March 05, Team Meeting Review | March 05, Student Salon | ConcealedI Conference Review | ConcealedI Conference Content | ConcealedI Conference photo's by Pyrik Photography 

 
Anonymity, Identity and Constitutions

Moderator Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor, opened the panel by stating that a constitution that survives a time of crisis is a sign of strength. Panelists, Daphne Gilbert, Paul De Hert, and A. Michael Froomkin, presented three perspectives: that of Canada, Europe and the United States.

Daphne Gilbert, Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa, gave a presentation titled "Seeking Equality Anonymously: Naming names in Section 15 litigation. " She reviewed two Supreme Court of Canada cases considering the application of the equality section of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms to demonstrate a number of points in connection with human dignity. She examined how selecting certain personal characteristics and excluding or ignoring others determined the outcome in these decisions and had a negative impact on human dignity. She suggested that a number of personal characteristics and facts are necessary and relevant to contextualize a case and in particular that all details of a claimant's identity that pertain to the impact of the legislation should matter. In the case of Gosselin, the fact that the claimant was a woman and that she was on social assistance were key factors that mattered - her age should not have been selected as the sole characteristic under consideration.
 
Paul de Hert, Professor of Law at Leiden University and Free University Brussels, gave a presentation titled "Trumping surveillance with anonymity or with opacity? A European perspective." After introducing the idea of trumps, he discussed two means of controlling surveillance: blocking power (privacy through anonymity) and allowing power but channelling it (data protection). He pointed out that data protection can at times merely channel power that is itself illegitimate. He suggested that more attention should be paid to the blocking aspect of privacy, particularly in light of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (2001).

A. Michael Froomkin, Professor of Law at the University of Miami, gave a presentation titled "Anonymity Law in the US: Latest Developments, Familiar Problems." He covered the main positions in the debate - the harms and benefits of anonymity, the regulation of anonymity (e.g. digital rights management), access to communicative anonymizing technology (cryptography) and the destabilizing effects of new technologies. He discussed a number of positive and negative developments in the USA, including the status of anonymous political speech, private civil actions and the Patriot Act. In terms of destabilizing technologies, he mentioned massive databases, facial recognition and digital rights management as significant threats to privacy. Froomkin concluded his presentation with two suggestions on what needs to be done. The first is legislative action but he recognized that the current US administration is not concerned about privacy and consequently the only legal recourse is reliance on the courts to police (only the grossest) privacy violations. Second, and more important than the legal solutions, is technological action - building privacy standards into new technologies.

Download Presentations:

Daphne Gilbert, Seeking Equality Anonymously: Naming names in Section 15 litigation
Paul de Hert, Trumping surveillance with anonimity or with opacity? A European Perspective
A. Michael Froomkin, Anonymity Law in the US: Latest Developments, Familiar Problems