Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Copyright,1997-2004
1
Why PIAs ?
Roger ClarkeXamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra
Visiting Professor, Unis. of Hong Kong and U.N.S.W. Visiting Fellow, Dept of Computer Science, ANU
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/...
.../DV/PIAHist{.html, .ppt}
rev. 16 May 2004
Copyright,1997-2004
2
Why PIAs ?
Agenda
1. Privacy and Privacy Protection2. Advocate Motivations3. Sponsor Motivations
• Social Responsibility• Business Needs
4. Methods to Support Assessment5. Key Features of Effective PIAs
Copyright,1997-2004
3
PrivacyThe interest that individuals havein sustaining a 'personal space',
free from interferenceby other people and organisations
Dimensions of Privacy• Privacy of the Person• Privacy of Personal Behaviour• Privacy of Personal Communications• Privacy of Personal Data
Copyright,1997-2004
4
Privacy Protection
• Privacy can conflict with other interests:• personal conflict of interests• interests of another person• interests of a group or community• interests of an organisation• interests of society as a whole
• Privacy Protection is a process of finding appropriate balances between privacy and multiple competing interests
Copyright,1997-2004
5
Advocate Motivations
• Powerful parties • through ignorance, impose schemes
that unnecessarily compromise privacy• demand that privacy be compromised,
but that the interests of the powerful parties not be compromised
• Advocates want:• informed design which avoids
invasiveness where it’s practicable• compromise among all interests
Copyright,1997-2004
6
Sponsor Motivations(1) Social Responsibility
• On balance, we’d prefer to be nice• We do appreciate how powerful we
are, and how powerful the technologies are
• Us decision-makers are people to, and to some extent it’s our own and our children’s privacy that we’re invading
Copyright,1997-2004
7
Social Responsibilityand For-Profit Corporations
• Generally required by law to work for the good of the company, and thence shareholders
• Responsibility is only to the above• Precluded by law from having social
responsibility among its objectives• Must regard it only as a constraint
Copyright,1997-2004
8
Social Responsibility, andNot-For-Profits, Associations,
NGOs
• Generally not precluded by law from considering social responsibility
• Many have value-systems and objectives that lean towards social responsibility
• For some, social responsibility is central to their value-system and their objectives
Copyright,1997-2004
9
Social Responsibilityand Government Agencies
• Theory X:• Monarchy, Top-Down Society• Social Control, Authority• Mass Society before Individual Person
• Theory Y:• Government is of the people, but also
by the people, and for the people• Social Responsibility is fundamental
Copyright,1997-2004
10
Diversity Between Governments• Eastern Europe, Asia
cf. Longstanding Democracies• Entry Points now Business Gateway• eDemocracy Consulting Canadians• PIA Rules, Codes MBS ON, TBS Ottawa, ...
Diversity Within Government• National Security & Law Enforcement
cf. policy-formation cf. service-delivery
Copyright,1997-2004
11
Strategic Management Theoryfor For-Profit Corporations
‘Five Forces’ Shape Industry:• the bargaining power of Suppliers• the bargaining power of Buyers• the threat of New Entrants• the threat of Substitute Products• Rivalry among existing firms
(but Porter missed Regulatory Aspects!)
Copyright,1997-2004
12
Towards a Strategic Management Theory for
Government
Forces Shaping the Public Sector
• The Executive• The Parliament• International
Factors
• Business• Business Advocates
and Representatives
• ‘The Public’• ‘The Media’• Representatives of
and Advocates for:• The Public• Population
Segments
Copyright,1997-2004
13
Public Policy Factors
• Service Quality• Service Accessibility• Service Equity• Imposition of Effort and Cost• Imposition of Risks• Freedom of Information• Public Safety, OH&S• Privacy• ...
Copyright,1997-2004
14
Equity – Bases for Discrimination
• Physical Handicapssight, mobility, or capacity to use a keyboard or mouse
• Mental Handicapsinability to remember username/password pair, or carry a token
• Educational Handicapslack of understanding of prompts, or what to do with a token
• Lingual Handicapsinsufficient local language to understand instructions
• Locationin an institution, in a remote area, in a rural or regional area with outdated infrastructure or inadequate bandwidth, ex-country
• Lifestyle – traditional, seasonal worker, itinerant, ‘street kid’
Copyright,1997-2004
15
‘Persons-at-Risk’• People under the Direct Threat of Violence
• people concealing themselves from previous criminal associates
• victims of domestic violence• protected witnesses• people under fatwa
• Celebrities, Notorieties and VIPs• politicians• entertainers and sportspeople• people 'in the public eye', such as lottery-winners
• People in Security-Sensitive Roles • national security operatives, undercover police,
prison warders, and staff in psychiatric institutions
Copyright,1997-2004
16
Sponsor Motivations(2) Business Needs
• Return on Investment• Task Tfer / Cost Tfer / Enhanced Svce• User Adoption / Acceptance• Other-Stakeholder Acceptance
(3) Business Not-Needs• User Opposition• Other-Stakeholder Opposition• Bad Press, Embarrassed Ministers
Copyright,1997-2004
17
Antidotes
• Analysis of Stakeholders
• Information for Stakeholders
• Consultation with Stakeholders
• Participation of Stakeholders
Copyright,1997-2004
18
Stakeholder Analysis and Segmentation
• Sponsors• Service and Technology Providers• Users
• People• Business Enterprises and Associations• Govt agencies at varying levels of govt
• Usees / Clients / Regulatees• People• Business Enterprises and Associations
• The General Public
Copyright,1997-2004
19
Who To Consult With?
• Citizens / Consumers / Users / UseesThe people actually affected by the proposal
• RepresentativesUnderstand and can express the concerns of people within a particular population segment
• Public Interest AdvocatesUnderstand the technology, processes and issues
Different approaches are necessary
Copyright,1997-2004
20
Consultations with People
• Most people can’t cope with abstractions, and need concrete experiences
• So prime discussions with mockups, protoypes• Use Focus Group technique:
• diverse group of 6-12 people, preferably without prior knowledge of one another
• typically for 1.5 to 2.5 hours• a Moderator ‘focuses’ discussion on a
topic, but allows it to range across many aspects
Copyright,1997-2004
21
Consultations with Reps and Advocates
• Stakeholder Analysis and Segmentation• Search for Representatives and Advocates• Invitation to Participate• Background Paper• Consultation Workshop• Assimilation of information provided into:
• the Scheme Design• a PIA report
• Feedback
Copyright,1997-2004
22
The Role of Confidentialityin Consultative Processes
• The focus is on mutual confidence• Confidentiality is a spin-off• All parties may want some
protection• All parties may want to ‘fly kites’,
‘test the water’, or use ‘po’
Copyright,1997-2004
23
PRIVACY as a Strategic Factor
• Privacy is much more than mere Data Protection, and Fair Information Practices
• Elements of a Privacy Strategy• A Proactive Stance• An Express Strategy• An Articulated Plan• Resourcing• Monitoring of Performance against the
Plan
Copyright,1997-2004
24
Phases of an Organisational Privacy Strategy
• PreparatoryStudy, Consultation, Formulation, Internal Commitment, Articulation incl. Participation, Public Commitment
• EstablishmentPlanning, Embedment, Acculturation, Internal Implementation, Partner Implementation,Post-Implementation Review
• MaintenanceRe-training, Reinforcement, Internal Audit, External Audit, Strategic Review
Copyright,1997-2004
25
Elements of a Privacy Strategy and Plan
• Corporate Privacy Strategy• Assignment of Organisational Responsibility• Compliance with Laws, Codes, Guidelines,
etc.• Embedment in Technical Infrastructure• Embedment in Corporate Procedures
• proposals for project initiation• conduct of development projects• privacy impact assessment• post-implementation review• audit, both periodic, and on-demand
• Stakeholder Consultative Arrangements
Copyright,1997-2004
26
Privacy Impact Assessment
A processthat surfaces and examines
potential impacts and implications
of privacy-invasive proposals
Copyright,1997-2004
27
Objectives of the PIA Process• Clearly define:
• business needs• stakeholder groups• privacy impacts
and implications• Enable understanding
and assessment of the proposal
• Enable mutual understanding of stakeholder perspectives
• Ensure reflection of stakeholder perspectives in the outcomes
• Enable:• maximisation of positive
impacts• avoidance or amelioration
of negative impacts• Maximise the likelihood of
stakeholder support• Avoid new requirements
emerging late• Earn public confidence• Raise awareness, educate • Anticipate and avoid
misinformation campaigns
Copyright,1997-2004
28
Alternative Assessment Perspectives
• The Sponsor• The Sponsors• Strategic Partners• Service and Technology Providers• Users – and Usees / Clients / Regulatees
• People• Business Enterprises and Associations• Govt agencies at varying levels of govt
• The Society / Economy / Polity
Copyright,1997-2004
29
Methods to Support AssessmentSponsor Perspective OnlyCapital Investment Project EvaluationDiscounted Cash Flows, Payback Period, NPVAssumes that all variables are measured in financial termsDeterministic, but can do Sensitivity AnalysisBusiness Case AnalysisSupports fin’l, quantitative, and qualitative measures
Multi-PerspectiveCost / Benefit Analysis (CBA)Fin’l, quant, qual measuresLess precise, partly qualitativeRecognises Opportunity CostsSensitivity AnalysisCost / Benefit / Risk Analysis (COBRA)CBA +Focuses on key uncertaintiesSearch for countermeasures
Copyright,1997-2004
30
Elements of the PIA Process• Surfacing and Examination of the privacy impacts and
implications of a proposal• Development of a clear understanding of the Business Need
that justifies the proposal and its negative impacts• Gauging of the Acceptability of the proposal and its features
by organisations and people that will be affected by it• Assessment of Compliance of the proposal with existing
privacy-related laws, codes, best practices and guidelines• Constructive Search for, and Evaluation of, better Alternatives• Constructive Search for ways to Avoid Negative Impacts,
and ways to Ameliorate Unavoidable Negative Impacts • Documentation and Publication of the Outcomes
Copyright,1997-2004
31
Public Participation in PIAs• Public Representation on the Steering Committee• Focus Groups; and a PIA Consultative Group• Sufficient Diversity of Participants to
ensure all perspectives are represented• Multiple Rounds of:
• information provision by the sponsor to the public• consultation between advocates and stakeholder
groups, and the primary sponsor• Assimilation of the information provided by all parties into
subsequent rounds of activities and consultation• Participation by stakeholder groups in the
design and implementation activities
Copyright,1997-2004
32
Contents of a P.I.A. Report
• Description of the Proposal and its Applications
• Analysis of Privacy Concerns• Summary of Laws, Codes, Best
Practices and Guidelines, and Application to the Proposal
• Evaluation, and Justification for the Privacy Impacts
• Analysis of Public Acceptability• Analysis of Measures to Avoid
& Ameliorate Privacy Impacts
• Appendices:• References to Laws,
Codes, Best Practices and Guidelines
• Summary of the Consultative Processes
• Organisations and Individuals Consulted
• The Background Information Provided
Copyright,1997-2004
33
Benefits of a P.I.A.
• Early appreciation of the citizen perspective
• Constructive suggestions• to avoid negative impacts• to improve the design
• Early warning of future problems• Avoidance of re-work and retro-fit• Pre-countering of public criticism
Copyright,1997-2004
34
Key Features of a PIA – 1 of 2• More Process Than Product• Not just an audit of compliance with existing laws• Requires active involvement of all relevant parties, and
incorporation of ideas into the emergent design(inclusive and participative, or at least consultative)
• Proxies need to be engaged, in order to:• gauge the acceptability of various features• constructively search for alternatives• constructively search for ways in which negative
impacts can be avoided, or at least ameliorated• gain commitment
Copyright,1997-2004
35
Key Features of a PIA – 2 of 2• Is performed by the proposal’s sponsor
• not by a privacy regulatory agency• not fully delegated to a consultant or contractor
• Commences early, to maximise involvement, avoid suspicion, and minimise re-work costs
• Involves multiple phases, such that shared understanding increases, and with it commitment
• Reduces the likelihood of later public opposition and misinformation campaigns, and, even if they are conducted, reduces their credibility
Copyright,1997-2004
36
Why PIAs ?
• It may be a Legal Requirement• Public Policy may dictate that it be done• Stakeholder groups may have
sufficient power to force it• Project Risk may be reduced• Investment Risk may be reduced• Adoption may be enhanced• The proposal’s quality may be enhanced
