Il-Covid-19 u l-privatezza tagħna lkoll

Bħalma nagħmel kważi kuljum, iktar kmieni smajt il-konferenza stampa li taġġornana b’dak li qed jiġri dwar il-pandemija Covid-19.

Hi aħbar tajba li illum ma kien hemm ħadd li irriżulta pożittiv għall-Covid-19. Għalkemm kif emfasizza Chris Fearne is-sitwazzjoni tista’ tkun differenti tul il-ġranet li ġejjin, dan xorta hu punt importanti. Mertu kbir lill-awtoritajiet tas-saħħa li ħadmu ħafna u li ippreparaw ruħhom sewwa biex jistgħu jagħtu l-aħjar servizz lill-pajjiż.

Nirrikonoxxi ukoll l-impenn ta’ Chris Fearne Ministru tas-Saħħa li kien kapaċi jimmotiva lill-istaff mediku u paramediku tal-pajjiż biex jagħtu l-aħjar possibli. Grazzi.

Fil-konferenza tal-aħbarijiet tal-lum il-Ministru tas-Saħħa emfasizza ukoll li mhux ser tinħareġ l-ebda app għall-contact tracing. Napprezza li l-Gvern (għall-inqas s’issa) qiegħed attent dwar issues ta’ privatezza.

Ma nifhimx kif dan il-punt importanti ma ġiex rappurtat mill-gazzetti ewlenin ħlief mill-Malta Today li irrapporta hekk:
“In the coming days, a new app will be launched which will allow users to gauge any symptoms they may be expriencing and advise them on their risk of having been infected and whether they should get tested.
Fearne said that this would be an app to help with determining whether a person should be tested, not be a contact-tracing app. Malta, he underlined, was not yet ready to introduce a contact-tracing app, since various privacy concerns with such applications had not yet been conclusively addressed.”

Alternattiva Demokratika temfasizza li huwa importanti li l-privatezza tkun imħarsa. Huwa tajjeb li l-Gvern dan qiegħed attent għal dan ukoll.

Il-bieraħ AD ħarġet stqarrija importanti dwar dan is-suġġett u emfasizzajna li ħadd ma għandu japprofitta ruħu minn din il-pandemija biex jipperikola l-privatezza tagħna lkoll.

Il-pubbliku b’mod ġenerali qiegħed jikkoopera. Dan ikompli juri li ma hemm l-ebda ħtieġa ta’ miżuri drastiċi. Huwa neċessarju li dejjem inżommu sens ta’ proporzjon fil-miżuri li jittieħdu. Huwa tajjeb li s’issa dan is-sens ta’ proporzjon inżamm. Dan jawgura tajjeb.

Għalhekk ukoll qed naslu!

Grazzi.

 

It-teknoloġija li tagħraf l-uċuħ: perikoluża?

San Francisco hi l-ewwel belt fl-Istati Uniti li pprojibiet l-użu mill-forzi tal-ordni ta’ teknoloġija li tagħraf l-uċuh. Probabbilment li ma jdumx ma jkun hemm bliet oħra fl-Istati Uniti li jagħmlu l-istess.

Id-dibattitu f’ San Francisco ilu għaddej. Dawk li jaqblu mal-projibizzjoni huma tal-fehma li din it-teknoloġija mhux biss hi difettuża imma li hi ukoll ta’ theddida serja għad-drittijiet ċivili.

It-teknoloġija li tagħraf l-uċuħ hi invażiva. Fl-istat attwali tal-iżvilupp tagħha għadha difettuża imma għandha l-potenzjal li tkun preċiża 100%. Imbagħad tkun tista’ tintuża mhux biss biex jingħarfu l-uċuħ imma ukoll biex tkun identifikata informazzjoni oħra dwar dawk li jkunu fil-mira.

Riċerkaturi fl-Università Jiao Tong f’Shanghai iċ-Ċina għamlu żmien jesperimentaw b’ritratti ta’ persuni magħrufa bħala kriminali u oħrajn li m’humiex. Bħala riżultat tar-riċerka tagħhom qed jissuggerixxu li t-teknoloġija użata tista’ tidentifika kriminali minn filmati ġodda b’certezza ta’ kważi 90 fil-mija.

Tal-biża’!

Riċerkaturi fl-Università ta’ Stanford fl-Istati Uniti f’estratt minn studju li ser jippubblikaw dalwaqt, jindikaw, li t-teknoloġija għall-għarfien tal-uċuħ hi iktar preċiża mill-bniedem innifsu biex minn ritratti tagħraf l-orjentazzjoni sesswali ta’ persuna. Fir-riċerka tagħhom jgħidu li użaw il-fuq minn 130,000 ritratt meħud minn siti elettroniċi fejn persuni jitkellmu dwar l-orjentazzjoni sesswali tagħhom. Bħala riżultat ta’ analiżi bijometrika, jgħidu ir-riċerkaturi, t-teknoloġija użata kapaċi tagħraf u tiddistingwi l-orjentazzjoni sesswali ta’ irġiel bi preċiżjoni ta’ 81% minn ritratt wieħed. Jekk ikun hemm aċċess għal ħames ritratti, l-preċiżjoni titla’ għal 91%.

Bla ebda dubju, maż-żmien jiġu identifikati iktar applikazzjonijiet possibli ta’ din it-teknoloġija. Meta tkun ipperfezzjonata din it-teknoloġija tista’ tkun għodda tal-biża’ f’idejn reġim awtoritarju.

Il-pulizija fir-Renju Unit, f’dawn iż-żmienijiet, qed japplikaw it-teknoloġija li tagħraf l-uċuħ għall-ordni pubblika.

Big Brother Watch, NGO li taħdem favur id-drittijiet ċivili fir-Renju Unit identifikat li bl-użu ta’ din it-teknoloġija 9 minn kull 10 persuni arrestati kienu innoċenti għax it-teknoloġija ħadmet ħażin. 90% żbalji mhux ċajta f’materja daqshekk sensittiva. Biż-żmien, bla dubju, dan id-difett ikun irrimedjat u dan għax tkun akkumulata iktar data li tagħmilha possibli li jingħarfu l-uċuħ.

Bi sħab mal-Huawei, il-ġgant Ċiniż fil-qasam tat-telekomunikazzjoni, l-Gvern Malti qed ifassal proġett immirat lejn is-sigurtà tal-lokalitajiet: il-proġett Safe Cities. Tlett lokalitajiet jidher li ġew identifikati għall-proġett pilota f’Malta: l-Marsa, San Pawl il-Baħar u Paceville.

Xi xhur ilu, l-Kummissarju għall-Ħarsien tad-Data f’Malta, meta kien intervistat, emfasizza li meta jkun ikkunsidrat l-użu tat-teknoloġija li tagħraf l-uċuħ tinħtieġ attenzjoni kbira biex ikunu mħarsa drittijiet fundamentali tal-bniedem. Huwa emfasizza li kien obbligu tal-Gvern li jistudja din it-teknoloġija bir-reqqa biex ikun aċċertat l-effettività tagħha fil-ġlieda kontra l-kriminalità.

Il-Kummissarju għall-Ħarsien tad-Data huwa ppreokkupat ukoll dwar id-data akkumulta u l-potenzjal li din tintuża ħażin biex tintraċċa l-movimenti tal-persuni u b’hekk timmina d-dritt tal-privatezza.

It-teknoloġija li tagħraf l-uċuħ, bħal kull teknoloġija oħra, tista’ tintuża tajjeb imma tista’ ukoll tintuża ħażin. Tista’ tgħinna nkunu iktar siguri, imma tista’ tgerrem (bla ma nindunaw) id-drittijiet tagħna. Hemm il-potenzjal, imma hemm ukoll responsabbiltajiet kbar.

Bi storja ta’ istituzzjonijiet ta’ bla utilità li repetutament ma kienux kapaċi jieqfu lil dawk fil-poter, ma tantx qegħdin tajjeb.

It-teknoloġija għall-għarfien tal-uċuħ tista’ tikkonċentra wisq informazzjoni (u poter) f’idejn il-Pulizija. Dan jista’ jkun perikoluż jekk il-kontroll fuq l-informazzjoni miġbura ma tkunx waħda qawwija.

Li ninvestu fis-sigurtà tagħna ma jfissirx li għandna nċedu l-privatezza tagħna.

F’din l-era diġitali hu meħtieġ li s-sorveljanza tkun kontabbli quddiem istituzzjonijiet demokratiċi msaħħa. Kif dan jista’ jsir għadu kmieni imma hu essenzjali għax il-Huawei flimkien mal-pulizija jistgħu jiffurmaw team perikoluz għad-demokrazija tagħna. Is-soluzzjoni addottata minn San Fransisco tista’ tkun meqjusa bħala radikali wisq. Imma sakemm ikun assigurat li s-sorveljanza tkun soġġetta għal kontabilità demokratika, ma tantx jidher li hemm soluzzjonijiet.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: il-Ħadd 19 ta’ Mejju 2019

Facial recognition technology : as creepy as it gets

San Francisco is the first city in the United States to ban the use of facial recognition technology for law enforcement purposes and other US cities may follow suit. The San Francisco debate has been ongoing for quite some time. Those supporting the ban underline that facial recognition technology is flawed and a serious threat to civil liberties.

Facial technology is an invasive technology. In its present state of development, it is weak, but it has the potential to be 100 per cent accurate. It can then be used not just for recognition purposes but also for the profiling of those it is aimed at.

Researchers at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China have been experimenting with photographs of criminals and non-criminals. It is being suggested by these researchers that the technology they used can identify criminals from new images with an accuracy of 89.5%. It gets creepier and creepier.

Researchers at Stanford University in the United States have indicated in a preview of a Paper they will be publishing shortly that facial recognition technology “is more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation from pictures of people.” In their research, they made use of over 130,000 images taken from dating sites on which people give their sexual orientation. On the basis of the biometric analysis made, it is being claimed that the technology in use can distinguish between gay and heterosexual men in 81 per cent of cases from just one photograph. If the number of photographs increases to five, the accuracy jumps to 91 per cent.

Without any shadow of doubt, many more applications of facial recognition technology will be identified and, when perfected, this technology would be the perfect tool for authoritarian regimes.

Currently, the police in various parts of the United Kingdom are using facial recognition technology for law and order purposes. Civil Liberties NGO Big Brother Watch has identified that in nine out of every 10 cases the wrong person was identified. This resulted in 90 per cent of people being arrested as a result of being wrongly identified. Over time, this would be remedied through the use of a larger database which would be accumulated and available for use with the facial recognition technology.

The issues resulting are manifold. In conjunction with Chinese telecom giant Huawei, the government is planning a Safe Cities project. Three areas have apparently been identified for a pilot project: Marsa, St Paul’s Bay and Paceville.

When interviewed some months ago, Malta’s Data Protection Commissioner emphasised that when considering making use of facial recognition technology, great care should be taken in order that fundamental human rights are not infringed. He rightly stated that it was the government’s duty to carefully study the matter in order to ascertain its effectiveness in addressing criminality. He also spoke on the potential misuse of the accumulated data, as this had the potential of tracing the whereabouts of an individual thereby undermining the right to privacy.

Face recognition technology, like any other technology can be used and abused. It can make us feel safer, but it also has the potential to gnaw at our freedoms, without our realising it. There is certainly great potential but there are also enormous responsibilities.

Having a history of practically useless institutions which, time and again, have not been capable of standing up to those in power, is not a good point of departure. Facial recognition technology has the potential of concentrating too much information (and power) in the hands of the police. This may be very dangerous unless data protection oversight is robust. Investing in our security does not require surrendering our privacy.

In this digital age we require our surveillance to be democratically accountable. Whether and how this is done is still to be seen in a public consultation exercise which will hopefully be carried out. It is, however, essential as the Huawei-police tandem can be lethal to our democracy. The San Francisco solution may be seen as being too radical.

However, until such time that surveillance is subject to democratic accountability, there is no other solution.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 19 May 2019

Wiċċ b’ieħor

Safe City Malta, li tifforma parti minn Projects Malta li tippjana proġetti ta’ tisħib mas-settur privat, qed tippjana li jkunu installati cameras CCTV b’kapacità li jidentifikaw l-uċuħ ta’ dawk li x-xbieha tagħhom tinqabad fuq is-CCTV. Qed jingħad li b’dan il-mod ikun possibli li jkunu identifikati persuni li jkunu involuti f’attività kriminali.

Dwar dan ukoll hemm referenza fid-diskors tal-Baġit fejn kien tħabbar li : “Fl-aħħar xhur kienet għaddejja ħidma biex ġie installat l-apparat neċessarju f’data centre għal użu fuq bażi sperimentali u fejn l-apparat ta’ sorveljanza viżiva qiegħed jintuża biss f’ambjent mhux pubbliku u f’rispett sħiħ tal-liġijiet tal-privatezza billi jiġu wżati prattii etiċi internazzjonali.” Ġejna infurmati li Paceville u l-Marsa, probabbilment li jkunu minn tal-ewwel li jospitaw dan l-esperiment. Dan kellu jsir wara li sseħħ konsultazzjoni pubblika.

Imma s’issa ma seħħet l-ebda konsultazzjoni. Nafu iżda li x’aktarx li diġa ġie iffirmat memorandum of understanding mal-Huawei, kumpanija Ċiniża li hi meqjusa ġgant globali fil-qasam tat-teknoloġija tal-komunikazzjoni. Fix-xhur li ġejjin probabbilment tibda l-implementazzjoni. Dan ifisser li jekk il-konsultazzjoni sseħħ ma jkollha tifsira ta’ xejn, għax id-deċiżjonijiet jidher li lesti.

Iktar kmieni din is-sena, Huawei, ftehmu mad-Dipartiment tas-Sigurtà Pubblika tar-reġjun ta’ Xinjiang fil-punent taċ-Ċina. Intefqu flejjes kbar f’dan ir-reġjun biex f’Xinjiang ikun possibli li tkun ippruvata t-teknoloġija għall-għarfien tal-uċuħ, osservazzjoni diġitali u l-applikazzjoni tal-intelliġenza artifijali għal xogħol il-pulizija. Huawei ser jipprovdu lill-pulizija tar-reġjun l-appoġġ tekniku biex ikunu żviluppati l-kapaċitajiet tan-nies involuti u b’hekk tissodisfa l-ħtiġijiet diġitali tal-industrija tas-sigurtà pubblika, ġie rappurtat li qal Fan Lixin, il-Viċi Direttur tad-Dipartiment tas-Sigurtà Pubblika ta’ Xinjiang . Din il-kooperazzjoni kienet meqjusa li tista’ tassigura “l-istabilità soċjali u s-sigurtà fit-tul ta’ Xinjiang”.

Dan jikkuntrasta ma dak li nsibu fir-rapport annwali ta’ Huawei għas-sena 2017 li jwassal messaġġ ċar: Huawei jimpurtha ħafna mill-privatezza. Jgħidulna li fl-2017 “Huawei continued to strengthen compliance in multiple business domains, including trade, cyber security, and data and privacy protection.” Jgħidulna ukoll dwar “il-ħsiebijiet ta’ Huawei dwar is-sigurtà elettronika – li tissaħħaħ bl-innovazzjoni, bil-kollaborazzjoni u bl-iżvilupp tal-fiduċja fid-dinja diġitali.” Probabbilment li dan il-kuntrast jirriżulta minħabba li l-messaġġi huma indirizzati lejn udjenzi differenti!

Iktar viċin tagħna, l-pulizija fir-Renju Unit ilhom ftit taż-żmien jesperimentaw bit-teknoliġija li tirrikonoxxi l-uċuħ. Big Brother Watch, grupp li jikkampanja favur id-drittijiet ċivili fir-Renju Unit jirrapporta li s-sistemi użati jagħtu riżultati żbaljati 9 darbiet minn 10. F’rapport twil 56 paġna, li kien ippubblikat f’Mejju li għadda bit-titlu Face Off. The lawless growth of facial recognition in UK policing. kien konkluż li 95 fil-mija tal-uċuħ identifikati mis-sistema kienu żbaljati: kienu wiċċ b’ieħor. Identifikaw uċuħ ta’persuni innoċenti. Dan apparti li r-ritratti biometriċi ta’ persuni innoċenti inżammu u nħażnu mill-Pulizija b’mod sfaċċat kontra kull regola bażika tal-ħarsien tad-data.

L-użu tat-teknoloġija biex jingħarfu l-uċuħ tan-nies bħala għodda ta’ l-ordni pubbliku hi għall-qalb il-pulizija, li fuq il-karta jistgħu jgħidu li qed isaħħu l-kapaċitajiet tagħhom fil-ġlieda kontra l-kriminalità. Għall-bqija imma, dan hu ħmar-il lejl u dan billi jekk it-teknoloġija ma tintużax fil-parametri tar-regoli bażiċi tal-ħarsien tad-data tkun invażjoni tal-privatezza li kull wieħed u waħda minna aħna intitolati għaliha.

Il-Kummissarju għall-Ħarsien tad-Data u l-Informazzjoni Saviour Cachia, f’intervista mal-Orizzont iktar kmieni din il-ġimgha qal li kien jistenna li l-awtoritajiet jagħmlu analiżi addattata qabel ma jagħmlu użu ta’ teknoloġija li kapaċi tagħraf l-uċuħ. Is-Sur Cachia emfasizza li għad baqa’ ħafna xi jsir qabel ma nistgħu nikkunsidraw meta u kif it-teknoloġija għall-għarfien tal-uċuħ tista’ tuntuża fil-qasam tas-sigurtà. Ħadd ma jaf jekk l-analiżi li ġibed l-attenzjoni għaliha s-Sur Cachia saritx, jew jekk tal-inqas inbdietx. Din it-teknoloġija tinvadi l-privatezza ta’ kulħadd b’sogru li tikser d-drittijiet fundamentali tagħna lkoll.

Meta jkun eżaminat dettaljatament kif l-użu ta’ din it-teknoloġija jista’ jkollha effett fuq l-attività kriminali inkunu f’posizzjoni aħjar biex niddeċiedu x’sens jagħmel li nissagrifikaw il-privatezza tagħna, anke jekk b’mod limitat, biex l-istat jissorvelja u sa ċertu punt jikkontrolla parti minn ħajjitna. L-esperjenza tal-użu ta’ din it-teknoloġija fir-Renju Unit għandha twassalna għall-konklużjoni waħda: għandna nsemmgħu leħinna u nieqfu lill-istat li jrid jissorvelja ħajjitna.

Il-Gvern għandu l-obbligu li jibda konsultazzjoni pubblika immedjatament u jpoġġi l-pjanijiet tiegħu taħt il-lenti tal-iskrutinjun pubbliku.

 

Ippubblikat fuq Illum : Il-Ħadd 11 ta’ Novembru 2018

Standing up to the surveillance state

Safe City Malta, part of the government’s public-private partnership arm Projects Malta, is planning to deploy high-definition CCTV cameras with facial recognition software. It is claimed that these cameras can identify those involved in criminal activity. The subject was referred to in the budget speech in which it was announced that, after adequate public consultation, such technology will be introduced in a number of areas. Paceville and Marsa are the prime candidates for this technology.

So far, no consultation has taken place, but a Memorandum of Understanding has apparently already been signed with the Chinese global communication technology giant Huawei, and implementation could begin in the coming months. So, the consultation, if carried out, will serve no purpose because the decisions have already been made.

Earlier this year, Huawei entered into an agreement with the Public Security Bureau in Xinjiang, China’s largest province. The Chinese authorities have spent heavily on making Xinjiang a testing ground for the use of facial recognition, digital monitoring and artificial intelligence in policing.

Huawei will provide the region’s police with technical support, help build up human technical expertise and “meet the digitization requirements of the public security industry”. A local government website paraphrased Fan Lixin, Xinjiang Public Security Bureau’s deputy director, as saying that such co-operation would guarantee “Xinjiang’s social stability and long-term security.”

The above quote is in contrast to the contents of Huawei’s Annual Report for 2017,  which drives home the message that Huawei cares a great deal about privacy. We are told that, in 2017, “Huawei continued to strengthen compliance in multiple business domains, including trade, cyber security and data and privacy protection.” We are furthermore informed of the “Huawei’s cyber security concepts – building security through innovation, enhancing security through collaboration and jointly building trust in a digital world.”

The contrast is probably the result of the messages being directed towards different audiences!

Closer to home, police in the United Kingdom have been experimenting with facial recognition technology for some time. Big Brother Watch, a UK based civil liberties group, reports that the systems in use are on average, incorrect nine times out of ten. A 56-page report published in May, entitled Face Off: the lawless growth of facial recognition in UK policing. concluded that “a staggering 95 per cent of matches wrongly identified innocent people”. To add insult to injury, innocent people’s biometric photographs were taken and stored without their knowledge in blatant disregard of basic data protection norms.

The use of facial recognition technology as a law and order tool has been welcomed by the police, as it can theoretically enhance their capabilities in the fight against crime. The proposal, however, is a nightmare for the rest of us because if it is not used within the parameters of data protection legislation, facial recognition technology will be an unacceptable invasion of the basic norms of privacy to which each one of us is entitled to.

The Commissioner for Information and Data Protection Saviour Cachia, interviewed by the GWU’s daily newspaper earlier this week emphasised that he expected that a proper assessment to be carried out by the authorities prior to the use of facial recognition technology. Mr Cachia emphasised the fact much more needs to be done before considering when and how facial recognition technology is used for security purposes. No one is aware whether or not the required assessment indicated by Mr Cachia has, in fact, been done or even if work on it has commenced.

This technology invades our privacy in an indiscriminate manner and our fundamental human rights are at risk of being breeched left , right and centre.

Examining in detail the impacts that this technology could have on criminal activity would help us determine whether it makes any sense to sacrifice our privacy (even minutely) in order for the surveillance state to take over and control segments of our life. If the UK experience is anything to go by, there is one logical conclusion: we should stand up to the surveillance state.

The Government should initiate a public consultation at the earliest opportunity and lay all its cards on the table for public scrutiny.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 11 November 2018

Dritt għall-privatezza: tagħna lkoll

 

L-aħbar li l-Gvern ser jistalla bi prova cameras closed circuit (CCTV), fil-pubbliku, abbinati ma teknoloġija ta’ għarfien tal-wiċċ (facial recognition) hija inkwetanti. Dan għaliex din hi miżura sproporzjonata li tissagrifika l-privatezza tan-nies fuq l-artal tat-taparsi sigurta` nazzjonali. Dan minħabba li din it-teknoloġija ser tintuża b’mod indiskriminat u mingħajr kontrolli serji.

Kif għidna l-bieraħ Alterattiva Demokratika, permezz ta’ stqarrija, hemm ħtieġa ta’ konsultazzjoni pubblika dwar din il-miżura bl-iskop li jiġu determinati x’limiti raġjonevoli għandu jkun hemm fl-applikazzjoni ta’ din it-teknoloġija. Użata tajjeb, b’mod limitat u f’ċirkustanzi addattati din it-teknoloġija tista’ tkun ta’ ġid imma f’idejn żbaljati, b’użu indiskriminat u f’sitwazzjonijiet normali tal-ħajja tista’ tkun strument ta’ ripressjoni.

Kemm smajna diskors din il-ġimgħa dwar il-ħtieġa li tkun protetta l-privatezza ta’ xi politiku li presentement qiegħed f’sitwazzjoni diffiċli.

Il-privatezza ta’ kulħadd teħtieġ li tkun imħarsa, mhux tal-politiċi biss!

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

Voting at the Hospitals and Retirement Homes: 5. Infringement of data protection legislation

As  AD Deputy Chairman together with Prof Arnold Cassola on Monday 17 December 2012 I had a meeting with the Chief Electoral Commissioner relative to the amendments to the General Elections Act as applicable to state hospitals and state run retirement homes.

AD is worried that the said amendments require that the administrators of state hospitals as well as state run old people’s homes to submit regular updated list of patients and residents to the political parties for the purposes of monitoring the electoral process.

This information being made available permits the political parties not only to know who has been admitted to state run hospitals and retirement homes on a daily basis for practically two whole two months, but also to indirectly know what particular condition or ailment patients in hospitals are suffering from.

In a democratic country which gives value to the right to privacy this is totally unacceptable.

In view of this AD has requested the Data Protection Commissioner to investigate the manner in which the electoral process will invade the privacy of patients in state hospitals and residents in retirement homes when the list of patients/residents is provided to the political parties. The Data Protection Commissioner was requested to provide remedies ensuring that the provisions of the Data Protection Act are observed.

Smart meters and Alfred Sant

Smart meters have been advertised as being required for ARMS Limited to be able to issue bills for our water and electricity consumption in real time.  Differential billing depending on consumption patterns would now be possible. Visits by a meter reader will no longer be necessary.

The smart meters, we were told, is all positive for the consumer.

Through the smart meters ARMS Limited, Enemalta Corporation and the Water Services Corporation collect information on our households and businesses continuously.  They know what we do in the privacy of our homes. They know when we are in, whether we are on holiday or whether we are at work. They know when we switch on our television. When we switch on our air conditioner.

This is a major issue of privacy. We need to be assured that the safeguards protecting access to this massive data is in place and that it functions properly.

Unfortunately there have been a number of instances in the public sector where substantial doubts have arisen on the non-functioning of data protection safeguards. I will give two examples.

Early in 2008 just before the general elections a direct mail shot was sent by the PN Leader Dr Lawrence Gonzi  to employees in key sectors of industry. One such worker who received this mail shot was identified specifically in the letter sent and signed by Dr Gonzi as an employee in the pharmaceutical sector. Now as far as I am aware the information is available in the databases of ETC (Employment and Training Corporation) and the Inland Revenue Department. As it is improbable that the employer made his list of employees available to a political party it is logical to conclude that the PN had access to sensitive information notwithstanding  data protection safeguards.

The second example concerns former Labour Leader Alfred Sant who on the eve of the 2008 elections had detailed information on his state of health splashed on the media. The source of such information could only be the medical file held at Mater Dei Hospital. This information ought to have been protected in terms of data protection legislation as well as medical ethical standards. Yet it was not.

Faced with the above who can ensure that data protection standards are applied as it seems that the Data Protection Commissioner was ineffective.  The Smart meters will track much more then energy and water consumption unless the Data Protection Commissioner is wide awake!

This was first published in di-ve.com on Friday 21st September 2012