2006 Privacy Rankings

Privacy International, a human-rights organization that was formed in 1990 to track surveillance and privacy invasion by governments and corporations, has released the results of its 2006 international privacy survey. Using primarily quantitative data, the survey scored and ranked 36 countries — all of the members of the EU and 11 benchmark countries, including the U.S. and New Zealand — on 13 criteria concerning government surveillance and respect for privacy:

1. Constitutional protection
2. Statutory protection
3. Privacy enforcement
4. Identity cards & biometrics
5. Data sharing provisions
6. Visual surveillance
7. Communications interception
8. Workplace monitoring
9. Law enforcement access
10. Data retention practices
11. Travel & finance surveillance (including trans-border data sharing)
12. Global leadership
13. Democratic safeguards

A score was awarded for each criterion in each country:

5 = no invasive policy or widespread practice. Leading in best practice
4 = comprehensive efforts, protections and safeguards for privacy
3 = some safeguards, relatively limited practice of surveillance
2 = few safeguards, widespread practice of surveillance
1 = extensive surveillance. Leading in bad practice

Finally, a final score between 1 and 5 was calculated:

4.1-5.0 Consistently upholds human rights standards
3.6-4.0 Significant protections and safeguards
3.1-3.5 Adequate safeguards against abuse
2.6-3.0 Some safeguards but weakened protections
2.1-2.5 Systemic failure to uphold safeguards
1.6-2.0 Extensive surveillance societies
1.1-1.5 Endemic surveillance societies

Here are the final scores, from highest to lowest:

GERMANY 3.9
CANADA 3.6
BELGIUM 3.2
AUSTRIA 3.2
GREECE 3.1
HUNGARY 3.0
ARGENTINA 3.0
FRANCE 2.9
POLAND 2.9
PORTUGAL 2.9
CYPRUS 2.9
FINLAND 2.7
ITALY 2.6
LUXEMBOURG 2.6
LATVIA 2.6
ESTONIA 2.6
MALTA 2.6
NEW ZEALAND 2.5
DENMARK 2.5
CZECH REP. 2.5
IRELAND 2.5
SLOVAKIA 2.5
LITHUANIA 2.5
AUSTRALIA 2.4
SPAIN 2.4
SLOVENIA 2.3
NETHERLANDS 2.3
SWEDEN 2.2
ISRAEL 2.2
US 2.0
THAILAND 1.9
PHILIPPINES 1.9
UK 1.5
SINGAPORE 1.4
RUSSIA 1.4
MALAYSIA 1.3
CHINA 1.3

There aren’t too many surprises at the top or bottom of the list. In the middle, I am surprised by the strong scores earned by by Argentina, Portugal, and Poland and the low scores earned by Sweden and the Netherlands.

As for the U.S. — what is there to say? Its very low score seems to provide strong empirical support for Sandy Levinson and Jack Balkin’s theory of the “National Surveillance State,” which they describe as an “emerging regime of institutions and practices… that features increased government investments in technology and expanded government bureaucracies devoted to promoting domestic security and gathering intelligence and surveillance using all of the devices that the digital revolution allows.”

The reasons for the poor U.S. score are too numerous to explore in any detail here. Most, however, won’t surprise you: the lack of a comprehensive privacy-protection law for the private sector; widespread and essentially unchecked electronic surveillance; the PATRIOT Act; the increasing use of video surveillance and face-recognition technology in public places; the REAL ID Act’s de facto creation of a national identity card; CAPPS II; the supposedly-defunct Total Information Awareness program…

The whole report is well worth examining. And if you find the situation in the U.S. disturbing, you have at least one small consolation — things are even worse in the U.K.