Resources
- Identity Use Cases & Scenarios.
- FIDIS Deliverables.
- Identity of Identity.
- Interoperability.
- Profiling.
- D7.2: Descriptive analysis and inventory of profiling practices.
- D7.3: Report on Actual and Possible Profiling Techniques in the Field of Ambient Intelligence.
- D7.4: Implications of profiling practices on democracy.
- D7.6 Workshop on AmI, Profiling and RFID.
- D7.7: RFID, Profiling, and AmI.
- D7.8: Workshop on Ambient Law.
- D7.9: A Vision of Ambient Law.
- D7.10: Multidisciplinary literature selection, with Wiki discussion forum on Profiling, AmI, RFID, Biometrics and Identity.
- D7.11: Kick-off Workshop on biometric behavioural profiling and Transparency Enhancing Technologies.
- Forensic Implications.
- HighTechID.
- Privacy and legal-social content.
- Mobility and Identity.
- Other.
- IDIS Journal.
- FIDIS Interactive.
- Press & Events.
- In-House Journal.
- Booklets
- Identity in a Networked World.
- Identity R/Evolution.
Conclusion
Whereas for TETs only some components are already available yet, there exist many PET concepts and tools. Still, there is a lack of these in real usage. A few reasons for this are obvious, e.g., human computer interfaces have to be improved so that people really understand the value of using PETs in the given context and are able to handle them appropriately. Comprehensive integrated PET systems are needed if these technologies should really cover a manifold of areas in people’s lives and get widely distributed.
The same is true for all those PET and TET components that show transparency information from various sources, so-called transparency tools: for being successfully employed, they would need to be handled in an integrated way to substitute today’s fragmented view, provided by those available transparency tools that cover only small parts of useful information. Moreover, the given information should be accurate and easy to understand without being improperly oversimplified. In addition, large parts of these transparency tools, especially the automated privacy policies, are typically based on static and – from the perspective of data controllers – very general information. They are not designed to deal with profiles that are highly dynamic in the way of being calculated, the resulting content, and the purpose of use.
Today’s existing PETs are focused on personal data and their use in compliance with privacy principles or data-protection legislation. In the context of group profiling, the link of the resulting profiles to a data subject via the underlying personal data may get lost and thus privacy principles and data-protection legislation does not apply. Nevertheless these profiles may be used to influence or direct the communication with individuals in a, from their point of view, non-transparent way. Today for these types of application of profiles no TETs are available, apart from general information about profiles and their potential use from consumer protection organisations. In turn, opacity based on trade secrets is applied by organisations calculating and using such profiles.
A very basic problem is that people can never be sure that they get all necessary information. In particular in the AmI world, there might be sensors that do not comply with data-protection law and that as a matter of course do not inform data subjects that they are being monitored. This problem is not new: also in former times, secret services and criminals tried to spy on individuals without being noticed. This spying technology for hidden use has meanwhile become available for everybody; even daily-life devices such as mobile phones or digital cameras can be used by every individual for surveillance without informing the persons concerned. This problem can neither be solved by PETs nor TETs alone. However, it is valuable to consider findings of third parties or other peers on possible surveillance, linkage or profiling. Users should be able to choose from a plurality of information providers whom to trust with reliable information.
Obviously transparency tools (including TETs) can enhance current PETs, extending them to more comprehensive systems for dealing with privacy-relevant data and activities. However, transparency does not automatically guarantee that people are offered real and fair choices: in fact, privacy-invasive behaviour of applications could be made transparent without supporting the user in protecting his or her privacy because there is simply no choice. In this case, people should be empowered to complain via other ways, as offered by today’s democratic state mechanisms, e.g., informing supervisory authorities, bringing the case to court, or using political influence.
In addition, the data collection needed for TETs can be regarded as yet another data silo which would have to be safeguarded – by this interesting data collection, even privacy and security incidents may be provoked which would not happen if data minimisation by PETs was realised properly.
Summarising, data minimisation done by PETs should be preferred over mere transparency. However, most PETs work in the world of Internet and telecommunications rather than in a comprehensive AmI setting a user lives in. Thus, there is a need for developing PETs which protect users also in the AmI world, e.g., by controlling sensors by devices in the area of the user. Transparency is a necessary mechanism for the individuals’ privacy, and transparency tools should be further developed – including their human-computer interface components to help users understand what is happening and an integrative approach to offer users transparent PET solutions. From the current perspective, an accurate anticipation of profiles as intended by the TET concept is highly unrealistic because, among other things, data and algorithms are very valuable for data-processing entities and access to full information will be restricted – mainly because of trade secrets, but also because of data-protection reasons. Even if individuals can make use of some PET and TET components, organisations able to do linkage, profiling and analysis will still have more power. There may be remedies by strong involvement and support of third parties and active peers who are sufficiently trusted by the individual. Furthermore, transparency is the essence of self-determined life in society. This should be a reason for data subjects as well as Data Protection Authorities to enforce the right to access including the knowledge of logic involved in any automated processing concerning individuals. Having this and individuals trained to interpret the output of TETs – similar to what they intuitively do in the offline world –, TETs and PETs can be the tools for user’s self-determination also in the ambient world.
26 / 31 |