LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
- Overall, we rate Privacy International as left-center biased based on its focus on civil liberties and human rights issues. Given the evidence of significant regulatory actions resulting from their complaints, we also rate them as High for factual reporting.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
History
Privacy International (PI) is a London-based NGO founded in 1990 that works at the intersection of technology and human rights. Its primary mission is to defend and promote the right to privacy worldwide, challenging governments and corporations that infringe on privacy rights. PI conducts research, advocacy, and legal action to expose and mitigate the impact of surveillance and data exploitation on individuals and societies. Privacy International is located in London, United Kingdom.
Read our profile on United Kingdom Government and Media.
Funded by / Ownership
Privacy International, a UK charity, is governed by a Board of Trustees and led by Executive Director Gus Hosein. Funding comes from donations. Detailed financial information is available in their Annual Report and Financial Statements 2023.
Analysis / Bias
Privacy International’s articles focus on human rights and privacy issues, advocating for stronger protections using assertive and urgent language, reflecting the organization’s mission-driven approach. For instance, in the article titled “Joint Letters to the Information Commissioner and Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on the Use of Predictive Policing,” the wording emphasizes the risks and ethical concerns of predictive policing, framing it as a significant threat to civil liberties. The article contains a link to a letter sent to Commissioner Mark Rowley outlining Privacy International’s concerns and demands. They haven’t provided follow-up reports or updates that indicate whether their communications have been acknowledged or acted upon.
Similarly, the article “UK Law Enforcement Data Service (LEDS): The New Police Mega-Database” examines the UK’s new police database, emphasizing privacy risks and the potential for data misuse. The article adopts a cautious tone, emphasizing the possible dangers and advocating for accountability and transparency.
Privacy International generally uses well-researched and sourced articles, citing official documents, government reports, and other NGOs. However, the sources tend to support their advocacy goals, sometimes lacking a balanced perspective. For example, in the articles above, references are made to official statements and reports from human rights bodies, but there is limited inclusion of counterarguments or responses from the entities criticized. They also source from specific investigative platforms like PimEyes and Liberty Investigates, which are aligned with privacy and human rights advocacy, reinforcing their narrative and perspective. Additionally, known sources like the BBC are occasionally used, providing a mix of known and lesser-known sources.
In another article titled “Joint Letter to UK Retailers Regarding Potential Use of Facial Recognition Technology (FRT),” Privacy International outlines the issue of FRT in retail settings, expressing concerns about privacy violations and urging retailers to reconsider its use. The article includes detailed descriptions of their actions and links to letters sent to retailers like Morrisons and Frasers Group. These letters contain the logos of other NGOs, which can be interpreted as an effort to show a unified stance and broader support within the advocacy community. However, the absence of verification of receipt still leaves readers with limited means to confirm that the retailers received and acknowledged these communications. Despite these concerns, our research indicates that Privacy International filed complaints with European data protection regulators, resulting in fines and enforcement actions against Clearview AI.
Typically, Privacy International focuses on protecting privacy rights, particularly those related to surveillance, data protection, and technology’s impact on human rights. While the organization does not have a direct political affiliation, its work often intersects with political issues, particularly those related to civil liberties and human rights, which may position it in opposition to certain government policies or corporate practices.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate Privacy International as left-center biased based on its focus on civil liberties and human rights issues. Given the evidence of significant regulatory actions resulting from their complaints, we also rate them as High for factual reporting. (M. Huitsing 07/31/2024)
Source: https://privacyinternational.org/
Last Updated on July 31, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources