This is going to upset the apple cart – the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decided in favour of Mario Costeja González in his dispute with Google. Way back in 1998, a Spanish newspaper published reports on certain pecuniary difficulties in which González found himself.
By 2010 those difficulties were long past – but Gonzales found the archived pages on the internet and Google search links to them. He wanted both the pages and the links removed because they are no longer relevant.
The Spanish Data Protection Agency, the AEPD, half agreed. It made no demands against the newspaper because the information was valid when it was written. But it found against Google, requesting that Google Spain and Google Inc remove the links from the Google database.
Google objected, and appealed to the Spanish High Court to have the AEPD’s decision annulled. The High Court referred the matter to the ECJ for an interpretation of the European Data Protection Directive – and the ECJ has today delivered that interpretation.
It finds, in a nutshell, that search engines that operate in Europe are bound by European data protection laws, and that Google is one such search engine.
So far as concerns, next, the extent of the responsibility of the operator of the search engine, the Court holds that the operator is, in certain circumstances, obliged to remove links to web pages that are published by third parties and contain information relating to a person from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of that person’s name.
Judgment in Case C-131/12 – Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González
Green MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht is pleased with the outcome, commenting,
The ruling by the European Court of Justice to also hold search engine operators responsible for compliance with data protection law is the right decision. Today’s ruling clarifies that search engine operators are responsible for the processing of personal data even if it comes from public sources. Affected individuals are therefore also entitled to exercise their right to erasure… It is now important that we adopt a uniform and consistent data protection regulation in order to strengthen the enforcement of such rights in all areas of the law and throughout the EU.
But life is never that simple, and the ECJ’s ruling leaves the waters very muddy. While making it clear that as a general principle individuals have the right to demand that personal information is removed from the search engines,
The Court observes in this regard that, whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users, this balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject’s private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life.
If that seems a bit convoluted, it just means that there is a ‘public interest’ loophole. In González’ case it’s pretty straightforward – there is no public interest argument in providing links to long dissatisfied pecuniary difficulties from 1998. Those links must go.
But what about links to the improprieties of celebrities? Those who perhaps dress up as Nazis or attend S&M parties. And will this lead to two separate internets – one for the US where freedom of speech prevails and one for Europe where data protection and privacy prevails?
Last week news of the Heartbleed bug broke. Initial concern concentrated on the big service providers and whether they were bleeding their users’ credentials, but attention soon turned to client devices, and in particular Android. Google said only one version of Android was vulnerable (4.11 Jelly Bean); but it’s the one that is used on more than one-third of all Android devices.
The problem is, Android simply won’t be patched as fast as the big providers. Google itself is good at patching; but Android is fragmented across multiple manufacturers who are themselves responsible for patching their users – and historically, they are not so good. It prompted ZDNet to write yesterday,
The Heartbleed scenario does raise the question of the speed of patching and upgrading on Android. Take for instance, the example of the Samsung Galaxy S4, released this time last year, it has taken nine months from the July 2013 release of Jelly Bean 4.3 for devices on Australia’s Vodafone network to receive the update, it took a week for Nexus devices to receive the update.
Heartboned: Why Google needs to reclaim Android updates
Today we get further evidence of the need for Google to take control of Android updating – information from FireEye on a new and very dangerous Android flaw. In a nutshell, a malicious app can manipulate other icons.
FireEye mobile security researchers have discovered a new Android security issue: a malicious app with normal protection level permissions can probe icons on Android home screen and modify them to point to phishing websites or the malicious app itself without notifying the user. Google has acknowledged this issue and released the patch to its OEM partners.
Occupy Your Icons Silently on Android
The danger, however, is this can be done without any warning. Android only notifies users when an app requires ‘dangerous’ permissions. This flaw, however, makes use of normal permissions; and Android does not warn on normal permissions. The effect is that an apparently benign app can have dangerous consequences.
As a proof of concept attack scenario, a malicious app with these two permissions can query/insert/alter the system icon settings and modify legitimate icons of some security-sensitive apps, such as banking apps, to a phishing website. We tested and confirmed this attack on a Nexus 7 device with Android 4.4.2. (Note: The testing website was brought down quickly and nobody else ever connected to it.) Google Play doesn’t prevent this app from being published and there’s no warning when a user downloads and installs it. (Note: We have removed the app from Google Play quickly and nobody else downloaded this app.)
Google has already released a patch for Android, and Nexus users will soon be safe. But others? “Many android vendors were slow to adopt security upgrades. We urge these vendors to patch vulnerabilities more quickly to protect their users,” urges FireEye.
When Bruce Schneier left the employ of BT, he finally got off the pot. His natural inclinations can now be seen. He still hasn’t criticised BT despite it being obvious that BT is no more innocent than any of the big American telecoms companies — but he told me (by email) at the time that he tried to avoid getting involved in foreign politics.
He hasn’t been 100% consistent in this. When Swedish journalists discovered Swedish involvement in the MITM NSA/GCHQ hacking program known as Quantum, he said, “Both Quantum and FoxAcid are NSA/GCHQ programs to attack computer users. The fact that Sweden is involved in these programs means that Sweden is involved in active attacks against internet users. It is not just passive monitoring. This is an active attack.”
One day we may yet hear what he knows about BT’s cooperation with GCHQ (Tempora et al).
In the meantime, he is now no longer backward in commenting on surveillance in general and the NSA in particular. An article in The Atlantic last week warns us not to listen uncritically to the protestations of either the NSA or the tech giants that now appear to be up in arms against this NSA hacking and surveillance.
The tech giants (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft etcetera) all claim to be doing what they can to prevent further snooping. But they are not doing the one thing that would work — they are not encrypting user data on servers in a way that would be impossible for governments to demand the keys. And the reason they are not doing this is simply because the vendors and the governments both want the same thing — to be able to read our data.
The best we have are caveat-laden pseudo-assurances. At SXSW earlier this month, CEO Eric Schmidt tried to reassure the audience by saying that he was “pretty sure that information within Google is now safe from any government’s prying eyes.” A more accurate statement might be, “Your data is safe from governments, except for the ways we don’t know about and the ways we cannot tell you about. And, of course, we still have complete access to it all, and can sell it at will to whomever we want.”
Don’t Listen to Google and Facebook: The Public-Private Surveillance Partnership Is Still Going Strong
The reality is that for so long as the vendors want access to our data, the governments will be able to demand it. Neither of that is changing; although both sides are trying to pretend it is.
I had to visit the hospital the other day. I’m not going to say why, because that’s private, personal and confidential. Suffice it to say that the condition isn’t one that I wouldn’t tell my mother; but it is one that I’d prefer potential employers and insurers know nothing about unless I tell them (it’s probably nothing anyway). I would most certainly not want the pharmaceutical industry to know — the drugs they offer make the (possible) condition much worse, and introduce new ones.
But I don’t need to worry, do I? At the bottom of the hospital appointment letter, in bold type, is the statement:
All personal information about you is kept confidential at all times and is only shared when necessary to support your care and treatment. If we want to use your information for any other purpose, with the exception of when the law requires us to do so, we will talk with you and obtain your consent. If you have any concerns regarding this, please talk to the person providing your care and treatment.
(see grammatical note at the end of this post)
But that’s a lie. While the government wants to start centralizing our GP records in the autumn, it is already doing so with HES (Hospital Episode Statistics). These are already held by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) which is where all of the records will eventually be held. According to the HSCIC website,
HES is a data warehouse containing details of all admissions, outpatient appointments and A&E attendances at NHS hospitals in England.
This data is collected during a patient’s time at hospital and is submitted to allow hospitals to be paid for the care they deliver. HES data is designed to enable secondary use, that is use for non-clinical purposes, of this administrative data.
It is a records-based system that covers all NHS trusts in England, including acute hospitals, primary care trusts and mental health trusts. HES information is stored as a large collection of separate records – one for each period of care – in a secure data warehouse.
We apply a strict statistical disclosure control in accordance with the HES protocol, to all published HES data. This suppresses small numbers to stop people identifying themselves and others, to ensure that patient confidentiality is maintained.
Compare the two statements. It is perfectly clear that the hospital is lying. But the reality is, so is HSCIC.
Back in 2012, the marketing firm PA Consulting bought a copy of the HES data.
So we bought the data and installed it (with certain security restrictions) on our own hardware… [But querying the data took too long.] The alternative was to upload it to the cloud using tools such as Google Storage and use BigQuery to extract data from it… Within two weeks of starting to use the Google tools we were able to produce interactive maps directly from HES queries in seconds.
(That document seems to have been removed from the PA site, or hidden away. Anyway, I can no longer find it, and have to rely on the copy I have. It seems to have been replaced by a press statement from PA here and another from HSCIC here in a coordinated release. Neither of these should satisfy any patient.)
The HES data sold by the government is pseudonymised — but still includes postcode and age (PA denies that it received DOB or address, but doesn’t specify whether that included ‘age’ and ‘postcode’). In other words, standard HES data specifies very clearly exactly who 98% of the patients actually are and where they live.
And then there’s Beacon Dodsworth, a firm that “provides geographical information system (GIS) mapping software and marketing technology to clients in a wide range of industries” including Estee Lauder, Trinity Mirror Group and Boots. It says
Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) have now been integrated with our P2 People & Places people classification thanks to some hard work from our clever developers.
This means you can now better understand the health needs of local communities and populations and identify trends and patterns in order to target health improvement more effectively.
So we seem to have a system that quite readily sells our hospital records to any marketing company that will pay for them, and then allows those marketing firms to advertise the ability to target us on the basis of our health. And at the same time, the NHS itself tells us something completely different: that the data is only seen by those involved in our treatment.
Now Ross Anderson, chair at the Foundation for Information Policy Research; Phil Booth, coordinator at medConfidential; and Nick Pickles, director at Big Brother Watch, have all filed a complaint with the ICO requesting that the issue be examined in relation to the Data Protection Act.
It will be interesting to see how the ICO can reconcile what to everyone else is a clear but hidden breach of confidential patient data — and the Data Protection Act — with this government’s desire to sell and share everything about us to anyone willing to pay for it, irrespective of our own wishes. Because the one thing we can be very sure about in all of this is that the ICO will do all he can to avoid doing anything at all.
The first sentence is a complete statement. The second sentence is also a complete sentence. There is nothing in the second sentence to indicate that it qualifies the first sentence. There is nothing in these two sentences from which a reasonable patient could infer that it really means, “We will not share your personal data with anyone other than the centralised government database operated by HSCIC, with whom we will always provide all of your details all of the time, and over which we have not the slightest control nor responsibility for your personal data.
This coming week the European Justice and Home Affairs Council (ie, national ministers from the individual national governments) will meet in Brussels. There are several items on the agenda.
Top of the list in a memo released by Viviane Redding is reform of the data protection laws. She says,
I am confident we will be able to build on the momentum injected into the negotiations by the Greek Presidency at the last informal Council meeting in January. Seeing the latest progress, I will continue working with Ministers for an adoption of the data protection reform before the end of this year.
Bottom of the list in a ministerial statement from Theresa May is reform of the data protection laws. She says,
There will be a state of play/orientation debate on the Proposal for a General data Protection Regulation. The UK continues to believe that this proposal is far from ready for a general agreement, and that no such agreement can occur until the text as a whole has been approved. The proposal remains burdensome on both public and private sector organisations and the Government would not want to see inflexible rules on transfers outside the European Economic Area which do not reflect the realities of the modern, interconnected world.
And yes, they really are talking about the same thing. Most of Europe has already agreed the data protection reform proposals; but the UK doesn’t like it and won’t play.
The problem is, providing more protection for our personal information is difficult for the UK. It would upset the three most powerful organizations in the country: GCHQ, Google and Facebook. GCHQ would have its ability to collect our private messages, photos, home videos and internet browsing habits severely curtailed — and of course nobody would want to see that.
Google and Facebook would no longer be able to ship our personal information to servers outside of the UK; that is, the US, from where the NSA/FBI could demand access while declining to allow us to be told (assuming they need to since GCHQ will probably have already intercepted the data via its taps on the fibre cables that run between the two continents and simply handed it en masse to the NSA for storage and safe keeping).
Since these negative arguments would not prove popular to the British public, they are being hidden in spurious and frankly false claims that data protection will cost business. Yes there will be some cost in protecting our data (not nearly as much as the government would like us to believe); but that will be more than compensated by the lower cost of doing business with dozens of different data protection regimes. The net effect of reforming data protection will be greater data protection at a lower overall cost.
But Theresa May doesn’t want us to understand that. She and David Cameron would like us to believe that they are protecting us when they are really just protecting vested interests and actually selling us down the river. They are willing to trade our privacy to keep GCHQ and big American business happy.
The home page for Google France from a few days ago. It’s been removed now; but just in case anyone missed it…