Recently Google has announced that it will begin a public discussion regarding global privacy legislation. The announcement can be read on the Google Public Policy blog. Due to increasing worries about the impact of globalization on data flows of private information, it is suggested that,
“In light of this, Google is calling for a discussion about international privacy standards which work to protect everyone’s privacy on the Internet. These standards must be clear and strong, mindful of commercial realities, and in line with oftentimes divergent political needs. Moreover, global privacy standards need to reflect technological realities, taking into account how quickly these realities can change.”
Of note is Google’s initial favouring of the APEC. The Google Public Privacy blog opines, “the APEC Framework is the most promising foundation on which to build. The APEC framework already carefully balances information privacy with business needs and commercial interests, and unlike the OECD guidelines and the European Directive, it was developed in the Internet age.” This is in distinction to the EU privacy framework which Google finds too overarching and stifling of commerce, whereas the US framework is fragmented and insufficient (Lester and Koehler make the same point).
Some Notes:
APEC Electronic Commerce Steering Committee
http://www.apec.org/apec/apec_groups/som_special_task_groups/electronic_commerce.html
Which established a Privacy Pathfinder (MS DOC) and a workplan (MS DOC). The Privacy Pathfinder notes,
“The ECSG developed a Data Privacy pathfinder initiative to enable APEC member economies to work together on the implementation of the APEC Privacy Framework adopted by APEC Ministers in 2004. Thirteen APEC member economies have agreed to develop a framework for accountable flows of personal data across the region, focussing on the use of cross-border privacy rules by business. This will promote consumer trust and business confidence in cross-border data flows. It will support business needs, reduce compliance costs, provide consumers with effective remedies, allow regulators to operate efficiently, and minimise regulatory burdens. “
(via textual metanoia)
