<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;asylum&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:15:04 PST</pubDate>
<title>Classic Function Creep As EU Police May Gain Access To Asylum Seekers Fingerprint Database</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/07503321487/classic-function-creep-as-eu-police-may-gain-access-to-asylum-seekers-fingerprint-database.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/07503321487/classic-function-creep-as-eu-police-may-gain-access-to-asylum-seekers-fingerprint-database.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>As Techdirt readers well know, one of the problems with measures brought in for "exceptional situations" -- be it fighting terrorism or tackling child pornography -- is that once in place, they have a habit of being applied more generally.  A case in point is the blocking of Newzbin2 by BT in the UK.  That was possible because BT had already installed its "Cleanfeed" system to block child pornography: once in place, this "specialized" censorship system could easily be <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09330517181/how-even-highly-targeted-censorship-can-lead-to-overblocking.shtml">deployed</a> to block quite different sites.
</p><p>
Another, more recent, case from the EU involves <a href="http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/Supervision/Eurodac">Eurodac</a>, <a href="http://www.dw.de/eu-fingerprint-plan-alarms-human-rights-groups/a-16465294">a database with fingerprint information provided by asylum seekers</a> there.  Here's the original justification for storing them:

<i><blockquote>The database was originally established in 2000 so EU nations could check whether an asylum seeker had previously applied for asylum in another European country or was receiving social benefits from another EU country. According to EU law, asylum seekers can apply for asylum only in the EU nation where they first entered the bloc.</blockquote></i>

But the politicians have noticed that this biometric data could be handy in quite different circumstances:

<i><blockquote>such a rich source of existing data has recently sparked the interest of other parties. If the EU Commission's requests are followed, Eurodac fingerprint data will be accessible to police officers during investigations. The commission's proposal envisions national law enforcement agencies and Europe's supranational criminal police commission, Interpol, being able to access the database.</blockquote></i>

Of course, allowing the police to check people's fingerprints in this way would have serious implications for privacy. Indeed, Peter Hustinx, head of the European Data Protection Supervisor, has already weighed in on the subject:

<i><blockquote>"Just because data is being collected doesn't mean that it should be used for another purpose, especially since that can have a hugely negative effect on the lives of individuals," said Peter Hustinx, head of the European Data Protection Supervisor.</blockquote></i>

And that really is the nub of the issue: people who agree to provide highly-personal data for one purpose, may then find it being used for another, without being asked.  And if the European Commission gets its way, even more data will be shared:

<i><blockquote>"The Commission would generally like to widen its collection of data and make available any information regarding criminal prosecutions," [Green Party MEP] Keller said. "One example is the so-called 'Smart Borders' package, which actually wasn't proposed this round but has been in the pipeline for a long time. The idea there is that in the future anyone from non-EU countries that would like to travel into the EU will be recorded electronically, which also includes fingerprints."</blockquote></i>

As more and more biometric data is collected around the world, this kind of function creep is likely to become increasingly common.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/07503321487/classic-function-creep-as-eu-police-may-gain-access-to-asylum-seekers-fingerprint-database.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/07503321487/classic-function-creep-as-eu-police-may-gain-access-to-asylum-seekers-fingerprint-database.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121226/07503321487/classic-function-creep-as-eu-police-may-gain-access-to-asylum-seekers-fingerprint-database.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>exceptionally-common-situations</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121226/07503321487</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Sep 2008 14:34:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Appeals Court Tells Homeland Security That Wikipedia Alone Isn't Sufficient Evidence For Refusing Asylum To A Refugee</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080903/0338062155.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080903/0338062155.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While I tend to think that Wikipedia is a good thing overall, that's because I know it's not a source that should be relied on <i>by itself</i> for important decisions -- such as whether or not to grant political asylum to an individual.  It can be useful as a starting point, if that information can be corroborated elsewhere.  Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security felt otherwise in 
<a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/asylum-seeker-r.html" target="_new">using Wikipedia to deny a request for asylum for a woman</a>.  An Appeals Court has now overturned that decision, noting the problems with using Wikipedia as a sole source of info, but the whole scenario should make you wonder.  Did DHS really not have the ability to check the legitimacy of the woman's documents without resorting to Wikipedia?  What sort of resources are provided to immigration officials that they're making judgments based on a Wikipedia page?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080903/0338062155.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080903/0338062155.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080903/0338062155.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>DHS-didn't-realize-this?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080903/0338062155</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>