Navigating the Dataverse: Privacy, Technology ... - The ICHRP

Here again, three observations might be made:
1. Transparency – A degree of internal transparency is required for even opaque
systems to function. Certainly, transparency may be limited and conditional
(depending on security clearance levels, for example); nevertheless, in order
to meet their own needs, including accountability, such systems will require that
a subject’s personal data persists and remains visible internally, but without
explanatory materials (which would compromise the position of the enforcer and
the integrity of the system). Transparency, in short, requires some opacity.
2. Individual Control – As in Gregor’s case, if the system is to work as advertised
– if terrorists are to be stopped from boarding planes – the data subject (i.e.,
potential terrorist) cannot be fully informed of the reasons why she is being
stopped. It turns out to be fundamental to the system that the data subject not
retain control over her own information.
3. Relationship between Public and Private – In the illustration, private airline staff
were asked to enforce a public policy – a classic example of the “blurring” of the
public–private divide. But it is not clear that this “blurring” has any substantive
effect: the chain of accountability, the management of data and the rules on what
can or cannot be divulged to the passenger would presumably remain similar
regardless of whether enforcement is entrusted to public or private hands. Data
ubiquity, we are seeing, throws up all sorts of challenges to our traditional notions
of the distinctiveness of public and private.
Story 3: In the Army
In August 2010, newspapers reported that a former Israel Defence Forces (IDF) soldier had
posted pictures of herself on her Facebook page together with handcuffed and blindfolded
Palestinian detainees. The pictures were taken during her compulsory military service. The exsoldier
reportedly commented about one of the detainees: “I wonder if he’s got Facebook ... I
should tag him in the picture!” An IDF Captain was quoted as saying that, since the soldier had
been discharged “and the pictures do not contain information of a sensitive military nature, it is
unlikely that action will be taken against her.” A human rights advocate was quoted as saying,
“[t]hese cruel pictures reflect Israel’s ongoing objectification of Palestinians and complete
disregard of their humanity and of their human rights, and especially their right to privacy.” The
reports claimed the ex-soldier had imposed privacy restrictions on the page once the story
blew up but by then the pictures had spread across the web.
Source: Rachel Shabi, “Anger over ex-Israeli soldier’s Facebook photos of Palestinian prisoners”, The
Guardian, August 16, 2010. See also “I don’t see anything wrong with Facebook images of
Palestinian detainees”, Haaretz, August 17, 2010.
This story again captures the potential fuzziness of the public–private divide. Whose
privacy was at stake? The human rights advocate emphasised “the right to privacy” of the
detainees, linked to their “objectification”. The ex-soldier disagreed, noting that the “media
[don’t] ask for detainees’ permission when they film them” ; rather, she was concerned
about her own privacy, immediately altering the access controls on her Facebook page.
The army considered that her actions were not inappropriate, since she was now a private
person herself, and the pictures did not disclose sensitive military information.
Confusion on these points is reflected in the different ways in which the pictures
Haaretz, August 17, 2010.
Navigating the Dataverse: Privacy, Technology, Human Rights