Category: Privacy and Data Protection

Let’s  come back once again to the subject of “privacy zealots” and fundamental rights to clarify some concepts that should be clear but, indeed, are not yet clear enough:

• “privacy” does not mean confidentiality. The investigative journalist, the drug trafficker and the unfaithful partner all want confidentiality about their activities, but for very different reasons that have nothing to do with “privacy”.
• “privacy” is not even protection of private life, which is a much broader concept and extends (unlike the conventional notion of privacy) also to public places where crimes of harassment and private violence are applied,
• “privacy” is not the processing of personal data because the processing of personal data is instrumental to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. So the GDPR does not protect “privacy” but first of all the fundamental good life and from there to go down,
• “privacy” is not even (as happened with the environment) a new right to be constitutionalized because the Italian Charter already provides specific rules to protect the inviolability of the home, freedom of thought, freedom of movement and secrecy of communications that “cover” the areas that you stubbornly want to bring within the domain of “privacy”.

Continue reading “COVID-19: on “privacy zealots”, again”

I sound like a broken record that nobody listens to when I say that in a moment of constitutional rights – the real ones – withholding “privacy” is the least of our concerns.

Nevertheless, many supporters of an extreme concept of “privacy” continue to oppose the general and generalized identification of infected people and people who have come into contact with us because the state “could abuse” it. Continue reading “COVID-19, privacy zealots and the abuse of “might” in Italy”

“Experts” and public institutions are reluctant to use of geolocation data held by mobile phone operators to backtrack COVID-19 infected people. The reason is that as “the cell-phone mesh is too wide” and GPS is not precise, the data obtained would be unreliable. This fact, according to them, would justify the use of other instruments – and in particular, of “apps” – to be installed more or less mandatory on people’s smartphones.

It is unclear if these “experts” considered that not everyone could or wants to have a “smart” phone. Therefore, more than a few could go around with an old “stupid” but less intrusive mobile phone affecting the overall efficiency of the solution. Continue reading “COVID-19: who is afraid of patients’ geolocalization?”