[Privsec] IG statement: help on privacy

[karen banks]

hi

i know that the statement is finalised and being translated.. but i'd 
really like to get something in on this notion of 'balance'

is it too late to get an additional para in? we will be speaking in tghe 
12:15-13:00 time slot tomorrow..  i'll post the other three statements here 
when finalised..

http://wiki.digitaldivide.net/wiki/index.php/Drafting_Space_for_WGIG_Input

rikke suggested that we use text from the consumer protection paper:

this is the para in the consumer protection paper we commented on..

"while privacy is recognised as a human right, it is a right that balances 
the competing and legitimate interests of government and business to 
intrude upon privacy under law. Governments may do so in the course of 
investigating crimes; corporations may do so to better their marketing 
efforts and customer service."

these are the comments.. i imagine we can get a sentance or two from the 
first bullet point, but it would need to be added to the statement.. maybe 
it couold be the last point?

This paragraph is hazardous.
    * Privacy is indeed a 'human right', as enshrined in the UN Declaration 
of Human Rights in Article 12, or Article 17 of the International Covenant 
of Political and Civil Rights (which is legally binding), there are no 
requirements for balance. It is internationally recognized that the 
protection of human rights is fundamental and a prerequisite for any state 
measure. There rhetoric of "balance" is highly misleading, since it 
presupposes human rights as something that can be adjusted according to 
other societal interests. The right to privacy is fundamental for, rather 
than contradictory to, the State obligation to protect people within its 
jurisdiction.
    * If we examine the right to privacy in law, such as in the U.S. Bill 
of Rights or Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, there is 
again no simple balance as stated in this paper: it is first upheld for 
protection against incursions, and incursions are only allowed in specific 
circumstances. In the U.S. this involves due process, warrants, and 
situations involving reasonable expectations of privacy. Under the ECHR, 
such incursions must be in accordance with law, and necessary in a 
democratic society, i.e. proportional to the legitimate aims being sought. 
This implies that the restriction must be the least invasive measure 
possible to serve the legitimate aim".
karen