Official Blog of The Background Investigator (www.thebackgroundinvestigator.com) and Straightline International (www.straightlineinternational.com).
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
'EU lawmakers to beef up data protection laws
'EU lawmakers to beef up data protection laws
European Union lawmakers were set to approve sweeping new data protection rules to strengthen online privacy, and sought to outlaw most data transfers to other countries' authorities to prevent spying.
The draft regulation was beefed up after Edward Snowden's leaks about allegedly widespread U.S. online snooping to include even more stringent privacy protection and stiff fines for violations. The legislation is poised to have significant implications for U.S. Internet companies, too.
The rules would for the first time create a strong data protection law for Europe's 500 million citizens, replacing an outdated patchwork of national rules that only allow for tiny fines in cases of violation.
Supporters have hailed the legislation as a milestone toward establishing genuine online privacy rights, while opponents have warned of creating a hugely bureaucratic regulation that will overwhelm businesses and consumers.
The legislation was widely expected to pass a committee vote late. Still, it is likely to be amended later since it also requires approval by Parliament's plenary and the EU's 28 member states. Lawmakers hope to conclude the process before the end of their term in May.
The legislation, among other things, aims at enabling users to ask companies to fully erase their personal data, handing them a so-called right to be forgotten. It would also limit user profiling, require companies to explain their use of personal data in detail to customers, and mandate that companies seek prior consent. In addition, most businesses would have to designate or hire data protection officers to ensure the regulation is properly applied.
Grave compliance failures could be subject to a fine worth up to 5 percent of a company's annual turnover _ which could be hundreds of millions of dollars, or even a few billion dollars for Internet giants such as Google.
"Those companies are making billions from European citizens' data. So if you want them to comply, you have to give them the right incentives," said Giacomo Luchetta of the Center for European Policy Studies.
All companies offering services to EU citizens, regardless of where they're based, would have to comply with the new rules, he added.
In response to the revelations of the National Security Agency's online spying activities, lawmakers also toughened the initial draft regulation, prepared by the European Commission, to make sure companies no longer share European citizens' data with authorities of a third country, unless explicitly allowed by EU law or an international treaty.
That means a U.S. tech company handing over data to U.S. authorities, including information on its European customers, might be violating EU law.
In practice, the provision would protect European citizens from seeing their data transferred for commercial purposes, but there are practical hurdles and loopholes that, among others, would still allow cooperation on national security matters, said Luchetta.
"If an American company gets a court order to hand over data, they have to comply," he said. "The U.S. court doesn't care whether you may be violating EU laws, and at the same time the EU has no power over U.S. court decisions."
Overall, the legislation has been subject to fierce lobbying over the past 18 months, and there are a record-breaking 4,000 proposed amendments to it. If 's vote is delayed, lawmakers will resume their deliberations on .
In a move welcomed by consumer groups and businesses, the regulation also introduces a so-called one-stop-shop approach, meaning companies would only have to deal with the national data protection authority where they are based in the EU, not with 28 national watchdogs.
Consumers, in turn, would be able to file complaints with their national authority, regardless of where the targeted service provider is based. For example that would make it easier for an Austrian consumer to complain about a social media site such as Facebook, which has its EU headquarters in Ireland.
Meanwhile, the National Security Agency leaks continued to stir unrest among European policy makers.
French leaders appeared angry on upon learning that NSA allegedly recorded 70.3 million French telephone records within a month, and called for a swift implementation of tough privacy rules to govern the tech sector.
"It is an important industry, but you cannot develop this industry if there is no personal data protection," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in Luxembourg.
Throw Us All The Scare Bombs You Can - we're Ready
EU lawmakers to beef up data protection laws.'
That's garbbing the EU headlines.
European Union lawmakers were set to approve sweeping new data protection rules to strengthen online privacy, and sought to outlaw most data transfers to other countries' authorities to prevent spying.
The EU is attempting to stop all data transfers out of their countries with one exception:
And that exception exceeds all the controls that they can muster.
That is, consent.
Consent by the individual trumps all their initiatives.
it is even written into the new guidelines:
"The legislation, among other things, aims at enabling users to ask companies to fully erase their personal data, handing them a so-called right to be forgotten. It would also limit user profiling, require companies to explain their use of personal data in detail to customers, and mandate that companies seek prior consent. In addition, most businesses would have to designate or hire data protection officers to ensure the regulation is properly applied.
The use of the word, 'enable' means just that. A person has to consent to enable. All other information in this 'beefed up' law would be secretarial at best.
We do need to manage records.
We do need to designate a data protection officer or hire one to ensure the standards are met.
So what? We're already doing it.
It must be election time in Europe. Knock the Americans.
New 'Policy' Decision Causes Ruckus and Commotion at Saipan Airport
In yet another rogue decision made in Immigration by US Immgration officials, USA citizens arriving on Asiana Airlines flight 605 from Incheon, Seoul, South Korea were held back from entering USA immigration until an earlier flight arrival of 200 Japanese tourists from Narita, Tokyo Japan cleared the process.
Arriving American citizens looked in amazement as they were told they could not proceed into immigration until the previous arrival has passed through.
Fifteen minutes later, and the Japanese visitors to America were still straggling along the corridor a slight ruckus erupted.
Coincidentally, the Asiana Airlines operations manager for Saipan was also one of those held back by security guards and restraining tape.
He said their airline was recently notified by US Immigration that (Immigration) would process only one airplane arrival at at time, in order of arrival.
Immigration officers, when asked about this decision, could only raise their eyebrows in disbelief and comment pretty much that 'they only work here.'
You could hear grumbles and see the shrugging of shoulders as many of the arriving passengers in Saipan are becoming used to arbitrary, and not too bright managerial decisions coming from Saipan Immigration and Border Control officials.
One could almost see the Immigration managers patting each other on their backs and slapping high fives at their new 'genius' plan.
So let's see how this plays out in the USA.
These same glad-handed managers come up with this policy at LAX, JFK, ORD, DFW, and MIA.
First plane in, several hundred passengers arrive, all other arriving planes ( Need I say and tens of thousands of passengers) need not rush. Just sit tight in your seats or behind restraints, and wait your turn - say 15 minutes or an hour or two, until the other plane's through. We'll get to you sooner or later. One plane at a time.
Well, you see the point.
The bottom line is, who is in charge in Saipan -
The USA or the rogue, mad scientist type Immigration managers most likely volunteering for Saipan duty and probably not the swiftest in the Service types whose dream it is to manage a USA mainland assignmen but just not good enough, whose bird brained ideas stick it in the face of all Americans who are travelling back to our country?
I score this one for 'The inmates running the Asylum."
Get rid of this policy. It's stupid and annoying.
Arriving American citizens looked in amazement as they were told they could not proceed into immigration until the previous arrival has passed through.
Fifteen minutes later, and the Japanese visitors to America were still straggling along the corridor a slight ruckus erupted.
Coincidentally, the Asiana Airlines operations manager for Saipan was also one of those held back by security guards and restraining tape.
He said their airline was recently notified by US Immigration that (Immigration) would process only one airplane arrival at at time, in order of arrival.
Immigration officers, when asked about this decision, could only raise their eyebrows in disbelief and comment pretty much that 'they only work here.'
You could hear grumbles and see the shrugging of shoulders as many of the arriving passengers in Saipan are becoming used to arbitrary, and not too bright managerial decisions coming from Saipan Immigration and Border Control officials.
One could almost see the Immigration managers patting each other on their backs and slapping high fives at their new 'genius' plan.
So let's see how this plays out in the USA.
These same glad-handed managers come up with this policy at LAX, JFK, ORD, DFW, and MIA.
First plane in, several hundred passengers arrive, all other arriving planes ( Need I say and tens of thousands of passengers) need not rush. Just sit tight in your seats or behind restraints, and wait your turn - say 15 minutes or an hour or two, until the other plane's through. We'll get to you sooner or later. One plane at a time.
Well, you see the point.
The bottom line is, who is in charge in Saipan -
The USA or the rogue, mad scientist type Immigration managers most likely volunteering for Saipan duty and probably not the swiftest in the Service types whose dream it is to manage a USA mainland assignmen but just not good enough, whose bird brained ideas stick it in the face of all Americans who are travelling back to our country?
I score this one for 'The inmates running the Asylum."
Get rid of this policy. It's stupid and annoying.
Phyllis Asks Is there anything like wants and warrants in Thailand
Phyllis Asks
Is there anything like wants and warrants in Thailand? Tom from txxxxs investigations wants to know.
Yes there are warrants. Costs can go up as they are individualized. It is not something done lightly nor in bulk for pre employment screening. This tool is used on an individual basis - Usually we get this request attached to an in depth search.
The warrants would not include small bench warrants for non appearance at summary court hearings. It would include, if not sealed, mid level drug and prostitution workers, tourist predators, drug king pins and war lords.
The search is at the Royal Thai Police and Justice of Ministry.
Our service will not start without an approved spending of $900.
Time is not the riding issue. The answer is.
Allow several days for meetings with Thais before processing commences.
Cost could be US$0 to US$900 depending on the targeted subject.
An free Internet search of Interpol top ten or Thai Police most wanted lists would be what the average USIS, Hireright, Sterlings, would use and sell.
Low quality. More like no quality. Free search on Internet.
Our service is in on ground in Thailand, with the authorities. Questions are asked. therefore the costs.
Steven Brownstein
Is there anything like wants and warrants in Thailand? Tom from txxxxs investigations wants to know.
Yes there are warrants. Costs can go up as they are individualized. It is not something done lightly nor in bulk for pre employment screening. This tool is used on an individual basis - Usually we get this request attached to an in depth search.
The warrants would not include small bench warrants for non appearance at summary court hearings. It would include, if not sealed, mid level drug and prostitution workers, tourist predators, drug king pins and war lords.
The search is at the Royal Thai Police and Justice of Ministry.
Our service will not start without an approved spending of $900.
Time is not the riding issue. The answer is.
Allow several days for meetings with Thais before processing commences.
Cost could be US$0 to US$900 depending on the targeted subject.
An free Internet search of Interpol top ten or Thai Police most wanted lists would be what the average USIS, Hireright, Sterlings, would use and sell.
Low quality. More like no quality. Free search on Internet.
Our service is in on ground in Thailand, with the authorities. Questions are asked. therefore the costs.
Steven Brownstein
Monday, October 14, 2013
Steven Brownstein Corroborates Connection Between Typhoons and Earthqaukes
Having remembered an obscure passage in an article, the 2002 Lander et al. report about the connection between typhoons and earthquakes, Brownstein attempted to contact the authors of that report.
Having little success at the time of reaching the authors, he contacted this newspaper to publish this release to corroborate their findings in hope that they may see this and inspire more research into the matter.
It is little known phenomena like this that can increase our knowledge of the physics of this planet and at the same times increase public awareness about potential dangers of an event previously unheralded.
About the Lander Report:
A 2002 study by geologists James Lander and Lowell Whiteside of the University of Colorado and Paul Hattori from the US Geological Survey Guam Geophysical Observatory examined the history of tsunami events on Guam over the last 200 years.
Interestingly, the Lander report also considered the seemingly apparent connection of large earthquakes and typhoon activity on Guam. For example, the August 1993 earthquake was closely associated with Typhoon Steve. Perhaps, the authors suggest, the winds generated from typhoons, along with appropriate high stresses in earthquake regions, can trigger an earthquake. Or, pressure changes from the extreme low pressures associated with typhoons can hypothetically cause the land to rise under a reduced load and result in an earthquake.
The model for this seems to work for an earthquake that occurs under land, but for an earthquake under the ocean, there may be another mechanism involved. In the case of the August 1993 quake, the eye of Typhoon Steve, an area of relative calm, passed 80 km north of the island, with winds pushing Guam and the Philippine plate to the northwest. This movement, the Lander studies asserts, may have reduced the friction between the Pacific and Philippine plates which resulted in the strong earthquake. Furthermore, in a look at the history of earthquakes and typhoons on Guam, Lander et al observed that far more earthquakes occur within one day of the arrival of typhoons, than any other day in the 10 days before or 10 days after a typhoon has passed Guam at its nearest approach to the island.
Read at: http://guampedia.com/tsunami-and-earthquake-history-and-potential-for-guam/
About The Philippines Earthquake October 11, 2013:
Last Friday, October 11, 2013, a paragraph written in an article published in the Philippine Star newspaper:
Quake jolts Aurora minutes before Santi
By Evelyn Macairan (The Philippine Star) | Updated October 13, 2013 - 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines - A 3.7 magnitude earthquake struck Baler, Aurora late Friday night, reportedly 15 minutes before Typhoon Santi made landfall in the province.
The quake, according to government seismologists, triggered an Intensity 3 tremor in Jomalig, Quezon.
The epicenter of the quake, which struck at 10:45 p.m. Friday, was traced at 69 kilometers southeast of Baler.
Several unsuccessful attempts have been made to reach the authors of the Landers Report.
Read at: http://www.philstar.com/nation/2013/10/13/1244519/quake-jolts-aurora-minutes-santi
About Steven Brownstein:
Steven Brownstein
The Background Investigator
Box 10001 Saipan, MP 96950
findcrime@aol.com
Website Design and Content Management by 1250 Media
2013 The Background Investigator. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Straightline simplifies compliancy between personal Data and information regulation
Compliancy issues need to be better defined to fully understand the issues that beset a pre-employment screening company.
Actually, the issues are quite clear and simple - easy to understand.
Privacy laws cover personal data. That is information about an individual regardless of where it is stored. Many countries enacted privacy data regulations to protect the individual. Remember that, it is to protect the individual and not the government.
Personal data is about the person. To access another's personal data what is needed is consent. That is it. There is no regulation to prevent any individual from giving you their information. There is no regulation preventing an individual to give you the right to any their information. Anywhere.
Perhaps the one issue that confuses pre-employment screeners the most is information regulation. Information regulation is simply that - the regulation of dissemination of information by a government to whomever the regulation is directed, business or personal. That is, such as, not allowing a third party access to another's information.
The reasons for the regulations are varied. The regulations can be to protect the government, as in a dictatorship, or the government can regulate information under the pretext of protecting the individual.
Regardless, there is no regulation anywhere that prohibits an individual from allowing another the access to their information. In other words, a person can hand you any document of theirs they please. Their is no regulation anywhere barring that.
Data privacy and information regulation are two separate things. It is only when one lumps data privacy incorrectly with information regulation or vice-versa that confusion sets in.
Actually, the issues are quite clear and simple - easy to understand.
Privacy laws cover personal data. That is information about an individual regardless of where it is stored. Many countries enacted privacy data regulations to protect the individual. Remember that, it is to protect the individual and not the government.
Personal data is about the person. To access another's personal data what is needed is consent. That is it. There is no regulation to prevent any individual from giving you their information. There is no regulation preventing an individual to give you the right to any their information. Anywhere.
Perhaps the one issue that confuses pre-employment screeners the most is information regulation. Information regulation is simply that - the regulation of dissemination of information by a government to whomever the regulation is directed, business or personal. That is, such as, not allowing a third party access to another's information.
The reasons for the regulations are varied. The regulations can be to protect the government, as in a dictatorship, or the government can regulate information under the pretext of protecting the individual.
Regardless, there is no regulation anywhere that prohibits an individual from allowing another the access to their information. In other words, a person can hand you any document of theirs they please. Their is no regulation anywhere barring that.
Data privacy and information regulation are two separate things. It is only when one lumps data privacy incorrectly with information regulation or vice-versa that confusion sets in.
Straightline International Offers Help With Understanding International Compliance
Straightline International is introducing a new service allowing pre-employment screening companies access to labor and employment lawyers from various countries worldwide.
This service is being added because of the confusion surrounding privacy data and information regulation. Most likely background checking checking companies have issues with information regulation - that is, what is allowed for third parties to directly access and to what extent that information can be processed and used,
This is not to be confused with privacy data, though that service will be avaailble, too. Privacy data is merely the consent of the individual to the use of their personal data. Note: Remember, consent is the overriding derivative.
Straightline International believes this service will be most useful and beneficial for pre-employment screening firms to navigate the international waters allowing a more fluid and productive use of global information.
Look to their Web Site beginning November 1st, 2013 for continous updates to their legal resource database.www.straightlineinternational.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)