Advertisement

Privacy and Security – a Way to Manage the Dilemma

  • Walter Peissl

Abstract

Privacy and security are often seen as opposites in a zero-sum game. The more you want from one, the less you get from the other. To overcome this dilemma the PRISE project (EU-funded by PASR/DG Enterprise) developed a methodology to establish sets of criteria for privacy enhancing security technologies. These sets of criteria are applicable on different levels (research, development, implementation) and by different actors (research coordinators, industry, policy-makers, public and private users). The use of these criteria is intended to contribute directly to a tangible and demonstrable improvement in security as accepted and acceptable security technologies will be more easily implemented, more widely used and confronted with less rejection by the general public and users of these technologies. A similar set of criteria is used for certification for the European Privacy Seal. Both the privacy by design approach and the certification scheme should increase the competitiveness of European security industries by providing guidance on the provision of widely acceptable security technologies.

Keywords

Data Protection Security Policy Privacy Protection Human Security Security Technology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Weinandy, K., Sicherheitsforschung das Geschäft mit der Angst. Die Rolle der Ökonomie im (Un) Sicherheitsdiskurs – Eine kritische Betrachtung. 2007, Unpublished manuscript: Vienna.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wikipedia, Security. 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ÖAW, Sicherheitsforschung, Begriffsfassung und Vorgangsweise für Österreich. 2005: Vienna.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    NBT, PRISE D2.2 Overview of security technologies v1.1,, EC, Editor. 2007, Norwegian Board of Technology: Oslo.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ullman, R., Redefining Security. International Security, 1983. 8(1): p. 129–153.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Owen, T., Challenges and opportunities for defining and measuring human security. HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN SECURITY AND DISARMAMENT, Disarmament Forum 2004,, 2004. 3.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), Helsinki Final Act,. 1975.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tretter, H., ed. KSZE. Die Abschlussdokumente der Konferenz für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa. 1975 und der Nachfolgekonferenzen Belgrad 1978 und Madrid 1983,. 1984: Wien.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hayes, B., Arming Big Brother – The EU’s Security Research Programme. 2006, Transnational Institute.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities, A Human Security Doctrine for Europe The Barcelona Report of the Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities Presented to EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana. 2004, Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities: Barcelona. p. 35.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilfried von Bredow. The Barcelona Report on a Human Security Doctrine for Europe, Overview and Some critical Remarks. in Berlin Symposium on Human Security and EU-Canada Relations Canadian Universities’ Centre Berlin. 2005. Berlin.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Parliament Resolution of 12 December 2007 on the fight against terrorism. 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raguse, M., O. Langfeldt, and M. Hansen, PRISE D3.3 Design Proposals, European Commission PASR, Editor. 2008, Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein: Kiel.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raguse, M., et al., PRISE D6.2 – Criteria for privacy enhancing security technologies, European Commission PASR, Editor. 2008, Institute of Technology Assessment Austrian Academy of Sciences: Vienna.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cas, J. and W Peissl, Beeinträchtigung der Privatsphäre in ÖsterreichDatensammlungen über Ös-terreicherInnnen, Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte, Editor. 2000, Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung,: Wien.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cas, J., W Peissl, and T Strohmaier, Datenvermeidung in der Praxis – Individuelle und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung, Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte, Editor. 2002, Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Wien.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klüver, L., Peissl, W, Tennøe, T, Bütschi, D., Cas, J., Deboelpaep, R., Hafskjold, Ch., Leisner, I., Nath, Ch., J., Steyaert, St., Vouilloz, N., ICT and Privacy in Europe – A report on different aspects of privacy based on studies made by EPTA members in 7 European countries. 2006, EPTA. p. 117.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sterbik-Lamina, J., W Peissl, and J. Cas, Privatsphäre 2.0 (Beeinträchtigung der Privatsphäre in Österreich; Neue Herausforderungen für den Datenschutz), Bundesarbeitskammer, Editor. 2009, Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Wien.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bennett, CJ. and CD. Raab, The Governance of Privacy. 2003, Aldershot, Hampshire GB: Ashgate. 257.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacobi, A. and M. Holst, PRISE D5.8 Synthesis Report – Interview Meetings on Security Technology and Privacy, European Commission PASR, Editor. 2008, Institute of Technology Assessment Austrian Academy of Sciences: Vienna.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raguse, M., et al, D6.2 – Criteria for privacy enhancing security technologies, Privacy enhancing shaping of security research and technology – A participatory approach to develop acceptable and accepted principles for European Security Industries and Policies European Commission PASR, Editor. 2008, Institute of Technology Assessment Austrian Academy of Sciences: Vienna.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cas, J., Privatsphäre und Sicherheit Ergebnisse aus dem europäischen TA-Projekt PRISE. TECHNIKFOLGENABSCHÄTZUNG – Theorie und Praxis, 2008. 17(3): p. 79–82.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bock, K., European privacy Seal – Final report, European Commission – eTEN, Editor. 2009, Unab-haengiges Landeszentrum fuer Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein (ULD, Independent Centre of Privacy Protection): Kiel. p. 24.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bock, K., S. Meissner, and K. Storf, Description of EuroPriSe Criteria and Procedures (updated Version 1.1), European Commission – eTEN, Editor. 2009, Unabhaengiges Landeszentrum fuer Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein (ULD, Independent Centre of Privacy Protection): Kiel. p. 41.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Borking, J.J., The Business Case for PET and the EuroPrise Seal. 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Vieweg+Teubner | GWV Fachverlage GmbH 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter Peissl

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations