[Chapter-delegates] US exclusion of privacy protection

[Christian de Larrinaga]

Old laws aren't always good laws of course. But more importantly it is a
counter productive policy for US as it increases the forces for
fragmentation which weakens the current Silicon Valley global valuation
model behind the unicorns. 

C

> John More <mailto:morej1 at mac.com>
> 26 January 2017 at 17:38
> Anyone who thinks they are not monitored in France or Great Britain -
> let alone Russia, the U.A.E., China, etc. - should have another think
> coming.
>
> John More
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
> Eric Burger <mailto:eburger at standardstrack.com>
> 26 January 2017 at 16:29
> If anything, this should highlight the importance of monitoring laws
> and policies as they happen. There is absolutely NOTHING new in this
> announcement - it is the CURRENT law and policy of the U.S., for at
> least the past 11 years.
>
> In fact, most countries, most notably in Europe, do not have the
> restrictions the U.S. government has on monitoring its own citizens.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
> Richard Hill <mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch>
> 26 January 2017 at 10:22
>
>  
>
> US President Trump has published  an Executive Order titled Enhancing
> Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.
>
>  
>
> See:
>
>  
>
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united
>
>  
>
> Its section 14 reads:
>
>  
>
> “ Privacy Act.  Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with
> applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who
> are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the
> protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable
> information.”
>
>
> Taken literally, this means that the protections of the Privacy Act do
> not apply to a person who is legitimately travelling in the USA, for
> example for a business meeting.
>
>  
>
> And it means that the protections do not apply to people who are not
> US citizens and who don’t reside in the  USA.  So it means that any
> data regarding such persons that may wind up in the USA would not be
> protected.
>
>  
>
> Such an approach to privacy does not appear to me to be likely to
> increase trust in the Internet and, in my view, constitutes a
> violation of the human right to privacy, even if the scope of the
> Privacy Act, and hence of the exclusion, is rather limited since the
> Privacy Act applies only to US Federal agencies, see:
>
>  
>
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974
>
>  
>
> But perhaps I misunderstand the situation and/or the significance of
> the Executive Order and/or of the Privacy Act.
>
>  
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
cdel at firsthand.net
-------------------------