E.U. Panel to Propose Tighter Data Protection

BERLIN — The European Commission’s advisory panel on data protection plans this week to urge governments in the European Union to treat the geographic location of cellphone users as personal data, deserving of the highest level of privacy protection.

The Article 29 Working Party, a panel of 27 national regulators, plans to adopt the opinion on Friday, according an E.U. official who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak for the panel.

The panel, whose opinions are not binding, is adopting the statement in a so-called “written procedure” without holding a formal meeting. The current chairman of the group is the Dutch data protection chief, Jacob Kohnstamm.

The statement is unlikely to have an immediate influence on the collection of cellphone location data by smartphone makers like Apple, which is being investigated by several European countries for its practices.

Technology companies in the past have ignored the panel’s recommendations, including the length of time that search engines can retain data about users’ computers.

The controversy surrounding the geographic location of cellphone users came to the fore in April when researchers in the United States disclosed that Apple, the maker of the iPhone, appeared to be collecting information in a file on its phones. Apple, in a statement, attributed the data collection to a software glitch and said it never tracks users’ locations.

Google, the maker of the Android smartphone operating system, said it collects geographic data for a limited time but renders it anonymous before sending it to its servers for processing. Android users also must give prior consent before Google can track their locations.

In the wake of the disclosure by Apple, five E.U. countries — Germany, France, Britain, Ireland and Italy — said they would investigate whether Apple broke national laws.

The geographic location of cellphone users is becoming a lucrative bit of information as computing goes mobile and wireless advertisers increasingly target cellphone users with geographically relevant ads for restaurants and other attractions.

Europe’s existing body of data protection law was written in the early days of the mobile era and was last revised in 1995.

The European justice commissioner, Viviane Reding, is working to modernize data protection laws to address the privacy challenges raised by the mobile Internet, including the handling of data by social networks like Facebook, the treatment of personal data by offshore cloud computing centers and the geographic data of mobile phone users.

In a May 3 speech in Brussels, Ms. Reding criticized Apple for collecting location data on iPhone users. Mrs. Reding said she would push for more restrictive laws to ensure privacy was maintained in the Internet age.

She also criticized Sony for being slow to inform 77 million consumers that their personal data had been obtained by hackers.

“I am now planning to expand data protection legislation to other areas,” Mrs. Reding said in the speech. “Trust has to be reinstated now. It is essential that clients know what happens to their data. Those in charge have to take the relevant technical and organizational measures to guarantee protection against data loss or an unjustified access.”

The European Commission is expected to present its recommended overhaul of the European data protection directive by the fall. The European Parliament and Council of Ministers would take up the proposed revisions starting in 2012.

 

Child protection shake-up urged

May 2011 Last updated at 02:39 ET By Hannah Richardson BBC News education and family reporter Eileen Munro said the focus on targets "are becoming obstacles on people keeping a clear eye on children"

Front-line social workers should regain the freedom to decide what is best for children in a shake up of England's child protection system, an official review says.

The review, by social policy expert Professor Eileen Munro, calls for targets and red tape to be scrapped.

Developing social workers' expertise will enable more children to stay with their families, she adds.

The government is investing ￡80m implementing the reforms this year.

Education Secretary Michael Gove asked Prof Munro to review the child protection system in England, focussing on whether bureaucracy and targets have been getting in the way of good practice.

In her report, the expert from the London School of Economics, says: "Helping children is a human process. When the bureaucratic aspects of work become too dominant, the heart of the work is lost."

'Significant savings'

She argues that the system has become preoccupied by individuals "doing things right" rather than "doing the right thing".

Continue reading the main story  Mark Easton Home Editor, BBC News

When the government asked Eileen Munro to review child protection procedures, her terms of reference contained a paradox.

On the one hand ministers said they wanted social workers to be free from unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation - to make decisions based on their professional judgment, not simply following procedures.

On the other, they said they wanted social workers to be clear about their responsibilities and to be accountable - lessons must be learned. Errors exposed. Names named. While the former is about the system being hands-off, the second requires it to be hands on.

Of course, it is not a simple either/or. There is a balance to be found between a tick-box approach that blinds professionals to the subtleties of individual cases and a laissez-faire model that sees vulnerable children slipping tragically through the net.

Professor Munro reflects this tension when she points out that timescales for assessing children at risk were introduced because of legitimate concerns about "drift". But now, she claims there's "an over-preoccupation" with such targets.

And she concludes this attitude has meant that learning from professional experience has been limited.

She recommends a chief social worker - similar to a chief medical officer - should be appointed to report directly to government and liaise with the profession.

Prof Munro's report sets out how the system can move from one that has become too bureaucratic and focussed on compliance to one that values and develops professional expertise.

She says centrally-prescribed time scales for formal procedures, such as social work assessments, should be scrapped.

Her report also calls on the government to revise social worker statutory guidance - said to be 55 times longer than that issued nearly 40 years ago.

The amount of regulation has led to child protection staff feeling obliged to do everything by the book rather than use their professional judgement, says the report.

Prof Munro also wants the government to ensure local areas have the freedom to innovate, with local authorities taking more responsibility for helping their staff to operate with a high level of skill and knowledge.

'Radical change'

And she calls for the social workers' expertise to be developed - pointing out that skilled help can enable more children and young people to stay safely with their families and bring "significant savings".

Prof Munro told the BBC people had "underestimated how much skill is needed to do good social work".

She said social workers did not stay on the front line long enough to become really good at the job.

"What I'm recommending is a radical change to how we see a social work career and we have a complete progression into senior management where you're still knocking on the front door and doing real work as well as managing the service."

Her report warns that more money will be needed at first to develop the additional training necessary to set the profession off on a "new path".

Prof Munro has stressed the importance of nurturing social work expertise

And it cautions that "cherry-picking" reforms will not lead to the desired improvements overall.

One of the major challenges, the report adds, is how to enable a wide range of professionals work together well for the good of vulnerable children.

Clear lines of accountability and named contacts are "vitally important" for this, she adds.

The report also places an emphasis on early intervention, calling on the government to place a duty on local councils to ensure there are enough early-help services for children, young people and families.

In particular it singles out the effectiveness of Sure Start Children's Centres in providing early help and intervention.

'Long term' implementation

Children's Minister Tim Loughton said the review presented some wide-ranging and radically different proposals for reform.

"It is now up to the government and the children's sector to work together to look at the recommendations in detail and assess the implications of their implementation in practice for the long term, not as a short term fix.

"To do this the government will be working closely with a group of professionals from across the children's sector and we will respond to Professor Munro's recommendations later this year."

Chief executive of children's charity 4Children said the review backed many of the calls families are making for a move away from bureaucratic assessment to personalised and hands on support for those who are struggling to cope.

"I hope that government follows Munro's recommendation of local support for families who are struggling but have not yet reached crisis point. Our new campaign, Give me Strength, argues for the urgent need to stop patching up problems after they spiral out of control and make prevention and early intervention a reality."

The College of Social Work agreed that social workers have been hampered by an excessive emphasis on form-filling and a compliance culture.

"Surveys have shown that child protection workers can spend more than 60% of their time at computer screens, time which would often be better spent in face-to-face work with children at risk of harm."

Children's Commissioner Maggie Atkinson said she welcomed the recognition that children and young people of all ages needed early intervention and help.

"Harmful behaviour affecting a child can occur at any age and professionals must be trained to recognise early on when family intervention and support is required for older children."

The Bay Citizen: The Small-Time Landlord Versus Tenant Protection

In San Francisco, one of the toughest places in the country to find a place to live, more than 31,000 housing units — one of every 12 — now sit vacant, according to recently released census data. That’s the highest vacancy rate in the region, and a 70 percent increase from a decade ago.

To know one big reason why, ask Wayne Koniuk. By trade, Mr. Koniuk fashions artificial limbs for amputees. By habit, he fits prostheses at no charge for people who cannot pay. This has left him a less-than-wealthy man.

But he does have one substantial asset: a Divisadero Street building that his father, Walter, an orthotist, bought in 1970 and gave to his only son in 2001 so Wayne could run his business on the ground floor and Wayne’s adult children would always have a place to live.

“For eternity,” Mr. Koniuk recalls his father saying, “my grandkids will always have a place they can go. No matter whatever happens, that building should stay in the family.”

Mr. Koniuk, who himself lives in suburban Belmont, gave a half-interest in the building to his older son in 2007 so he could evict a tenant and move in himself. But under San Francisco’s extraordinarily pro-tenant housing laws, landlords can do this only once per building.

So while Mr. Koniuk desperately wants to move his younger son into the building’s other four-bedroom apartment, he cannot. He is exploring legal options. Robert Murphy, who has lived there for 30 years without a lease, remains, paying $525.82 a month.

Last spring, Mr. Koniuk offered Mr. Murphy $45,000 to move out. Mr. Murphy’s lawyer demanded $70,000, a sum Mr. Koniuk says he does not have. Meanwhile, the city’s Rent Board notified Mr. Koniuk that he was allowed to increase Mr. Murphy’s monthly rent this year by $2.63.

Mr. Murphy did not respond to several phone messages left over a two-week period. Harold Jaffe, the lawyer who wrote the demand letter, said he no longer represented Mr. Murphy.

Increasingly, small-time landlords like Mr. Koniuk are just giving up. One of his Divisadero Street neighbors has left two large apartments on the second and third floors of her building vacant for more than a decade, after a series of tenant difficulties. It’s just not worth the bother, or the risk, of being legally tied to a tenant for decades.

“Vacancy rates are going up because owners have decided to take their units off the market,” said Ross Mirkarimi, a progressive member of the Board of Supervisors. He attributes that response to “peaking frustrations in dealing with the range of laws that protect tenants in San Francisco that make it difficult for small property owners to thrive.”

Perversely, that is hurting the city’s renters as well, as a large percentage of the city’s housing stock is allowed to just sit vacant, driving up rents that newcomers pay for market-rate housing.

San Francisco is a notoriously tough city for small-time landlords. “It is the dream of every landlord to be a landlord in the most lucrative market in the country,” said Ted Gullicksen, head of San Francisco’s powerful Tenants Union. “There’s no sympathy whatsoever.”

Without strong protections, tenant advocates say, only the wealthy would be able to afford to live here. Countless longtime residents, especially the elderly, would be out on the streets.

This is a consensus view in many circles, as illustrated by a recent feature in The San Francisco Chronicle. “Throwing senior citizens out on the sidewalk is never a good idea, but it isn’t stopping North Beach developer Peter Iskander,” it began.

Left unsaid was that one of the article’s featured characters, Carlo Tarrone, pays $450 a month in rent. Or, more significantly, that Mr. Tarrone in 1999 bought (half in cash) a two-unit residential building near Telegraph Hill that the real estate Web site Zillow values at $1.7 million. Mr. Tarrone, whom I interviewed by phone, is by no means poor or facing homelessness.

Mr. Koniuk is not a slick developer who aims to toss widows and orphans into the street. He could sell, but he does not want to. He wants to honor his father’s wishes and allow his own sons to live in his own building.

“My name is Koniuk. My sons’ name is Koniuk. My father’s name was Koniuk,” he said. “We should be able to move them into a building we own.”

 

The Bay Citizen: The Small-Time Landlord Versus Tenant Protection

In San Francisco, one of the toughest places in the country to find a place to live, more than 31,000 housing units — one of every 12 — now sit vacant, according to recently released census data. That’s the highest vacancy rate in the region, and a 70 percent increase from a decade ago.

To know one big reason why, ask Wayne Koniuk. By trade, Mr. Koniuk fashions artificial limbs for amputees. By habit, he fits prostheses at no charge for people who cannot pay. This has left him a less-than-wealthy man.

But he does have one substantial asset: a Divisadero Street building that his father, Walter, an orthotist, bought in 1970 and gave to his only son in 2001 so Wayne could run his business on the ground floor and Wayne’s adult children would always have a place to live.

“For eternity,” Mr. Koniuk recalls his father saying, “my grandkids will always have a place they can go. No matter whatever happens, that building should stay in the family.”

Mr. Koniuk, who himself lives in suburban Belmont, gave a half-interest in the building to his older son in 2007 so he could evict a tenant and move in himself. But under San Francisco’s extraordinarily pro-tenant housing laws, landlords can do this only once per building.

So while Mr. Koniuk desperately wants to move his younger son into the building’s other four-bedroom apartment, he cannot. He is exploring legal options. Robert Murphy, who has lived there for 30 years without a lease, remains, paying $525.82 a month.

Last spring, Mr. Koniuk offered Mr. Murphy $45,000 to move out. Mr. Murphy’s lawyer demanded $70,000, a sum Mr. Koniuk says he does not have. Meanwhile, the city’s Rent Board notified Mr. Koniuk that he was allowed to increase Mr. Murphy’s monthly rent this year by $2.63.

Mr. Murphy did not respond to several phone messages left over a two-week period. Harold Jaffe, the lawyer who wrote the demand letter, said he no longer represented Mr. Murphy.

Increasingly, small-time landlords like Mr. Koniuk are just giving up. One of his Divisadero Street neighbors has left two large apartments on the second and third floors of her building vacant for more than a decade, after a series of tenant difficulties. It’s just not worth the bother, or the risk, of being legally tied to a tenant for decades.

“Vacancy rates are going up because owners have decided to take their units off the market,” said Ross Mirkarimi, a progressive member of the Board of Supervisors. He attributes that response to “peaking frustrations in dealing with the range of laws that protect tenants in San Francisco that make it difficult for small property owners to thrive.”

Perversely, that is hurting the city’s renters as well, as a large percentage of the city’s housing stock is allowed to just sit vacant, driving up rents that newcomers pay for market-rate housing.

San Francisco is a notoriously tough city for small-time landlords. “It is the dream of every landlord to be a landlord in the most lucrative market in the country,” said Ted Gullicksen, head of San Francisco’s powerful Tenants Union. “There’s no sympathy whatsoever.”

Without strong protections, tenant advocates say, only the wealthy would be able to afford to live here. Countless longtime residents, especially the elderly, would be out on the streets.

This is a consensus view in many circles, as illustrated by a recent feature in The San Francisco Chronicle. “Throwing senior citizens out on the sidewalk is never a good idea, but it isn’t stopping North Beach developer Peter Iskander,” it began.

Left unsaid was that one of the article’s featured characters, Carlo Tarrone, pays $450 a month in rent. Or, more significantly, that Mr. Tarrone in 1999 bought (half in cash) a two-unit residential building near Telegraph Hill that the real estate Web site Zillow values at $1.7 million. Mr. Tarrone, whom I interviewed by phone, is by no means poor or facing homelessness.

Mr. Koniuk is not a slick developer who aims to toss widows and orphans into the street. He could sell, but he does not want to. He wants to honor his father’s wishes and allow his own sons to live in his own building.

“My name is Koniuk. My sons’ name is Koniuk. My father’s name was Koniuk,” he said. “We should be able to move them into a building we own.”