View source for Privacy International

{{Short description|UK-based non-profit company}}
{{Use British English |date=December 2012}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2020}}
{{Infobox organization
| name   = Privacy International
| abbreviation = PI
| logo   =[[File:PI logo.png|200px]]
| caption = Logo of Privacy International
| type   = [[Human rights]] [[charitable organization|charity]]
| registration_id   = Charity: [http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1147471 1147471] ([[Charity Commission for England and Wales|E&W]]); company: 04354366 ([[Companies House|E&W]])
| founded_date      = {{Start date|1990}}
| founder           = [[Simon Davies (privacy advocate)|Simon Davies]]
| headquarters          = [[London]], [[United Kingdom]]
| origins           =
| leader_title = Executive Director
| leader_name = [[Gus Hosein]]
| leader_title2 = Board Chair
| leader_name2 = Joshua Castellino
| area_served       = International
| product           =
| focus             = [[Surveillance]] and [[privacy]] [[wikt:watchdog|watchdog]]
| method            =
| revenue           =
| endowment         =
| num_volunteers    =
| staff     = 25<ref>{{cite web |title=PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL - Charity 1147471 |url=https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0&regid=1147471 |website=register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk |publisher=Charity Commission |access-date=8 April 2024}}</ref>
| staff_year = 2023
| main_organ = Board
| num_members       =
| subsid            =
| owner             =
| dissolved         =
| homepage          = {{URL|https://privacyinternational.org}}
| footnotes         =
}}
'''Privacy International''' ('''PI''') is a UK-based [[charitable organization|registered charity]]<ref name="Charity Commission">{{cite web |url=http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1147471 |title=1147471 – Privacy International |publisher=[[Charity Commission for England and Wales]] |date=28 May 2012<!-- registration date --> |access-date=21 December 2012 }}</ref> that defends and promotes the [[right to privacy]] across the world. First formed in 1990, registered as a [[nonprofit organization|non-profit company]] in 2002 and as a charity in 2012, PI is based in [[London]]. Its current executive director, since 2012, is Dr Gus Hosein.

==Formation, background and objectives==
During 1990, in response to increasing awareness about the [[globalisation|globalization]] of [[surveillance]], more than a hundred privacy experts and [[human rights]] organizations from forty countries took steps to form an international organization for the protection of privacy.<ref>{{cite book |author=Colin J. Bennett |title=Regulating privacy: data protection & public policy in Europe and the United States |url=https://archive.org/details/regulatingprivac00benn |url-access=registration |year=1992 |publisher=Cornell University Press |page=[https://archive.org/details/regulatingprivac00benn/page/248 248] |isbn=9780801426117 }}</ref>

Members of the new body, including [[computer]] professionals, [[academia|academics]], [[lawyer]]s, [[journalist]]s, [[jurist]]s, and [[human rights activists|activists]], had a common interest in promoting an international understanding of the importance of [[privacy]] and [[Information privacy|data protection]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog?cmd%5b347%5d=x-347-145834 |title=Interim report to members, 1990–1991 |publisher=Privacy International |access-date=31 July 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120910195419/https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog?cmd%2525255b347%2525255d=x-347-145834 |archive-date=10 September 2012 }}</ref> Meetings of the group, which took the name Privacy International (PI), were held throughout that year in [[North America]], [[Europe]], [[Asia]], and the [[Oceania|South Pacific]], and members agreed to work toward the establishment of new forms of privacy advocacy at the international level. The initiative was convened and personally funded by British privacy activist [[Simon Davies (privacy advocate)|Simon Davies]] who served as director of the organization until June 2012.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/people/simon-davies |title=Simon Davies |publisher=Privacy International |access-date=21 December 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121203070719/https://www.privacyinternational.org/people/simon-davies |archive-date=3 December 2012}}</ref>

At the time, privacy advocacy within the non-government sector was fragmented and regionalized, while at the regulatory level there was little communication between privacy officials outside the [[European Union]]. Awareness of privacy issues at the international level was generated primarily through academic publications and international news reports but privacy campaigning at an international level until that time had not been feasible.<ref>For a comprehensive analysis of the international privacy regulatory environment of that era see David H Flaherty, ''Protecting privacy in surveillance societies''; University of North Carolina Press, 1989</ref>

While there had for some years existed an annual international meeting of privacy regulators, the formation of Privacy International was the first successful attempt to establish a global focus on this emerging area of human rights. PI evolved as an independent, non-government network with the primary role of advocacy and support, but largely failed in its first decade to become a major international player. Most of its early campaigns were focused on [[Southeast Asia]].<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973251,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101122035005/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973251,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=22 November 2010 |title=Peddling Big Brother |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=24 June 1991 |access-date=31 July 2012 }}</ref>

From 2011, Privacy International began to formalize and condense its operations. It is now a UK-registered charity (number 1147471)<ref name="Charity Commission"/> with twenty full-time members of staff<ref>{{cite web|title=staff page|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/staff|website=Privacy International|access-date=21 February 2017}}</ref> and an office in Central London. As part of restructuring, an informal advisory board was replaced in 2012 by a managing 9 member board of [[trustees]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Trustee list|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/trustees|access-date=21 February 2017}}</ref> including investigative journalist [[Heather Brooke]] and technologist [[Jerry Fishenden]]. The restructuring also established three major program areas: contesting surveillance, challenging data exploitation, and building a global privacy movement.<ref>{{cite web|title=3 Programs|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/projects|access-date=21 February 2017}}</ref>

Privacy International's Articles of Association state that the charity's objective is to promote the human right of privacy throughout the world, as set out in the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] and subsequent United Nations conventions and declarations; specifically:<ref>{{Cite web|title=History {{!}} Privacy International|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/about/history|access-date=2021-04-18|website=www.privacyinternational.org}}</ref>

* To raise awareness of, to conduct research about, and to provide educational materials regarding threats to personal privacy;
* To monitor and report on surveillance methods and tactics employed against individuals and groups;
* To work at national and international levels toward the provision of strong and effective privacy protections;
* To monitor the nature, effectiveness and extent of measures to protect privacy, and to seek ways through information technology to protect personal information;
* To seek ways through which information technology can be used in the protection of privacy.

Privacy International has been funded and supported by a variety of foundations, academic establishments, and [[non-governmental organization|non-government organizations]], including the [[Adessium Foundation]],<ref>{{Cite web|title=Adessium Foundation|url=https://www.adessium.org/|access-date=2021-04-08|website=Adessium Foundation|language=en-US}}</ref> the [[Open Society Foundations]], the International Research Development Centre,<ref>{{Cite web|title=IDRC - International Development Research Centre|url=https://www.idrc.ca/en|access-date=2021-04-08|website=www.idrc.ca|language=en}}</ref> the [[European Parliament]], the [[European Commission]], the [[Rowntree trusts|Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust]], the [[Esmée Fairbairn Foundation]], the [[University of Toronto]]'s Canada Centre for Global Security Studies in the [[Munk School of Global Affairs]], the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], the [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]], [[The Fund for Constitutional Government]], the Stern Foundation, the Privacy Foundation, the [[German Marshall Fund]], the [[University of New South Wales]], the German Permanent Mission to the UN, the Oak Foundation, the Renewable Freedom Foundation, the [[Omidyar Network]], the Roughley Charitable Trust, the [[Swedish International Development Agency]], and the Street Foundation.<ref>{{cite web|title=2015 public audited financial statement|url=https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/Audited%20Financial%20Statement%202014-2015.pdf|website=Privacy International|access-date=21 February 2017}}</ref> It also receives a small amount of finance via contributions.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/financial |title=Financials |publisher=Privacy International |year=2012 |access-date=22 December 2012 }}</ref>

==Campaigns, networking and research==
<!-- [[File:Privacy International 2007 privacy ranking map.png|thumb|300px|Privacy International 2007 privacy ranking]] -->
Throughout the 1990s, Privacy International was active in [[North America]], [[Europe]], and [[Southeast Asia]], where it liaised with local human rights organizations to raise awareness about the development of national surveillance systems. From 2001 to 2010, the organization shifted much of its focus to issues concerning the EU and the [[United States]]. From 2011 onward, activities expanded to include a more aggressive program of legal action and international advocacy, particularly in the global south.<ref>{{cite web|title=Building a Global Privacy Movement|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/42|website=Privacy International|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref>

Since the late 1990s, the organization's campaigns, media activities and projects have focused on a wide spectrum of issues, including [[Internet privacy]], international government cooperation, [[passenger name record]] transfers, [[Information privacy|data protection]] law, [[counter-terrorism|anti-terrorism]] developments, [[freedom of information]], [[Internet censorship]], identity systems, [[corporate governance]], the appointment of privacy regulators, cross-border data flows, [[data retention]], [[procedural law|judicial process]], government consultation procedures, [[information security]], [[national security]], [[computer crime|cybercrime]], and aspects of around a hundred technologies and technology applications ranging from [[closed-circuit television|video surveillance]] to [[DNA profiling]].

The PI network has also been used by [[law reform]] and [[human rights]] organizations in more than forty countries to campaign on local privacy issues. In [[Thailand]] and the [[Philippines]], for example, Privacy International worked with local human rights bodies to develop national campaigns against the establishment of government [[Identity document|identity card]] systems. In [[Canada]], [[New Zealand]], the [[United States]], [[Hungary]], [[Australia]], and the [[United Kingdom]] it has promoted privacy issues through national [[mass media|media]] and through public campaigns. In [[Central Europe|Central]] and [[Eastern Europe]], PI has been active in promoting government accountability through [[Freedom of information laws by country|Freedom of information legislation]].

PI monitors the activities of international organizations, including the [[European Union]], the [[Council of Europe]], and [[United Nations]] agencies. It has conducted numerous studies and reports, and provides commentary and analysis of contemporary policy and technology issues.

The charity is relatively small, comprising twenty full-time staff and a number of volunteers and interns. However the core team is supported in its project work by a collaborative network of around a hundred organizations in the fields of civil liberties, academia, technology assessment and human rights. These include, or have included, the [[American Civil Liberties Union]], the [[Australian Privacy Foundation]], the [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]] (US), [[Statewatch]] (UK), the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (US), [[European Digital Rights]], [[Consumers International]], the Foundation for Information Policy Research (UK), Liberty (UK), the [[Hungarian Civil Liberties Union]], the Moscow Human Rights Network, [[Amnesty International]], Privacy Ukraine, [[Quintessenz]] (Austria), [[Human Rights Watch]], Bits of Freedom (Netherlands), freedominfo.org, [[Index on Censorship]], the [[Association for Progressive Communications]], the Global Internet Liberty Campaign, [[Charter88]] (UK), the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates, and the Thai Civil Liberties Union.

PI also has partners in developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, under the auspices of the Global South Program. The partners are:

# Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC), Argentina
# Coding Rights, Brazil
# Derechos Digitales, Chile
# The Center for Law, Justice and Society (Dejusticia), Colombia
# Fundación Karisma, Colombia
# The [[Centre for Internet and Society (India)]] (CIS), India
# The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM), Indonesia
# The National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders Kenya (NCHRD-K), Kenya
# [[Digital Rights Foundation]] (DRF), Pakistan
# [[BytesForAll]] (B4A), Pakistan
# The [[Foundation for Media Alternatives]] (FMA), Philippines
# The Unwanted Witness, Uganda
# Privacy LatAm, Brazil
# The [[Right2Know]] Campaign (R2K), South Africa
# The Media Policy and Democracy Project, South Africa
# TEDIC, Paraguay
# Social Media Exchange (SMEX), Lebanon
# Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales (R3D), Mexico

==Key activities==
===Legal actions===
Privacy International's legal actions against governments and companies include the following cases:
# ''In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized during the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203'' ("''Apple v. FBI''"), relating to [[FBI–Apple encryption dispute|the FBI's request to Apple to break the encryption on an iPhone]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Brief of Amici Curiae: Privacy International and Human Rights Watch|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/Amicus%20Brief%20-%20PI%20and%20HRW.pdf|publisher=Privacy International|access-date=23 February 2017|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171016155902/https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/Amicus%20Brief%20-%20PI%20and%20HRW.pdf|archive-date=2017-10-16}}</ref>
# Several actions before the UK [[Investigatory Powers Tribunal]], and subsequently the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|Supreme Court]] and [[European Court of Human Rights]], against, among others, the UK [[Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs|Foreign Secretary]] and [[GCHQ]], and also involving other parties,<ref>{{cite web|title=Investigatory Powers Tribunal Judgement June 22 2015|url=http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Final_Liberty_Ors_Open_Determination_Amended.pdf|publisher=Investigatory Powers Tribunal|access-date=2 March 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Privacy International v. Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office<!--sic--> et al.|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/66|publisher=Privacy International|access-date=15 April 2023|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171016194747/https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/66|archive-date=2017-10-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Government Communications Headquarters|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/Hacking_Judgment.pdf|publisher=Privacy International|access-date=15 April 2023|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171016182648/https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/Hacking_Judgment.pdf|archive-date=2017-10-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Legal action file|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/1.%20Closed%20Response%20of%20the%20Respondents%20to%20the%20Claimant%27s%20Request%20for%20further%20information%20and%20disclosure%20.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161016041012/https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/1.%20Closed%20Response%20of%20the%20Respondents%20to%20the%20Claimant%27s%20Request%20for%20further%20information%20and%20disclosure%20.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=16 October 2016|website=Privacy International|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite BAILII|litigants=R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others|court=UKSC|year=2019|num=22|parallelcite=[2020] AC 491, [2019] 4 All ER 1, [2019] HRLR 13, [2019] 2 WLR 1219|date=15 May 2019|courtname=auto|juris=auto}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=''Privacy International and Others v United Kingdom'' (ECHR application no. 46259/16) |via=Privacy International |date=7 July 2020 |url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/1.%20Closed%20Response%20of%20the%20Respondents%20to%20the%20Claimant%27s%20Request%20for%20further%20information%20and%20disclosure%20.pdf<!--Square brackets URL-encoded, otherwise they break wiki markup--> |access-date=15 April 2023 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171016185543/https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/1.%20Closed%20Response%20of%20the%20Respondents%20to%20the%20Claimant's%20Request%20for%20further%20information%20and%20disclosure%20.pdf |archive-date=2017-10-16}}</ref> relating to the British security services' computer hacking and involvement in [[PRISM]]
# Complaints to the [[National Cyber Crime Unit]] and the [[OECD]] on behalf of Bahraini activists against British suppliers of malware to Bahraini authorities alleging that they were accessory to unlawful telephone and internet interception and breaching OECD guidance<ref>{{cite web|title=Criminal complaint to National Cyber Crime Unit on behalf of Bahraini activists|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/84|publisher=Privacy International|access-date=15 April 2023 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171015085221/https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/84 |archive-date=2017-10-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=OECD complaint: Trovicor exporting surveillance technology to Bahrain|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/56|website=Privacy International|access-date=23 February 2017|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171016194828/https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/56|archive-date=2017-10-16}}</ref>
# Complaint to the OECD about UK telecommunications companies' involvement in GCHQ spying<ref>{{cite web|title=OECD complaint against BT, Verizon Enterprise, Vodafone Cable, Viatel, Level 3, and Interoute|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/79|publisher=Privacy International|access-date=15 April 2023 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171016194714/https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/79 |archive-date=2017-10-16}}</ref>
# ''R (Privacy International) v Commissioner for HM Revenue and Customs'', on whether [[HM Revenue and Customs|HMRC]] is permitted or required to give third parties information about its decisions, in particular on their decisions whether to prosecute, in the context of export controls on malware sold to repressive regimes<ref>{{cite BAILII|litigants=R (Privacy International) v Commissioner for HM Revenue and Customs|court=EWHC|division=Admin|year=2014|num=1475|parallelcite=[2014] WLR(D) 234, [2015] 1 WLR 397, [2015] STC 948, [2015] WLR 397, [2014] BTC 25|date=12 May 2014|courtname=auto|juris=auto}}</ref>

===Investigations===
Privacy International has conducted investigations on Thailand,<ref>{{cite book|title=Who's That Knocking at My Door? Understanding Surveillance in Thailand|date=January 2017|publisher=Privacy International|url=https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/thailand_2017_0.pdf|access-date=23 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170128153516/https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/thailand_2017_0.pdf|archive-date=28 January 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> Syria,<ref>{{cite book|title=Open Season: Building Syria's Surveillance State|publisher=Privacy International|location=December 2016|url=https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/OpenSeason_0.pdf|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref> Egypt,<ref>{{cite book|title=The President's Men? Inside the Technical Research Department, the secret player in Egypt's intelligence infrastructure|date=February 2016|publisher=Privacy International|url=https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/egypt_reportEnglish.pdf|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref> Uganda,<ref>{{cite book|title=For God and My President: State Surveillance in Uganda|date=October 2015|publisher=Privacy International|url=https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/Uganda_Report_1.pdf|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref> Colombia,<ref>{{cite book|title=Demand/Supply: Exposing the Surveillance Industry in Colombia|date=September 2015|publisher=Privacy International|url=https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/DemandSupply_English.pdf|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref> Pakistan,<ref>{{cite book|title=Tipping the scales: Security and Surveillance in Pakistan|date=July 2015|publisher=Privacy International|url=https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/PAKISTAN%20REPORT%20HIGH%20RES%2020150721_0.pdf|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref> and Central Asia.<ref>{{cite book|title=Private Interests: Monitoring Central Asia|date=November 2014|publisher=Privacy International|url=https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/Private%20Interests%20with%20annex_0.pdf|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref>

===Research projects===
PI has published around forty major research reports. These include studies on Internet censorship,<ref>''Silenced: censorship and control of the Internet'', 2003</ref> communications data retention,<ref>''Briefing for Members of the European Parliament on Data Retention'', September 2005</ref> counter-terrorism policies in the EU and the US,<ref>''Threatening the Open Society: Comparing Anti-terror Policies and Strategies in the U.S. and Europe'', December 2005</ref> SWIFT auditing processes,<ref>''Booz Allen Not An Independent Check on SWIFT Surveillance: A Memo by the American Civil Liberties Union and Privacy International''</ref> travel surveillance,<ref>''Regulatory challenges for the US and EU airlines and passengers: current & future challenges''</ref> secrecy provisions and protection of sources,<ref>''Legal Protections and Barriers on the Right to Information, State Secrets and Protection of Sources in OSCE Participating States''</ref> [[Internet privacy]],<ref>''A Race to the Bottom: Privacy Ranking of Internet Service Companies'', June 2007</ref> policy laundering,<ref>''Privacy and Cyberspace: Questioning the Need for Harmonisation'', July 2005</ref> [[free expression]] and privacy,<ref>''Politics of the Information Society: The Bordering and Restraining of Global Data Flows'', [[UNESCO]] 2004</ref> the [[US-VISIT]] program,<ref>''The enhanced US border surveillance system: an assessment of the implications of US-VISIT'', September 2004</ref> [[identity cards]] and counter-terrorism,<ref>''Mistaken Identity; Exploring the Relationship Between National Identity Cards & the Prevention of Terrorism'', April 2004</ref> [[encryption]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Securing Safe Spaces Online|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/Securing%20Safe%20Spaces%20Online_2.pdf|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref> the global surveillance industry,<ref>{{cite web|title=The Global Surveillance Industry|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/global_surveillance.pdf|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref> the UK's 2016 [[Investigatory Powers Act 2016|Investigatory Powers Bill]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Submission to the Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/Submission_IPB_Joint_Committee.pdf|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref> gender issues and the right to privacy,<ref>{{cite web|title=International Women's Day 2016|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/iwd_2016.pdf}}</ref> and [[medical privacy]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Medical privacy and security in developing countries and emergency situations|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/924}}</ref>

===PI called on Swiss government to withdraw export licenses for monitoring technology===
In 2013, Privacy International publicized the links between several Swiss-based companies and the export of surveillance technologies to authoritarian regimes including Turkmenistan and Oman and called on the Swiss government to withdraw relevant export licenses.<ref>{{cite web|title=Gamma attempting to export surveillance tech out of Switzerland|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/432|website=Privacy International|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref> The Swiss government later withdrew all export licenses for [[internet surveillance|internet monitoring]] technology as well as several for mobile phone monitoring technology that were awaiting approval.

===European Data Protection Law===
From 2012 to 2015, Privacy International lobbied for greater data protection laws in Europe during formation of the [[General Data Protection Regulation]] (GDPR). While praising certain provisions including the expansion of people's rights over personal data, Privacy International claims potential loop holes and vague language make the GDPR fall short of fully safeguarding against unique 21st century threats to data protection.<ref>{{cite web|title=New EU data protection laws: ok, but a tremendous missed opportunity with possible threats looming|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/689|website=Privacy International}}</ref>

===The International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance ===
In 2013, Privacy International together with Access Now and the Electronic Frontier Foundation launched the "International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance".  These principles can provide civil society groups, industry, States, and others with a framework to evaluate whether current or proposed surveillance laws and practices are consistent with international human rights law.<ref>{{cite web|title=Necessary and Proportionate|url=https://necessaryandproportionate.org|website=Necessary and Proportionate|access-date=2 March 2017}}</ref>

===Big Brother Incorporated===
In 1995, PI published a report on the international trade in surveillance technology, entitled ''Big Brother Incorporated'' and focusing on the sale of technologies by companies in Western countries to repressive regimes intent on using them as tools of political control. However, governments and regulators did not intervene and regulate the surveillance industry, the value of which is now estimated at around $5 billion a year. Exports of surveillance technology to foreign regimes are still wholly at the discretion of the exporter.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/big-brother-incorporated-1995 |title=Big Brother Incorporated 1995 |date=22 November 1995 |access-date=21 December 2012 }}</ref>

PI therefore commenced a second investigation in June 2011. The project, also called Big Brother Incorporated, uses a blend of research and investigation, public campaigning, political engagement, and strategic litigation to bring to light the abuses of the surveillance industry and to campaign for proper government regulation, specifically export control regimes.

In December 2011, Privacy International released documents collected from a number of surveillance trade shows and conferences (most prominently the ISS World conference in Washington DC) in collaboration with [[WikiLeaks]], [[BuggedPlanet]], [[The Bureau of Investigative Journalism]], ''[[The Washington Post]]'', ''[[l'espresso]]'', ''[[The Hindu]]'', [[ARD (broadcaster)|ARD]], and {{Interlanguage link multi|OWNI|fr}}.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Wikileaks exposes surveillance deals in Spy Files |url=https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/networking/wikileaks-exposes-surveillance-deals-in-spy-files/ |access-date=2023-07-27 |website=ZDNET |language=en}}</ref> The ''Spy Files'' included brochures, catalogues, technical specifications, contracts, and price lists for the products of around 160 companies.

During 2012, there was growing international awareness of the problems inherent in the rise of the surveillance industry and increasing momentum towards stricter regulation of surveillance technology exports. In March 2012, the EU banned the export of monitoring equipment to the [[Iran]]ian authorities.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Documents/Communication_news_0412.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120414034158/http://twobirds.com/English/News/Documents/Communication_news_0412.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=14 April 2012 |title=EU prohibits Iranian sales of equipment and technology that can be used to monitor and intercept communications |publisher=[[Bird & Bird]] |date=April 2012 |access-date=21 December 2012}}</ref> The following month, a [[European Parliament]] resolution calling for stricter oversight of companies selling equipment to countries such as [[Syria]] or [[China]] was passed overwhelmingly, with 580 votes for, 28 against, and 74 abstentions. In July 2012, the French Minister for the Digital Economy, [[Fleur Pellerin]], announced her opposition to exports of surveillance technology to repressive regimes during a radio show hosted by ''[[Le Monde]]'' and public broadcaster [[France Culture]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://reflets.info/is-france-about-to-end-exporting-surveillance-technology/ |title=Is France about to End Exporting Surveillance Technology? |work=Reflets.info |date=24 July 2012 |access-date=21 December 2012 }}</ref> In September 2012, comments made by the [[Minister for Foreign Affairs (Germany)|German Foreign Minister]] at an Internet and Human Rights conference in Berlin were interpreted by the German media as a clear statement of intent to push for tighter controls of EU surveillance technology exports at a national and European level.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/sid_D3B8FE45217F035AA957933304B4A845/DE/Infoservice/Presse/Reden/2012/120914-BM_Internet_MR.html |title=Rede von Außenminister Guido Westerwelle anlässlich der Konferenz|trans-title=Speech by Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle at the conference "The Internet and Human Rights: Building a free, open and secure Internet" |publisher=[[Foreign Office (Germany)|German Federal Foreign Office]] |date=14 September 2012 |access-date=22 December 2012 |language=de}}</ref>

===The SWIFT affair===
In June 2006, ''[[The New York Times]]'' and the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' published details of a private arrangement between [[Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication]] (SWIFT) and the United States Government that involved the mass covert disclosure to the US of customer financial data. SWIFT is a cooperative involving around 8,000 financial institutions. It handles the secure messaging process at the heart of the majority of financial transfers worldwide, amounting to around $2,000 trillion per year.

The following week PI filed simultaneous complaints with Data Protection and Privacy regulators in 38 countries concerning the secret disclosures of records. The complaints alleged that the transfers violated EU law.

The PI complaints sparked a series of regulatory and legal actions that have ultimately forced SWIFT to re-evaluate its practices. The organisation has now agreed to move its data operations to Switzerland where US authorities have no jurisdiction.

===The Big Brother Awards===
In 1998, Privacy International took the decision to start an international gong called the [[Big Brother Awards]] to be given to the most influential and persistent privacy invaders, as well as to people and organizations who have excelled in defending privacy. To date, 75 awards ceremonies have been held as annual events in 17 countries including Japan, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Australia. France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, the United States, Spain, Finland and the United Kingdom.

===The Stupid Security competition===
In January 2003, PI launched an international competition to discover the world's "most pointless, intrusive and self-serving security initiatives". The "Stupid Security" award highlighted measures which are pointless and illusory, and which cause unnecessary distress, annoyance and unintended danger to the public. The competition resulted in over five thousand nominations from around the world. The winners were announced at the [[Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference]] in New York on 3 April that year.

===Google Street View===
In March 2009, following the addition of 25 UK cities to Google's [[Google Street View|Street View]] service, Privacy International sent a formal complaint about the service to the UK [[Information Commissioner's Office]] (ICO). The complaint cited more than 200 reports from members of the public who were identifiable on images hosted by the service. Privacy International director Simon Davies said that the organization had filed the complaint due to the "clear embarrassment and damage" Street View had caused on many Britons. He said that Street View fell short of the assurances given to the ICO that had enabled its UK launch and asked for the system to be "switched off" while an investigation was completed.<ref>Strachan, L. A. (n.d.). Re-mapping privacy law: How the Google maps scandal requires tort law reform. Retrieved October 23, 2020, from Richmond.edu website: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=law-student-publications</ref>

The ICO had given permission for the launch of the service in July 2008 based partly on Google's assurances that it would blur faces and vehicle licence plates to protect privacy. In its complaint, PI said that Google's claim that its face blurring system would result in a few misses was a "gross underestimation" and meant that the data used by Street View would fall under the UK's [[Data Protection Act 1998]], which requires that subjects give permission for the use of information concerning them.<ref>{{cite news |title=Call to 'shut down' Street View |work=[[BBC News Online]] |date=24 March 2009 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7959362.stm }}</ref> However, the ICO rejected PI's complaint, noting that removing the service would be "disproportionate to the relatively small risk of privacy detriment" and that "Google Street View does not contravene the Data Protection Act and, in any case, it is not in the public interest to turn the digital clock back".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/networking/privacy-watchdog-clears-googles-street-view/ |title=Privacy watchdog clears Google's Street View |work=[[ZDNet]] |date=1 August 2008 |access-date=22 December 2012 }}</ref>

===NSA-GCHQ tribunal case===

In February 2015 PI and other claimants<ref>[http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15.pdf /Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15.pdf] won a judgment in the [[Tribunals in the United Kingdom|UK Tribunal]]. {{Archive url|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150209025141/http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15.pdf|date=February 9, 2015}}</ref> won a judgment from the [[Tribunals in the United Kingdom|UK Tribunal]] that the [[mass surveillance]] conducted by the [[GCHQ]] with data from the [[NSA]] was illegal up to December 2014, being in violation of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] and lacking the necessary legal framework,<ref>[https://www.privacyinternational.org/?q=node/485 Victory! UK surveillance tribunal finds GCHQ-NSA intelligence sharing unlawful]</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine|title=UK Tribunal Declares NSA's Data-Sharing with British Intel Illegal|language=en-us|magazine=Wired|url=https://www.wired.com/2015/02/uk-tribunal-declares-nsas-data-sharing-british-intel-illegal/|access-date=2021-02-19|issn=1059-1028}}</ref> whereupon PI launched a campaign enabling anyone in the world to ascertain (eventually) if the GCHQ illegally had their data from the NSA.<ref>[https://www.privacyinternational.org/?q=illegalspying Did GCHQ illegally spy on you?]</ref>

==PI and public controversy==
Privacy International's unconventional and sometimes aggressive approach to privacy advocacy has at times resulted in controversy and a questioning of its motives.

The most notable political controversy surrounding the organization was sparked in 2005 when [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British Prime Minister]] [[Tony Blair]] and [[Home Secretary]] [[Charles Clarke]] publicly accused PI's director and founder [[Simon Davies (privacy advocate)|Simon Davies]] of covertly using his academic affiliation with the [[London School of Economics]] (LSE) to undermine the government's plans for a [[Identity Cards Act 2006|national identity card]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4651299.stm |title=ID cards academic attacks Clarke |work=[[BBC News Online]] |date=5 July 2005 |access-date=31 July 2012 }}</ref> The LSE Director Sir Howard Davies strongly rebutted this charge.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4643467.stm |title=Academics 'bullied' over ID cards |work=[[BBC News Online]] |date=2 July 2005 |access-date=31 July 2012 }}</ref> The government's intent was apparently to raise doubts about the accuracy of the report in several areas and in particular, the manner in which projected cost estimates had been calculated (based on figures developed by the independent IT analysis company, Kable), and what it called "selective and misleading use of evidence regarding [[biometrics]] and a failure to include any natural scientists to inform the report despite the significant claims made about biometrics and the accuracy of biometric technologies".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/downloads/Response-LSE-Alternative-Blueprint.pdf |archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081105214014/http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/downloads/Response-LSE-Alternative-Blueprint.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=5 November 2008 |title=ips.gov.uk |publisher=[[Identity and Passport Service]] |access-date=31 July 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/downloads/2005-11-23-mm-burnham-angell-public-sector-use-and-implementation-of-ID-cards-HB.pdf |title=ips.gov.uk |publisher=[[Identity and Passport Service]] |date=23 November 2005 |access-date=31 July 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071224082758/http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/downloads/2005-11-23-mm-burnham-angell-public-sector-use-and-implementation-of-ID-cards-HB.pdf |archive-date=24 December 2007 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1032/1032we08.htm |title=Memorandum from Dr John Daugman, University of Cambridge |publisher=[[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] [[Science and Technology Select Committee]] |date=January 2006 |access-date=31 July 2012 }}</ref> Rather than address the issues raised by the report, several government politicians and their biometric experts instead chose to criticize the accuracy of the report, questioning whether the involvement of leading PI campaigners and well known opponents of identity cards meant that it could be considered unbiased. The episode is notable for the nature of its overtly political attack on an academic report from a leading UK university and its personalization of criticisms of Simon Davies. Even MPs who supported identity cards recognized that the government had entered new territory by undermining independent academic work on issues of legitimate contemporary interest.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1032/1032.pdf |title=Identity Card Technologies: Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence |publisher=[[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] [[Science and Technology Select Committee]]|date=20 July 2006 |access-date=31 July 2012 }}</ref>

The government's claims of bias were strenuously denied by Simon Davies and resulted in heated debate between Government and Opposition parties both in the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]]<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2005-06-28b.1171.2 |title=David Davis MP (HC Deb, 28 June 2005, c1171) |work=[[Hansard]] |publisher=[[TheyWorkForYou]] |date=28 June 2005 |access-date=22 December 2012 }}</ref> and the [[House of Lords]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2006-02-06c.448.0 |title=The Earl of Northesk (HL Deb, 6 February 2006, c448) |work=[[Hansard]] |publisher=[[TheyWorkForYou]] |date=6 February 2006 |access-date=22 December 2012 }}</ref> The coverage led Davies to draw comparisons of the argument with former government scientific advisor [[David Kelly (weapons expert)|David Kelly]] who took his life following an allegedly similar campaign.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2027759 |title='Hounding' could lead to another David Kelly case |work=[[Times Higher Education|Times Higher Education Supplement]] |date=10 February 2006 |access-date=31 July 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060302140437/http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2027759 |archive-date=2 March 2006 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In his 2006 autobiography,<ref>{{cite book |title=The Blunkett Tapes: My Life in the Bear Pit |author=David Blunkett |author-link=David Blunkett |date=15 October 2006 |publisher=Bloomsbury |page=797 |isbn=978-0747-58821-4 }}</ref> another former Home Secretary [[David Blunkett]] wrote "I am really sorry that the London School of Economics have allowed him (Davies) to even hint that he has any connection with them". Davies has lectured at the LSE since 1997 and continues to do so both as Visiting Fellow and as co-director of the LSE's Policy Engagement Network.

In June 2007 PI released an assessment of the privacy practices of selected online services.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/a-race-to-the-bottom-privacy-rankings-of-internet-service-companies |title=A Race to the Bottom: Privacy Ranking of Internet Service Companies |publisher=Privacy International |date=9 June 2007 |access-date=31 July 2012 }}</ref>

Simon Davies drew criticism for his apparent enthusiasm for aspects of [[Phorm]]'s model of operation, stating that "[PI] DOES NOT endorse Phorm, though we do applaud a number of developments in its process."<ref>{{cite news|last=Arthur|first=Charles|title=Your questions please for Kent Ertegrul, CEO of Phorm|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2008/mar/06/yourquestionspleaseforkent|series=The Guardian Technology Blog|work=The Guardian|access-date=30 May 2013|location=London|date=6 March 2008}}</ref> PI as a group has not published any analysis or comment concerning Phorm products.

In March 2009, following PI's criticism of [[Google Street View]] service, Davies sent an open letter to Google chief executive [[Eric Schmidt]], accusing the company of briefing journalists against him, by claiming Davies was biased in favor of Microsoft. Google pointed to connections between Microsoft and data protection consultancy [[80/20 Thinking]], run by Davies, and said that Davies's connections to Microsoft should be made clear in public, as the credibility of his criticisms was undermined by the fact that he acted as a consultant to companies who are direct rivals and critics of Google; a fact Davies rarely disclosed in press releases or comments.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Google 'trying to smear Street View critic' |newspaper=[[The Belfast Telegraph]] |date=28 March 2009 |url=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/technology-gadgets/google-trying-to-smear-street-view-critic-14247255.html }}</ref> 80/20 Thinking ceased operations in 2009.

==Privacy index==
Since 1997, Privacy International, in cooperation with the [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]] (EPIC), has conducted annual surveys<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2005/phrtable.pdf |title=National Privacy Ranking 2006 &mdash; European Union and Leading Surveillance Societies |publisher=Privacy International |year=2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120110142304/https://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2005/phrtable.pdf |archive-date=10 January 2012 }}</ref> in order to assess how much privacy nations' populations have from both corporative and [[government surveillance]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/surveillance-monitor-2007-international-country-rankings |title=Surveillance Monitor 2007: International country rankings |publisher=Privacy International |date=31 December 2007 |access-date=22 December 2012 |archive-date=8 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160108235258/https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/surveillance-monitor-2007-international-country-rankings |url-status=dead }}</ref> The last global report was in 2007. Currently PI publishes State of Privacy reports with its partners, researching the legal and political situation in each country, updated yearly. It also regularly submits country reports to the Universal Periodic Review and the Human Rights Council.<ref>{{cite web|title=State of Privacy Briefings|url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/state-of-privacy|website=Privacy International|access-date=23 February 2017}}</ref>

In January 2011, Privacy International, in cooperation with EPIC and the Center for Media and Communications Studies (CMCS) published the ''European Privacy and Human Rights 2010'' report, funded by the European Commission's Special Programme "Fundamental Rights and Citizenship", 2007–13. This was an investigation of the European landscape of national privacy and data protection laws and regulations, as well as other laws, jurisprudence, and recent factual developments with an impact on privacy. The study consisted of 33 targeted reports, an overview presenting a comparative legal and policy analysis of main privacy topics and a privacy ranking for all the countries surveyed.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/surveillance-monitor-2011-assessment-of-surveillance-across-europe |title=Surveillance Monitor 2011: Assessment of surveillance across Europe |publisher=Privacy International |date=28 January 2011 |access-date=22 December 2012 }}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Information privacy|Data protection]]

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==External links==
* [https://privacyinternational.org/ Official website]

{{Privacy}}
{{Politics country lists}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Charities based in London]]
[[Category:Global policy organizations]]
[[Category:International organisations based in London]]
[[Category:Organisations based in the London Borough of Islington]]
[[Category:Organizations established in 1990]]
[[Category:Privacy organizations]]