id-Direttiva imħassra (Data Retention Directive) kienet tagħti aċċess faċli għad-data diġitali personali kemm lill-Gvernijiet kif ukoll lill-Korporazzjonijiet. Il-Qorti Ewropeja tal-Ġustizzja fil-fatt qalet li, kif imfassla, din id-Direttiva tiġġenera is-sensazzjoni li l-ħajja personali tagħna hi taħt sorveljanza kontinwa.

Minħabba d-dipendenza tagħna fuq it-teknolġija diġitali kif applikata, per eżempju, fit-telefonija kif ukoll bl-użu kontinwu tal-internet, kull wieħed minna jħalli warajh traċċi kontinwi ta’ informazzjoni diġitali ta’ natura privata li jekk isir abbuż minna tista’ isservi ta’ theddida kontinwa għall-privatezza tagħna. Permezz tal-mobiles inħallu, per eżempju traċċi diġitali ta’ kull fejn inkunu f’kull ħin. Anke fuq l-internet, kif nafu ilkoll, inħallu warajna ħafna informazzjoni dwarna infusna. Ħafna minn din l-informazzjoni tista’ ma tfisser xejn, imma inħallu warajna ukoll, xi drabi bla ma nafu ħafna informazzjoni privata sensittiva. Min irid jabbuża minn din l-informazzjoni fil-fatt għandu fejn jixxala.

Ovvjament din it-tip ta’ informazzjoni jista’ jkollha użu importanti fil-ġlieda kontra l-kriminalita’. Imma daqskemm hi utli fil-ġlieda kontra l-kriminalita, daqstant ieħor tista’ issir ħsara jekk din l-informazzjoni, essenzjalment ta’ natura privata tiġi f’idejn u tintuża minn min m’għandux jedd għaliha.

Anke’ meta l-istat qiegħed jiġġieled kontra l-kriminalita’ m’għandu l-ebda jedd li jinjora d-drittijiet tagħna. F’kuntest diġitali l-iktar li jsir emfasi hu fuq il-privatezza tad-data kif ukoll li s-sidien tad-data huma n-nies individwali. Dan ifisser li la l-istat u l-anqas il-Korporazzjonijiet m’għandu jkollhom xi jedd assolut fuq informazzjoni diġitali ta’ natura privata. Fi ftit kliem la is-sigurta’ nazzjonali u l-anqas il-kummerċ m’għandhom iservu ta’ skuża biex fid-dinja diġtali jitnaqqru id-drittijiet tagħna.

Huwa essenzjali li f’din l-era diġitali kull ċittadin ikun imħares minn sorveljanza żejda mill-Gvernijiet u l-Korporazzjonijiet. L-informazzjoni personali la hi tal-istat u l-anqas tal-korporazzjonijiet. Għaldaqstant la l-istat u l-anqas il-korporazzjonijiet m’għandu jkollhom drittijiet fuq din l-informazzjoni li hi tagħna u mhux tagħhom.

Alternattva Demokratika u l-Ħodor Ewropej qegħdin fuq quddiem nett f’din il-ġlieda biex id-drittijiet diġitali tagħna jkunu imħarsa.

 

Ippubblikat fuq iNews it-Tlieta 6 ta’ Mejju 2014