DOCSLIB.ORG

An International Survey of Privacy, Data Protection, and Surveillance Laws and Developments, 18 J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law Volume 18 Issue 1 Journal of Computer & Information Law Article 1 - Fall 1999 Fall 1999 Global Trends in Privacy Protection: An International Survey of Privacy, Data Protection, and Surveillance Laws and Developments, 18 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 1 (1999) David Banisar Simon Davies Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Computer Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, Privacy Law Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation David Banisar & Simon Davies, Global Trends in Privacy Protection: An International Survey of Privacy, Data Protection, and Surveillance Laws and Developments, 18 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 1 (1999) https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol18/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES GLOBAL TRENDS IN PRIVACY PROTECTION: AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF PRIVACY, DATA PROTECTION, AND SURVEILLANCE LAWS AND DEVELOPMENTS by DAVID BANisAR AND SIMON DAVIES OF PRIVACY INTERNATIONALt TABLE OF CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW ........................................... 3 A. THREATS To PRIVACY ............................... 4 1. Technology transfer and policy convergence ..... 5 2. Defining Privacy ................................ 6 B. THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY ............................. 8 C. THE EVOLUTION OF DATA PROTECTION ............... 10 1. Reasons for Adopting Comprehensive Laws ..... 11 2. The European Telecommunications Directive and the European Data Protection Directive ......... 12 D. MODELS OF PRIVACY PROTECTION .................... 13 1. Comprehensive laws ............................ 13 t David Banisar, Esq. is an attorney and writer in the Washington, DC area. He is Deputy Director of Privacy International (PI) and a Senior Fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). Simon Davies is Director General of Privacy International and a Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics. Mr. Davies serves on the Professional Advisory Board of this publication. This article is based on Privacy and Human Rights 1999: An InternationalSurvey of Privacy Laws and Developments, which was written with support from the Open Society Institute and the EPIC Trust. Knowledgeable individuals from academia, government, human rights groups and other fields were asked to submit reports and information. Their reports were supplemented with information gathered from Constitutions, laws, international and national government documents, news reports, human rights reports and other sources. An electronic version of the full report and up- dates are available at the Privacy International web page at <http'J/www.privacyinterna- tional.org/survey/>. Privacy International is a human rights group formed in 1990 as a watchdog on surveillance by governments and corporations. PI is based in London, UK and has an office in Washington, D.C. EPIC is a public interest group in Washington, D.C. that promotes privacy, free speech and freedom of information. More information on EPIC is available at <http'/www.epic.org>. 2 JOURNAL OF COMPUTER & INFORMATION LAW [Vol. XVIII 2. Sectoral Laws .................................. 14 3. Self Regulation ................................. 14 4. Technologies of Privacy ......................... 14 E. CONTINUING PROBLEMS ................................ 15 II. COUNTRY REPORTS ................................. 15 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC ................................. 15 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA ...................... 17 REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA .................................. 20 KINGDOM OF BELGIUM ................................ 22 FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL .................... 23 REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA ............................... 25 CANADA ............................................... 26 REPUBLIC OF CHILE ................................... 30 PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ......................... 31 CZECH REPUBLIC ...................................... 34 KINGDOM OF DENMARK ................................. 36 GREENLAND ........................................... 38 REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA .................................. 38 REPUBLIC OF FINLAND ................................. 39 ALAND ISLANDS ........................................ 41 FRENCH REPUBLIC ..................................... 41 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY ...................... 43 HELLENIC REPUBLIC (GREECE) ....................... 46 SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION OF HONG KONG .... 47 REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY ................................ 50 REPUBLIC OF ICELAND .................................. 52 REPUBLIC OF INDIA .................................... 53 IRELAND ................................................ 54 STATE OF ISRAEL ...................................... 56 ITALIAN REPUBLIC ..................................... 58 JAPAN .................................................. 60 REPUBLIC OF KOREA (SouTH KOREA) ................. 62 REPUBLIC OF LATVIA .................................. 64 REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA .............................. 65 GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG ....................... 67 MALAYSIA ............................................. 68 UNITED MEXICAN STATES ............................. 69 KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS ....................... 71 NEW ZEALAND ......................................... 73 KINGDOM OF NORWAY .................................. 76 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ....................... 78 REPUBLIC OF PERU ..................................... 79 REPUBLIC OF POLAND ................................. 81 REPUBLIC OF PORTUGAL ............................... 82 19991 GLOBAL TRENDS IN PRIVACY PROTECTION 3 RUSSIAN FEDERATION ................................. 84 REPUBLIC OF SAN MARINO ............................ 85 REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE .............................. 86 SLOVAK REPUBLIC ..................................... 89 REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA ............................... 91 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA ......................... 92 KINGDOM OF SPAIN ................................. 93 KINGDOM OF SWEDEN ................................. 95 SWISS CONFEDERATION (SWITZERLAND) ............... 97 REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIwAN) ......................... 99 KINGDOM OF THAILAND ............................... 101 REPUBLIC OF TURKEY ................................ 103 UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND .............................................. 105 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ......................... 108 I. OVERVIEW Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in many other international and regional treaties. Privacy underpins human dignity and other values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most impor- tant human rights issues of the modem age. Nearly every country in the world recognizes a right of privacy in their constitution. At a minimum, these provisions include rights of invi- olability of the home and secrecy of communications. Most recently writ- ten constitutions such as South Africa's and Hungary's include specific rights to access and control one's personal information. In many of the countries where privacy is not explicitly recognized in the constitution, such as the United States (U.S.), Ireland and India, the courts have found that right in other provisions. In many countries, international agreements that recognize privacy rights such as the International Cove- nant on Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights were adopted into law. In the early 1970s, countries began adopting broad laws intended to protect individual privacy. Throughout the world, there is a general movement towards adopting comprehensive privacy laws that set a framework for protection. Most of these laws are based on the models introduced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop- ment and the Council of Europe. In 1995, conscious both of the shortcomings of law, and the many differences in the level of protection in each of its States, the European Union (E.U.) passed a Europe-wide directive which will provide citizens 4 JOURNAL OF COMPUTER & INFORMATION LAW [Vol. XVIII with a wider range of protections over abuses of their personal informa- tion.' The directive on the "Protection of Individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data" set a benchmark for national law. Each E.U. State must pass complementary legislation to incorporate this into their domestic laws. The Directive also imposes an obligation on member States to en- sure that the personal information relating to European citizens is cov- ered by law when it is exported to, and processed in, countries outside Europe. This requirement has resulted in growing pressure outside Eu- rope for the adoption of privacy laws. Nearly fifty countries now have comprehensive data protection or information privacy laws or are in the process of adopting them. A. THREATS TO PRrVACY The increasing sophistication
Recommended publications
  • Anonymity and Encryption in Digital Communications, February 2015

    Anonymity and Encryption in Digital Communications, February 2015

    Submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression – anonymity and encryption in digital communications, February 201 1! Introduction Privacy International submits this information for the Special Rapporteur's report on the use of encryption and anonymity in digital communications. Anonymity and the use of encryption in digital communications engage both the right to freedom of expression and right to privacy very closely: anonymity and encryption protects privacy, and ithout effective protection of the right to privacy, the right of individuals to communicate anonymously and ithout fear of their communications being unla fully detected cannot be guaranteed. As noted by the previous mandate holder, !rank #aRue, $the right to privacy is essential for individuals to express themselves freely. Indeed, throughout history, people%s illingness to engage in debate on controversial sub&ects in the public sphere has al ays been linked to possibilities for doing so anonymously.'( Individuals' right to privacy extends to their digital communications.) As much as they offer ne opportunities to freely communicate, the proliferation of digital communications have signi*cantly increased the capacity of states, companies and other non+state actors to interfere ith individual's privacy and free expression. Such interference ranges from mass surveillance of communications by state intelligence agencies, to systematic collection and storage of private information by internet and telecommunication companies, to cybercrime. Anonymity and encryption are essential tools available to individuals to mitigate or avert interferences ith their rights to privacy and free expression. In this ay, they are means of individuals exercising to the fullest degree their rights hen engaging in digital communications.
  • Anonymity in a Time of Surveillance

    Anonymity in a Time of Surveillance

    LESSONS LEARNED TOO WELL: ANONYMITY IN A TIME OF SURVEILLANCE A. Michael Froomkin* It is no longer reasonable to assume that electronic communications can be kept private from governments or private-sector actors. In theory, encryption can protect the content of such communications, and anonymity can protect the communicator’s identity. But online anonymity—one of the two most important tools that protect online communicative freedom—is under practical and legal attack all over the world. Choke-point regulation, online identification requirements, and data-retention regulations combine to make anonymity very difficult as a practical matter and, in many countries, illegal. Moreover, key internet intermediaries further stifle anonymity by requiring users to disclose their real names. This Article traces the global development of technologies and regulations hostile to online anonymity, beginning with the early days of the Internet. Offering normative and pragmatic arguments for why communicative anonymity is important, this Article argues that anonymity is the bedrock of online freedom, and it must be preserved. U.S. anti-anonymity policies not only enable repressive policies abroad but also place at risk the safety of anonymous communications that Americans may someday need. This Article, in addition to providing suggestions on how to save electronic anonymity, calls for proponents of anti- anonymity policies to provide stronger justifications for such policies and to consider alternatives less likely to destroy individual liberties. In
  • The New Frontiers of Personality Rights and the Problem of Commodification: European and Comparative Perspectives

    The New Frontiers of Personality Rights and the Problem of Commodification: European and Comparative Perspectives

    The New Frontiers of Personality Rights and the Problem of Commodification: European and Comparative Perspectives Giorgio Resta* I. TORT LAW AND THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO PERSONALITY RIGHTS ........................................................................ 33 II. NEW DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY PROTECTION IN PRIVATE LAW .................................................................................................... 37 A. From ‘Reactive’ to ‘Preventive’ Strategies ........................ 38 B. The Emergence of the Human Body as a Legal Object ................................................................................. 40 C. The Commercialization of Personality ............................... 41 III. WHO OWNS IDENTITY? ...................................................................... 43 IV. THE QUESTIONS AT STAKE ................................................................. 46 V. THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY: A MATTER OF PRIVACY OR PROPERTY? .................................................................... 48 A. Incorporeal Attributes and the Dominance of Property Rules .................................................................... 48 B. Body Parts and Liability Rules ........................................... 51 VI. LICENSING IDENTITY? ........................................................................ 54 A. The Human Body and the Gift Paradigm ........................... 54 B. Commercial Exploitation of Personality and the Limits of Freedom of Contract ..........................................
  • The Right of the Elderly to Self-Determination and New York's Legislative Imperative

    The Right of the Elderly to Self-Determination and New York's Legislative Imperative

    Pace Law Review Volume 8 Issue 1 Winter 1988 Article 2 January 1988 The Right of the Elderly to Self-Determination and New York's Legislative Imperative A. Kathleen Tomlinson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Recommended Citation A. Kathleen Tomlinson, The Right of the Elderly to Self-Determination and New York's Legislative Imperative, 8 Pace L. Rev. 63 (1988) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol8/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Right of the Elderly to Self- Determination and New York's Legislative Imperative A. Kathleen Tomlinsont I. Introduction In an era when the average life expectancy and the normal period of physical vitality have increased dramatically,' the law has become a more important influence during the aging of the individual human being. Improvements in technology and public health, as well as shifting demographic trends, have raised en- tirely new sets of questions for society to confront and resolve. For the first time in our history, large numbers of older persons are still alive, active, and vigorous - they have survived the task of raising the next generation and they are beyond the daily demands of making a living.2 By the year 2000, 13% of Americans will be aged sixty-five and over.3 The full impact of the population increase among the elderly is expected to be felt keenly between the years 2010 and 2030 when the post-World War II baby boom population begins to retire.
  • Security Forum Strategic Panel Phorm Position Paper

    Security Forum Strategic Panel Phorm Position Paper

    Security Forum Strategic Panel Phorm Position Paper PHORM – PRIVACY IMPACT OF NEW INTERNET ADVERTISING MECHANISMS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Online advertising company Phorm has caused a stir in the Internet community because of its profile-driven service. Phorm has trialled this service with BT, and signed further contracts with Virgin Media and TalkTalk. However, critics claim that the service breaches the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), and that Phorm’s approach is contrary to users’ privacy wishes. 1.2. The BCS believes that the solution to this debate rests in self-regulation of online advertising: companies must establish and enforce a code of conduct; be completely transparent about their practices; resist sharing data with third parties; and submit to ongoing oversight from an independent third party organisation. 2. THE BATTLE FOR THE INTERNET 2.1. The massive market for online advertising is one that affects every Internet user: many search engines and websites depend upon advertising revenues for funding, and some ISPs use advertising to subsidise subscription costs. In the absence of those funding sources they would either have to pass on additional operating costs to users, or cease trading altogether. 2.2. The battle for control of Internet advertising had, until recently, been confined to a small number of (rapidly consolidating) players including the likes of Microsoft, Google, Yahoo! and DoubleClick. These well-established companies have built their offerings over many years and believed themselves to control the market, with little threat from new companies. 2.3. However, a new breed of online advertising company has recently appeared.
  • No. 16-3588 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for THE

    No. 16-3588 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for THE

    Case: 16-3588 Document: 003112605572 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2017 No. 16-3588 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee v. GABRIEL WERDENE, Appellant ______________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ______________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT AND IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL OF THE DECISION BELOW ______________________ Of counsel: Caroline Wilson Palow* Lisa A. Mathewson Scarlet Kim* The Law Offices of PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL Lisa A. Mathewson, LLC 62 Britton Street 123 South Broad Street, Suite 810 London EC1M 5UY Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: +44 (0) 20 3422 4321 Phone: (215) 399-9592 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae, *Counsel not admitted to Third Circuit Bar Privacy International Case: 16-3588 Document: 003112605572 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2017 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Local Appellate Rule 26.1.1, amicus curiae Privacy International certifies that it does not have a parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. i Case: 16-3588 Document: 003112605572 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii STATEMENT OF INTEREST .................................................................................
  • The Quest for Self-Determination: Defining International Law's Inherent Interstate Limits Solon Solomon

    The Quest for Self-Determination: Defining International Law's Inherent Interstate Limits Solon Solomon

    Santa Clara Journal of International Law Volume 11 | Issue 2 Article 4 8-5-2013 The Quest for Self-Determination: Defining International Law's Inherent Interstate Limits Solon Solomon Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil Recommended Citation Solon Solomon, The Quest for Self-Determination: Defining International Law's Inherent Interstate Limits, 11 Santa Clara J. Int'l L. 397 (2013). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil/vol11/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Quest for Self-Determination The Quest for Self- Determination: Defining International Law’s Inherent Interstate Limits Solon Solomon* * Former Member of the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) Legal Department in charge of international and constitutional issues. 397 11 SANTA CLARA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 397 (2013) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction........................................................................... 398 II. Inherent Self-Determination Limits ................................ 399 A. The International Community and Libya ................................................ 401 B. The International Community and Syria ................................................. 404 C. Assessing Self-Determination’s Limits .....................................................
  • Aiding Surveillance an Exploration of How Development and Humanitarian Aid Initiatives Are Enabling Surveillance in Developing Countries

    Aiding Surveillance an Exploration of How Development and Humanitarian Aid Initiatives Are Enabling Surveillance in Developing Countries

    Privacy International Aiding Surveillance An exploration of how development and humanitarian aid initiatives are enabling surveillance in developing countries Gus Hosein and Carly Nyst 01 October 2013 www.privacyinternational.org Aiding Surveillance — Privacy International Contents Executive Summary 04 Section 1 Introduction 05 Section 2 Methodology 15 Section 3 Management Information Systems 17 and electronic transfers Section 4 Digital identity registration and biometrics 28 Section 5 Mobile phones and data 42 Section 6 Border surveillance and security 50 Section 7 Development at the expense of human rights? 56 The case for caution Endnotes 59 03/80 Aiding Surveillance — Privacy International Executive Summary Information technology transfer is increasingly a crucial element of development and humanitarian aid initiatives. Social protection programmes are incorporating digitised Management Information Systems and electronic transfers, registration and electoral systems are deploying biometric technologies, the proliferation of mobile phones is facilitating access to increased amounts of data, and technologies are being transferred to support security and rule of law efforts. Many of these programmes and technologies involve the surveillance of individuals, groups, and entire populations. The collection and use of personal information in these development and aid initiatives is without precedent, and subject to few legal safeguards. In this report we show that as development and humanitarian donors and agencies rush to adopt new technologies that facilitate surveillance, they may be creating and supporting systems that pose serious threats to individuals’ human rights, particularly their right to privacy. 04/80 Section 1 Aiding Surveillance — Privacy International Introduction 1.0 It is hard to imagine a current public policy arena that does not incorporate new technologies in some way, whether in the planning, development, deployment, or evaluation phases.
  • Protection of Biometric Information of Children in Schools and Colleges

    Protection of Biometric Information of Children in Schools and Colleges

    Protection of biometric information of children in schools and colleges Advice for proprietors, governing bodies, head teachers, principals and school and college staff March 2018 Contents 1. About this advice 3 Expiry/review date 3 What legislation does this advice relate to? 3 Who is this advice for? 3 2. Key Points 4 What is biometric data? 4 What is an automated biometric recognition system? 5 What does processing data mean? 5 3. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 6 Notification and Parental Consent 6 The pupil’s right to refuse 7 Providing alternatives 8 The Data Protection Act 1998 8 Associated Resources 9 4. Template Notification and Consent Form 10 2 1. About this advice This is non-statutory advice from the Department for Education. It explains the legal duties schools and colleges have if they wish to use biometric information about pupils for the purposes of using automated biometric recognition systems. The duties on schools and colleges in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 set out in this advice came into effect from 1 September 2013. Schools and colleges using automated biometric recognition systems, or planning to install them, should make arrangements to notify parents and obtain the consent required under the duties set out in the body of this advice. There are no circumstances in which a school or college can lawfully process a pupil’s biometric data without having notified each parent of a child and received the necessary consent. This advice replaces “Protection of biometric information of children in schools”, which was issued in December 2012.
  • Self-Determination Program Service Definitions

    Self-Determination Program Service Definitions

    Self-Determination Program Service Definitions Acupuncture Services Acupuncture services are covered to prevent, modify, or alleviate the perception of severe, persistent chronic pain resulting from a generally recognized medical condition. Acupuncture is defined in the Business and Professions Code, Section 4927 as “the stimulation of a certain point or points on or near the surface of the body by the insertion of needles to prevent or modify the perception of pain or to normalize physiological functions, including pain control, for the treatment of certain diseases or dysfunctions of the body and includes the techniques of electroacupuncture, cupping, and moxibustion.” Acupuncture services (with or without electric stimulation of the needles) are limited to two services in any one calendar month, although additional services can be provided based upon medical necessity. All acupuncture services for children under age 21 are covered in the state plan pursuant to the EPSDT benefit. Acupuncture services in this waiver are only provided to individuals age 21 and over and only when the limits of services furnished under the approved state plan are exhausted. Behavioral Intervention Services Behavior intervention services include the use and development of intensive behavioral intervention programs to improve the participant’s development and behavior tracking and analysis. The intervention programs are restricted to generally accepted, evidence-based, positive approaches. Depending on the participant’s needs, behavioral intervention services may be provided in multiple settings, including the participant’s home, workplace, etc. Behavioral intervention services are designed to assist individuals in acquiring, retaining and improving the self-help, socialization and adaptive skills necessary to reside successfully in home and community-based settings.
  • The Data Protection Act 1998 and Personal Privacy

    The Data Protection Act 1998 and Personal Privacy

    Introduction On 2 February 1998 Lord Williams of Mostyn commenced his second reading speech for the Data Protection Bill: “I recognise that data protection does not sound like a subject to attract obsessive interest; witness the general exodus from your Lordships’ House as I start to Monday, 19 March 2012 introduce this Second Reading. Data protection is redolent in many ways of computers and electronic processing: necessary but essentially technical providers The Data Protection Act 1998 & Personal Privacy of services. In fact it affects our well-being in a much more general way. It shares common ground to that extent with the Human Rights Bill. That Bill will improve Philip Coppel QC the position of citizens of this country by enabling them to rely on the wide range of civil and political rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Those rights include the right to respect for private and family life. The Data Protection Bill also concerns privacy, albeit a specific form of privacy; Synopsis: Described in Campbell v MGN [2003] QB 633 at [72] as “a thicket” personal information privacy. The subject matter of the Bill is, therefore, and as “certainly a cumbersome and inelegant piece of legislation”, inherently important to our general social welfare.”1 the Data Protection Act 1998 is the ugly relation in the law of As I penned this talk, with more than a decade having passed since Lord privacy. As the Human Rights Act 1998 has extruded the law of Williams’s speech echoed in the House, I did wonder whether his words confidentiality to protect personal privacy, the Data Protection Act would similarly resonate tonight.
  • Obama-C.I.A. Links

    Obama-C.I.A. Links

    o CO Dispatch "The issue is not issues; the issue is the system" —Ronnie Dugger Newsletter of the January-February Boston-Cambridge Alliance for Democracy 2011 Barack Obama is neither weak nor is he stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is cynically carrying out the pre- cise bidding of his corporate/military masters, while rhetorically faking-out everyday Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow people with his endless bait and switch tactics. —Larry Pinkney, Black Commentator Barack Obama (right) with his mother Ann Dunham, step-father Lolo Soetoro, and infant half-sister Maya. Dunham worked in several CIA COMMUNITY NOTES front groups in Hawai'i and Indonesia, and Colonel Soetoro helped Don't be left out! Join the BCA/NorthBridge planning group! overthrow Indonesia's president Sukarno in a CIA-sponsored coup. Our next meeting will be Tuesday, 4 January, 7:30, in the AfD After graduating from Columbia University, Obama worked for a CIA- office at 760 Main St., Waltham MA. Info: 781-894-1179. sponsored international business seminar group. Current projects: "bottled water ban in Concord "supporting ousted city councilor Chuck Turner "building support for Move Obama-C.I.A. Links to Amend (anti-corporate-personhood) and progressive Self and Principal Relatives All Involved campaign finance legislation "participatory budgeting by Sherwood Ross, grantlawrence.blogspot.com, 2 Sep 2010 conference in April "developing a trade advisory committee to seed and bird-dog the new MA citizen trade commission. RESIDENT OBAMA—AS WELL AS HIS MOTHER, FATHER, STEP- Turn to Page 16 for notes on these and other local matters..