SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the at-least-somebody-understands-the-problem dept.
Security and privacy are not mutually exclusive says Europe’s privacy watchdog – and people should stop saying they are.
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), Giovanni Buttarelli, told a Brussels conference he was concerned that “the objective of cyber-security may be misused to justify measures which weaken protection of [data protection] rights.”“Cyber-security must not become an excuse for disproportionate processing of personal data. Let's not forget that when the European Court of Justice (ECJ) last year found the Data Retention Directive to be invalid, one of the reasons was concern about the inadequacy of the data security provisions in the directive,” he continued . Although some commentators interpreted the ECJ ruling to mean that data must be stored within national borders, Buttarelli disagreed.
“Physical location is not the determining factor in security. Rather, it is degree of control, accountability and responsibility which data controllers demonstrate when processing personal information. They must take full responsibility for all the measures they implement, regardless of the technology they use. Responsibility must not vanish in the clouds,” said the newly appointed EDPS. Negotiations on a new Data Protection Regulation are currently underway and Buttarelli says that accountability should not be sacrificed in the inevitable compromise.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Thursday April 30 2015, @02:04PM
People will stop saying they're not mutually exclusive when and only when so-called "security" services stop insisting that privacy is something that only terrorists and child molesters would want, and that any efforts to protect information from their warrantless reach is ipso facto SUPPORTING said terrorists and child molesters.
Security and privacy bloody well ARE mutually exclusive when the "security" forces have been allowed to redefinition "security" to include the right to examine any communication anywhere, anytime.
We didn't start this war. The "security" services did. Your "not mutually exclusive" middle ground does not exist. Stop saying it does.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Thursday April 30 2015, @02:23PM
Spot on. My kingdom for +mod points!
You, sir, win the inetrnets for today.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:11PM
Your "not mutually exclusive" middle ground does not exist.
Apparently it exists in the EU.
insert_snide_remark($about_usa);
(also: insert_snide_reply($about_snake_case [wikipedia.org]_vs_CamelCase); )
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:40PM
You must have missed the memo that GCHQ is located in the EU. As is the BND. [spiegel.de]
The fact that someone (even someone with some power) asserts something ought to be true in no way makes it so.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 30 2015, @06:43PM
Security and privacy bloody well ARE mutually exclusive when the "security" forces have been allowed to redefinition "security" to include the right to examine any communication anywhere, anytime.
Yes exactly. My Security and my Privacy are both aspects of the same system and they go hand-in-hand. It's only when Security is redefined as the ability to destroy my Privacy that they become exclusive.