The White House has it almost right. Consumers are at risk, and companies have not done nearly enough to explain that danger, let alone mitigate the risk. The FTC is working to address the most salient abuses, but that still leaves a considerable gap which companies need to fill. The first step is making sure users fully understand – before providing personal information – what the real risks are.

Consider the case of Google. Last October, the FTC announced a settlement with Google to address concerns about sharing personal information through the Buzz social network without users’ consent. The order required Google to accurately state how and why it collects and uses personal information, and how users can control the ways in which their information is gathered and disseminated. The order also required Google to obtain “express affirmative consent” from users when a new service or privacy policy changes the way it shares private information. Google is also required to undertake regular assessments on its privacy program from independent outside experts.

Google recently submitted its initial privacy compliance report to the FTC, and there are some brightspots in it.  There are noteworthy policies and internal compliance safeguards designed to rigorously review third party services providers, and to train board officers in privacy standards.  But despite these advances, user privacy is still not sufficiently protected.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) recently filed suit on the grounds that Google’s new privacy policy violates the FTC settlement order. EPIC alleges that Google’s newly announced privacy policy to aggregate user data across services is intended “to benefit advertisers through improved targeting of users.”  The complaint adds that Google’s notices fail to disclose this. EPIC also alleges that Google’s new policy doesn’t disclose how users can limit data aggregation.

A group of state Attorneys General also expressed concerns about Google’s new privacy policy.  In a letter to Google, they state that Google’s so-called “alternative” for users who wish to opt out of data aggregation by avoiding any use of Google’s services rings hollow “in an Internet economy where the clear majority of all Internet users use – and frequently rely on – at least one Google produce on a regular basis.”

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Google has been tracking Safari users, apparently without their knowledge or consent, which raises troubling new questions about what Google is prepared to do to obtain personal data.

Where does this leave Google’s users? Why hasn’t the company provided users with specifics about what user data is collected, and what Google does with it?

Without advanced degrees, most of us have no real understanding of what information is being collected and how it is used, leaving users at the mercy of company insiders and their preferred practices. For users in Bahrain, Syria, Russia, China and the world’s other undemocratic regimes, the lack of transparency about data collection can mean life or death, a lengthy prison sentence, a brutal interrogation, and the elimination of entire networks of activists fighting for change.

Members of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus have called on the FTC to investigate the Safari breach, but it’s unclear what steps the FTC is prepared to take. One prominent blogger has called for new legislation giving users a private right of action to sue when software designs put privacy at risk.

In the absence of clear regulatory and legal standards, it is incumbent on companies like Google to educate their users BEFORE personal information is collected in the first place. Even if Google’s privacy policy notices were clear and complete, there would still be a considerable gap between users’ privacy expectations and the realities of data collection and use.

What steps should Google take to clearly and prominently disclose both the purpose and process of sharing of user information?

We recommend that Google spell out, with examples written for the average user to understand, how its new policy will operate, what it means in practice, and how it differs from prior policies and practices.  

Google publishes a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding its privacy policies that fails to provide that needed clarity.  Google’s privacy FAQs should address the following questions:  How is it obtaining “express affirmative consent” from users? Does an opt-out policy satisfy this standard? What does such a policy mean in practice?  Does it leave a user off the internet?

Until it answers these basic questions for its users, Google should hold off implementing its new privacy policy slated to take effect on March 1.

As Google indicates, it is working to create a beautifully simple, intuitive user experience. But at what price? At a loss of fundamental privacy? Google needs to do more to make the cost to users clear up front, before any information is collected or any new policy is implemented.  Then, and only then, will users be able to make informed choices about the personal data that is collected about them.

Other violence stuck Hungary’s Roma in 2009. There were dozens of hate crimes, many involving guns, Molotov cocktails, and severe beatings.

Four men are on trial in Budapest, accused of carrying out nine attacks between July 2008 and August 2009 that killed six Roma, including Robert Csorba and his son. In 2009 Hungarian President László Sólyom said these murders “threaten[ed] the stability of Hungary.” The authorities need to move more expeditiously to bring this trial to a close.

Meanwhile, prejudice continues. “Gypsy criminality” (cigánybűnözés) is one of the most prevalent anti-Roma stereotypes. It permeates all parts of Hungarian life—and can be found as commonly in the media as the local pub.  Extremist groups, particularly the xenophobic Jobbik, nurture these prejudices. Also, Ill-treatment and discrimination by the police fuel mistrust among Roma, who for this reason are reluctant to report hate crimes.

These concerning developments have not gone unnoticed by the U.S. government. At a roundtable with young Roma professionals in Bulgaria on February 5, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of completing “the unfinished business of Europe,” which in her eyes includes “the full integration of the Roma people into the societies and nations where they reside.” Most importantly, she announced that the United States will join the Decade of Roma Inclusion, as an official observer.

The Decade brings together governments and civil society to increase the socioeconomic inclusion of Roma. As an observer, the United States can play a positive role in shaping the discussions. The U.S. should develop a strategy to maximize its influence.

And on February 15, the U.S. Helsinki Commission hosted “The Escalation of Violence against Roma in Europe,” chaired by Congressman Chris Smith. Human Rights First submitted a testimony, focusing on what more the U.S. government should be doing. These discussions are important: they ensure that policymakers in Washington stay focused on this serious human rights problem.

Hungary and other European nations have the primary responsibility to address violence against Roma. But the U.S. government is correct to play a role.

In the two weeks since these countries vetoed the U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a peaceful transfer of power, violence against the Syrian people has escalated.  While an approved resolution may not have prompted definitive action, it would have sent a powerful message.

But there are indications that criticism from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and countless human rights organizations have China rethinking its position: “What is most urgent and pressing now is to prevent war and chaos so that the Syrian people can be free from even greater suffering,” Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China said this week.

Russia, on the other hand, has shown no regret as it continues to enable violence in Syria by providing the Assad regime both political cover and weapons. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice called Russia’s obstructionism outrageous, adding that “…it was even more outrageous that they would do so at a time when Assad was stepping up the killing in such a horrific way.”

We urge the Obama administration to continue to pressure enablers using the full range of financial sanctions. It should start by targeting Russian arms dealers. We’ve sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner urging him to do just that.

Sign the Petition!

One year after the people of Bahrain took to the streets to demand democratic reforms, Dooley notes that the United States government is falling short in condemning the abuses committed by the Bahrain regime.

Pro-democracy protestors, who continue to be attacked, are looking to the United States to stand with them. But the Obama Administration’s silence on Bahrain—along with its recent decision to supply the monarchy with military equipment—simply sends the wrong message.

Watch Brian Dooley on Al Jazeera’s Inside Story.

The facts are clear. The pro-democracy protests in Bahrain are among the Arab Spring’s largest uprisings. To retain its power, the government has responded with excessive force and international propaganda. The regime has detained more than 3,000 people since the protests began; many have been subjected to torture and abuse and have been denied lawyers and fair trials. The police responded to protests earlier this week with tear gas and sound bomb attacks.

The United States must stand with Bahraini democracy activists.

Tell Secretary Clinton that the time to act is now; condemn abuses in Bahrain and call for accountability.

Read Dooley’s fourth report on Bahrain: The Gathering Storm.

Bahraini protestors participating in today’s anniversary events have faced tear gas and many have been arrested.

Tell Secretary Hillary Clinton to publicly condemn abuses in Bahrain and call for accountability!

The Bahrain government continues to:

• Use tear gas, bird guns, and threats of detention against pro-democracy protestors, violently preventing them from peacefully protesting;
• Attack, harass, and detain human rights defenders calling for democratic reforms; and
• Prevent wounded protestors from seeking medical treatment by surrounding hospitals and clinics with security forces and arresting suspected protestors.

More recently, the monarchy denied me and other international monitors entry to the country—raising concerns at what might happen this week. They’ve also denied journalists from some major international newspapers.

The United States has been inconsistent in supporting the fight for democracy in the Middle East, falling short in condemning human rights abuses in Bahrain. The Obama Administration is also moving to supply Bahrain with military equipment.  As of today, the Bahraini people are still under attack. The United States must take a stand with them.

Tell Secretary Clinton to call for democratic reforms in Bahrain and an end to the crackdown against democracy protesters!

“I have no regrets that I had to pay a price for my work to promote human rights,” Al Khawaja wrote in his open letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, where Al Khawaja lived as a political refugee in exile from Bahrain between 1989 and 2001. “It is serious business to address issues such as corruption, inequality and discrimination in order to promote the interests of members of the ruling family, and documenting arbitrary detention and torture by the brutal National Security Apparatus.”

Human Rights First has closely monitored Al Khawaja’s case as well as similar cases brought before military courts in Bahrain. In his open letter, Al Khawaja thanked international human rights organizations, including Human Rights First, for their efforts to free him and others who have faced trumped up charges.

Al Khawaja notes that he has been “severely beaten, arbitrarily detained, held in solitary confinement and subjected to torture for more than two months” and “brought before a military court on charges faked by the National Security Apparatus.” Al Khawaja is serving a life sentence for his opposition to the Bahraini regime.

As he closed his letter, Al Khawaja called on European Union member states to act in accordance with EU guidelines requiring that they protect human rights defenders around the world. He urged members states to take “whatever possible actions” at the regional level and at the United Nations to address his case and the cases of other detained Bahraini activists.

For more information about Human Rights First’s work on Bahrain, click here.

She reports that the police arrested protesters and beat two women on their way to the rally.

The Bahrain monarchy recently denied Brian Dooley and other international observers entry to monitor the protests surrounding the anniversary. The Kingdom also denied entry to many international journalists including Nick Kristof and Adam Ellick of the New York Times, Gregg Carlstrom of Al Jazeera, Cara Swift of the BBC and Kristen Chick of the Christian Science Monitor.

Nevertheless, Human Rights Firsts will continue to provide updates from our partners in Bahrain. Stay tuned for daily recounts of the protests.

Read our new report:  Bahrain: The Gathering Storm

Assaults on female activists in Egypt show the disconnect between the aspirations of last year’s revolution and its results. Though Mubarak was ousted, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) continues to abuse and harass women.

Egypt remains a dangerous place for female activists, who regularly face violence ranging from street harassment to rape. But they refuse to be quiet.

Marches in response to the “virginity testing” trials and the brutal public beating of the “blue bra” woman are challenging government and society, garnering international attention, and forcing discussion. The military has in the past tried to justify their persecution of female activists by calling them prostitutes, but the number and diversity of these women clearly counter this characterization.

What more can we do to ensure that women are not victims of, but participants in, the new Egypt? In the lead-up to International Women’s Day on March 8th, Human Rights First will highlight the achievements of women defenders. We are also planning peer-to-peer exchanges between Nazra for Feminist Studies and other regional female activists who have experienced struggles in their work. And as co-sponsors of International Anti-Street Harassment Week, we’re encouraging female activists to raise their voices by participating in anti-harassment initiatives, such as, HarassMap.org.

The women of Egypt will not be silenced, and the revolution cannot be a success until their mistreatment ends.

The inclusion of mass atrocities in the DNI’s “Worldwide Threat Assessment” is welcome news, particularly at a time when traditional diplomatic efforts to end widespread violence against civilians in Syria, Sudan, and Congo appear to have failed. Though not unprecedented—the threat of mass atrocities has been included in the DNI’s testimony intermittently since 2009—this year’s language suggests it will become a regular feature and, more important, a systematic focus of IC work.

Actionable intelligence on both potential and ongoing atrocities is critical. Revealing the dynamics at play as crises unfold, strong intelligence helps policy makers understand the roles of both the perpetrators and their third-party enablers, identify the actors and supply chains that may be susceptible to pressure, and formulate policy responses.

The government alone can accomplish this work; no non-governmental entity, whether in journalism, research, or advocacy, has sufficient money, people, or networks to draw a complete picture. This is why the IC’s re-dedication to atrocities prevention is so meaningful, and we commend the Office of the Director or National Intelligence for including this important issue in its testimony.

“Maybe the biggest difference in our respective approaches are our approaches to what we refer to as human rights.  I recognize that many of you in this auditorium see our advocacy of human rights as at best an intrusion, and at worst an assault on your sovereignty.  I want to tell you directly that this is not our intention.  Yes, for Americans there is a significant moral component to our advocacy.  And we observed where we have failed, as well.  But it is who our people are.”

But human rights are not something that the U.S. government imposes on other countries. Human rights are, simply, universal.

The White House has since reformed its language and has called human rights universal in a number of speeches. The administration should not shy away from repeating this message to the likely next president of China, Vice President Xi Jinping, during his reciprocal visit to Washington D.C. next week.

Little is known in the West about Xi and what kind of president he would be, but given China’s escalating assault on human rights activists as it attempts to stave off a so-called Jasmine Revolution, there is no indication he will be any different than the present administration.   That’s not acceptable.

As the Chinese people become more dynamic in their dissent, they need a show of support from the United States. We can only hope the White House will finally make human rights a priority its dealings with China.