industryterm:proposed law

  • China working on data privacy law but enforcement is a stumbling block | South China Morning Post

    En Chine des scientifiques s’inquiètent de la collection de données sans limites et des abus possibles par le gouvernment et des acteurs privés. Au niveau politique on essaye d’introduire des lois protégeant les données et la vie privée. D’après l’article les véritables problèmes se poseront lors de l’implémentation d’une nouvelle législation en la matière.

    Echo Xie 5 May, 2019 - Biometric data in particular needs to be protected from abuse from the state and businesses, analysts say
    Country is expected to have 626 million surveillance cameras fitted with facial recognition software by 2020

    In what is seen as a major step to protect citizens’ personal information, especially their biometric data, from abuse, China’s legislators are drafting a new law to safeguard data privacy, according to industry observers – but enforcement remains a major concern.

    “China’s private data protection law will be released and implemented soon, because of the fast development of technology, and the huge demand in society,” Zeng Liaoyuan, associate professor at the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, said in an interview .

    Technology is rapidly changing life in China but relevant regulations had yet to catch up, Zeng said.

    Artificial intelligence and its many applications constitute a major component of China’s national plan. In 2017, the “Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan” called for the country to become the world leader in AI innovation by 2030.

    Biometrics authentication is used in computer science as an identification or access control. It includes fingerprinting, face recognition, DNA, iris recognition, palm prints and other methods.

    In particular, the use of biometric data has grown exponentially in key areas: scanning users’ fingerprints or face to pay bills, to apply for social security qualification and even to repay loans. But the lack of an overarching law lets companies gain access to vast quantities of an individual’s personal data, a practice that has raised privacy concerns.

    During the “two sessions” last month, National People’s Congress spokesman Zhang Yesui said the authorities had hastened the drafting of a law to protect personal data, but did not say when it would be completed or enacted.

    One important focus, analysts say, is ensuring that the state does not abuse its power when collecting and using private data, considering the mass surveillance systems installed in China.

    “This is a big problem in China,” said Liu Deliang, a law professor at Beijing Normal University. “Because it’s about regulating the government’s abuse of power, so it’s not only a law issue but a constitutional issue.”

    The Chinese government is a major collector and user of privacy data. According to IHS Markit, a London-based market research firm, China had 176 million surveillance cameras in operation in 2016 and the number was set to reach 626 million by 2020.

    In any proposed law, the misuse of data should be clearly defined and even the government should bear legal responsibility for its misuse, Liu said.

    “We can have legislation to prevent the government from misusing private data but the hard thing is how to enforce it.”

    Especially crucial, legal experts say, is privacy protection for biometric data.

    “Compared with other private data, biometrics has its uniqueness. It could post long-term risk and seriousness of consequence,” said Wu Shenkuo, an associate law professor at Beijing Normal University.

    “Therefore, we need to pay more attention to the scope and limitations of collecting and using biometrics.”

    Yi Tong, a lawmaker from Beijing, filed a proposal concerning biometrics legislation at the National People’s Congress session last month.

    “Once private biometric data is leaked, it’s a lifetime leak and it will put the users’ private data security into greater uncertainty, which might lead to a series of risks,” the proposal said.

    Yi suggested clarifying the boundary between state power and private rights, and strengthening the management of companies.

    In terms of governance, Wu said China should specify the qualifications entities must have before they can collect, use and process private biometric data. He also said the law should identify which regulatory agencies would certify companies’ information.

    There was a need to restrict government behaviour when collecting private data, he said, and suggested some form of compensation for those whose data was misused.

    “Private data collection at the government level might involve the need for the public interest,” he said. “In this case, in addition to ensuring the legal procedure, the damage to personal interests should be compensated.”

    Still, data leaks, or overcollecting, is common in China.

    A survey released by the China Consumers Association in August showed that more than 85 per cent of respondents had suffered some sort of data leak, such as their cellphone numbers being sold to spammers or their bank accounts being stolen.

    Another report by the association in November found that of the 100 apps it investigated, 91 had problems with overcollecting private data.

    One of them, MeituPic, an image editing software program, was criticised for collecting too much biometric data.

    The report also cited Ant Financial Services, the operator of the Alipay online payments service, for the way it collects private data, which it said was incompatible with the national standard. Ant Financial is an affiliate of Alibaba Group, which owns the South China Morning Post.

    In January last year, Ant Financial had to apologise publicly for automatically signing up users for a social credit programme without obtaining their consent.

    “When a company asks for a user’s private data, it’s unscrupulous, because we don’t have a law to limit their behaviour,” Zeng said.

    “Also it’s about business competition. Every company wants to hold its customers, and one way is to collect their information as much as possible.”

    Tencent and Alibaba, China’s two largest internet companies, did not respond to requests for comment about the pending legislation.

    #Chine #droit #vie_privée #surveillance #politique

  • Church of Holy Sepulchre crisis: Israel burns its bridges with the Christian world

    Decision makers have continually ignored the political, religious and diplomatic sensitivities when trying to solve problems that concern Jerusalem’s Christian community

    Nir Hasson Feb 26, 2018

    The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem is a place that runs to the beat of the Middle Ages and according to an uncompromising series of rules set in the mid-19th century. One of the unwritten traditions is a continual dispute between the three churches that run it: Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian.
    To really understand the Middle East - subscribe to Haaretz
    Knowing all this, the incident that occurred on Sunday was a historic event. The heads of three communities, the Greek Orthodox patriarch, the Armenian patriarch and the Catholic custodian of the Holy Land, met at the entrance to the church. They cleared the place of tourists and had the heavy doors shut. Large signs, printed up ahead of time, were hung outside with images of the church’s two enemies: Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat and Knesset member Rachel Azaria of Kulanu. At the top was written, “Enough is Enough.”
    The protest came in response to two recent major steps. One was Barkat’s decision to end the municipal tax exemption for church-owned properties in Jerusalem and to put liens on the churches’ bank accounts for the tax debts. The second was a bill sponsored by Azaria that would allow the expropriation of lands sold by churches to private buyers. It was on Sunday’s agenda for a Knesset committee that decides whether or not the governing coalition will support legislation.

    Worshippers kneel and pray in front of the closed doors of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem’s Old City, February 25, 2018.\ AMIR COHEN/ REUTERS
    The churches’ action on Sunday shows that they are in an impossible situation, with pressure from all sides: Israel, their Palestinian faithful, church institutions, pilgrims and their sponsor countries (Jordan, Greece, Armenia and the Vatican). Decision makers continually ignore the political, religious and diplomatic sensitivities when they try to solve problems that concern the churches.
    Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
    Email* Sign up

    According to the churches, the agreement that had allowed the churches not to pay municipal taxes existed since Ottoman times, and British, Jordanian and Israeli governments have all honored it. They say the move to collect the taxes is part of Barkat’s fight against the national government and Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon over the city’s budget. Meanwhile, the mayor maintains that the agreement on taxes only applies to houses of worship and not commercial properties owned by the churches.

    Between the taxes and the legislation put forward by Azaria, it’s the latter that has church leaders worried the most. According to the proposed law, the government would be able to expropriate land that had been church-owned and was sold to private real estate companies. The law discriminates against the churches compared to other institutions or private citizens. (A relevant question is what Israel would say if such a move was taken in another country for synagogue-owned property.) Furthermore, it would be applied retroactively.
    The law would force the churches to pay for the failures of the Jewish National Fund and the Israel Lands Administration. To understand their missteps, one must look no further than the land deal in Jerusalem’s Rehavia neighborhood, which was developed in the first half of the 20th century. At the time, churches leased lands in Rehavia and other neighborhoods to the JNF for 99 years.

    A protest sign hangs outside of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in Jerusalem, February 25, 2018.Mahmoud Illean/AP
    In the Rehavia sale, which is rocking the lives of 1,300 families, a private company bought the lease rights to 500 dunams (125 acres) of land in the heart of Jerusalem for 200 years for only 78 million shekels ($22.3 million). If the government had acted in a smarter fashion, it could easily have bought the rights to this land for a similar amount – small change considering the size of the area and its importance. It could have made part of the money back from residents and businesses extending their leases. But those in charge didn’t act, paving the way for private developers to enter the picture.
    Once the 99-year lease is over, instead of having the JNF renew it almost automatically for a symbolic fee, the land will be transferred to the private company. Residents who live in buildings affected by the sale will need negotiate with private developers over what will happen to their homes, which have already lost as much as half of their value.
    If the law passes, no one will want to do business with the churches, because who wants to buy land that can be expropriated tomorrow?
    Anyone dealing with this law – including those who drafted it – knows very well that it has no chance of passing at the Knesset in its present form. It violates so many constitutional principles that it is a perfect case for being annulled by the Supreme Court. The law is intended to be a threat for real estate developers and speculators, so they reach a deal with the government. But in the meantime, the question is whether this is the way Israel wants to communicate with the Christian world.

  • German migration office to check asylum seekers’ phones in identity crackdown

    Under a proposed law, Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) would be allowed to examine refugees’ mobiles to establish their identity. The bill aims to prevent refugees from giving false identities.
    #contrôle #surveillance #Allemagne #smartphones #identité #téléphone

  • Copyright conundrum: Tweeting this may cost you

    "Sharing a link is OK, but the sentences, words and even letters in a tweet or Facebook post could be owned by publishers if the Commission’s plans go through member countries and the European Parliament unchallenged."

    The European Commission created a legal minefield for billions of internet users with a well-intentioned but poorly worded proposed law to help struggling publishers guard against digital attrition by Google and other news aggregators.


    After two decades of tussles between old media and new, the Commission decided to modernize copyright laws. Its draft has become one of the most controversial elements in creating a single market for digital services across Europe. The introduction of a so-called neighboring right allows publishers to seek payment from aggregators like Google and Reddit who link to their content.


  • Israel May Be Taking First Steps Toward Becoming a Halakhic State - Opinion - Haaretz -

    In haze of current security situation, Ministerial Committee for Legislation is slated to consider a bill that would inject elements of Jewish law into Israeli law.
    Haaretz Editorial Oct 11, 2015 1:34 AM

    In the haze of the current security situation, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation is slated to consider a bill Sunday that could herald the first step toward making Israel a country governed by Jewish religious law (halakha,) by injecting elements of Jewish law into Israeli law.

    The sources of Israeli law were determined in the Foundations of Law Act, passed in 1980. According to the act, when a judge is required to decide a legal question that is not answered by law or prior court precedent, or by inference, he should turn to “the principles of liberty, justice, integrity and peace of the tradition of Israel [meaning Jewish tradition]” as a supplementary source.

    Over the years, the court has interpreted this as a reference to the general principles of Jewish tradition and most judges have not accepted the view that it realizes the principles of Jewish law as written. In addition, because it has also been possible to find an answer to legal questions by inference, courts haven’t made much use of the provision of the 1980 act.

    The sponsors of the new bill, led by Habayit Hayehudi Knesset member Nissan Slomiansky, take issue with the fact that the existing law does not obligate the courts to apply the principles of Jewish law, so they are seeking to amend the provision. The proposed legislation would require judges to look to Jewish legal principles (and it states so explicitly, unlike the current law,) as well as to principles of justice, integrity, peace, etc., prior to looking for answers by inference.

    In the process, the bill would make Jewish law, sources of which include the Mishna, the Talmud and halakhic rulings, an integral part of Israeli law, without the filter of the current law. The legislation would oblige judges to apply such law, without allowing them to find answers according to the rules of inference.

    It’s difficult to understand why the sponsors of the bill think it appropriate for a democratic country to adopt the principles of ancient religious law. Why should the entire Israeli population, a large portion of whom are not religious and some also not Jewish, be subject to Jewish religious law? And this with regard to a religious legal system that systematically discriminates against populations such as women and non-Jews. Secular judges and judges who are not Jewish will be required, according to the proposal, to rule accordsing to the principles of religious law. In order to “make things easier” for them, the proposed law provides for an official institute to “translate” Jewish law into modern language and make it accessible to all judges.

    Beyond the message of extremism and coercion that the bill sends, it would strengthen questions about the legitimacy of Israel as a democratic country. The more evidence that Israel provides of its Jewish religious-state characteristics, particularly of the kind that imposes religious laws on residents who are not religious and not Jewish, the argument that Israel is a country that respects the rights of its citizens is substantially weakened.

  • Israeli cabinet approves legislation defining nation-state of Jewish people | World news | The Guardian

    Israeli cabinet approves legislation defining nation-state of Jewish people

    Opponents say proposed law would reserve ‘national rights’ for Jews and not for minorities that make up 20% of population

    Peter Beaumont in Jerusalem
    The Guardian, Sunday 23 November 2014 19.08 GMT

    Binyamin Netanyahu The Israeli PM, Binyamin Netanyahu, argues the law is needed because the notion of Israel as a Jewish homeland was being challenged. Photograph: Barcroft Media

    A controversial bill that officially defines Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people has been approved by cabinet despite warnings that the move risks undermining the country’s democratic character.

    Opponents, including some cabinet ministers, said the new legislation defined reserved “national rights” for Jews only and not for its minorities, and rights groups condemned it as racist.

    #israël #racisme #xénophobie #état_juif

  • Not apartheid, slavery - A new perspective on the Israeli occupation Haaretz

    By Eva Illouz | Feb. 7, 2014

    Open Haaretz on any given day. Half or three quarters of its news items will invariably revolve around the same two topics: people struggling to protect the good name of Israel, and people struggling against its violence and injustices.

    An almost random example: On December 17, 2013, one could read, on a single Haaretz page, Chemi Shalev reporting on the decision of the American Studies Association to boycott Israeli academic institutions in order to “honor the call of Palestinian civil society.” In response, former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers dubbed the decision “anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intent.”

    On the same page, MK Naftali Bennett called the bill to prevent outside funding of left-wing NGOs in Israel “too soft.” The proposed law was meant to protect Israel and Israeli soldiers from “foreign forces” which, in his view, work against the national interest of Israel through those left-wing nonprofits (for Bennett and many others in Israel, to defend human rights is to be left-wing).The Haaretz editorial, backed by an article by regular columnist Sefi Rachlevsky, referred to the treatment of illegal immigrants by the Israeli government as shameful, with Rachlevsky calling the current political regime “radical rightist-racist-capitalist,” because “it tramples democracy and replaces it with fascism.” The day after, it was the turn of Alan Dershowitz to call the American Studies Association vote to boycott Israel shameful, “for singling out the Jew among nations. Shame on them for applying a double standard to Jewish universities” (December 18).

    This mudslinging has become a normal spectacle to the bemused eyes of ordinary Israelis and Jews around the world. But what’s astonishing is that this mud is being thrown by Jews at Jews. Indeed, the valiant combatants for the good name of Israel miss an important point: the critiques of Israel in the United States are increasingly waged by Jews, not anti-Semites. The initiators and leaders of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement are such respected academics as Judith Butler, Jacqueline Rose, Noam Chomsky, Hilary Rose and Larry Gross, all Jews.

    If Israel is indeed singled out among the many nations that have a bad record in human rights, it is because of the personal sense of shame and embarrassment that a large number of Jews in the Western world feel toward a state that, by its policies and ethos, does not represent them anymore. As Peter Beinart has been cogently arguing for some time now, the Jewish people seems to have split into two distinct factions: One that is dominated by such imperatives as “Israeli security,” “Jewish identity” and by the condemnation of “the world’s double standards” and “Arabs’ unreliability”; and a second group of Jews, inside and outside Israel, for whom human rights, freedom, and the rule of law are as visceral and fundamental to their identity as membership to Judaism is for the first group. Supreme irony of history: Israel has splintered the Jewish people around two radically different moral visions of Jews and humanity.

    If we are to find an appropriate analogy to understand the rift inside the Jewish people, let us agree that the debate between the two groups is neither ethnic (we belong to the same ethnic group) nor religious (the Judith Butlers of the world are not trying to push a new or different religious dogma, although the rift has a certain, but imperfect, overlap with the religious-secular positions). Nor is the debate a political or ideological one, as Israel is in fact still a democracy. Rather, the poignancy, acrimony and intensity of the debate are about two competing and ultimately incompatible conceptions of morality. This statement is less trivial than it sounds.

  • AG: Bill against pro-boycott Israel groups is unconstitutional
    By Revital Hovel and Jonathan Lis | Dec. 15, 2013

    A controversial bill that would penalize any non-profit organization if one of its executives calls for a boycott of Israel is to be discussed Sunday by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation. The proposed law - which Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein has described as unconstitutional - would levy a tax of 45 percent on any donation from foreign political entities to NPOs, if one of the organization’s managers has expressed support for a boycott, divestment or sanctions against Israel or its citizens.

    The bill, sponsored by the Yisrael Beiteinu and Habayit Hayehudi parties, will also apply to those groups in which one of its leaders has called to put Israeli soldiers on trial in international bodies, or supports an armed struggle by an enemy country or terrorist organization against the State of Israel.

    Weinstein will submit his formal opinion to the Ministerial Committee, saying that if the bill is made into law and challenged in court, he will not be able to defend it. The attorney general said that the bill infringes on a number of constitutional rights enshrined in Israel’s Basic Laws, including freedom of expression and freedom of association. He said what was presented as a tax hike was in his view a de facto fine intended to create a chilling effect on donations to the non-profits in question, which would harm freedom of expression in Israel. “Limiting donations and harming non-profit organizations’ free speech, and in general harming human rights is something done by a group of countries that it is doubtful that Israel wants to join,” said Weinstein. He added that even if the purpose of the bill was proper, which he said he doubted, it exceeded any sense of proportion because of the serious ramifications it was likely to cause.

    The issue of proportionality is important because under Israeli law the state may undertake an act that harms a right in one of Israel’s Basic Laws if it is consistent with the values of the State of Israel, intended for a proper purpose and the harm done is proportionate.

    The explanatory preface to the proposed law states it “wants to reduce the involvement of foreign policy entities in Israeli democracy, which is conducted via financial support for non-profit organizations, whose goals, or activities in practice, grossly exceed the limits of the Israeli democratic discussion and are an attempt to cause real harm and are a significant and serious interference in the basic characteristics of the State of Israel and its sovereignty.”

    If the Ministerial Committee votes to give the bill government backing, it will then go to the Knesset later this week for its preliminary reading.

    Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who chairs the committee, is expected to oppose the bill. She called the bill undemocratic and inappropriate yesterday. If the committee does approve the bill today, Livni is expected to appeal the vote.

    In 2011, a similar bill was proposed by MK Faina Kirschenbaum (Yisrael Beitenu), that would have levied a 45 percent tax rate on donations from foreign states to organizations not supported by the State of Israel. Weinstein warned at that time that the bill was unconstitutional, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that in principle he supported the bill with some adjustments, including distinguishing between organizations whose activities focus on human rights and those that are identified with political causes. In the end, Netanyahu froze the bill and it did not advance in the Knesse