Slashdot Mirror

Erm, no

https://privacyinternational.o...

It was long known that this new treaty was as flawed as the previous one. This means that another law suit is needed to overthrow it again. The European Commission feels it is only accountable to foreign countries and companies, not to actual European people. You can read more on New “Shield”, Old Problems.

Really? The website uses a SHA-1 cert. Get a yellow warning much?

The GCHQ could claim administrative priviledge (as they actually did, linked PDF), but if the transfer of data itself ist forbidden, they have an administrative priviledge with no one to actually priviledge on.

"consortium of western democracies"

Yeah, I would trust something like the Five Eyes to oversee the internets.

Oh, wait - https://www.privacyinternation...

In Britain, a cookie is a specific type of biscuit that looks like this https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/privacyinternational.org/files/main-images/blog/cookies.jpg

I don't know...

I saw this study by Reporters Without Borders on freedom of the press, and the U.S. wasn't in the top 10%. Then, I saw this study by Privacy International on privacy, and it wasn't pretty for the US. Freedom of speech must be correlated to freedom of press and privacy. And sure, you can find studies about everything with any result... these are mine. :)

My point is that maybe, not in theory but in practice, sharing governance is the way to go if freedom of speech is the key indicator.

"Strong" encryption will do nothing against a hardware keylogger.

Yeah.. do you think you really know what your machine is sending? Think you can sniff out the logger's encryption?

This question is as ludicrous as asking which god is most powerful.. It's Zeus, isn't it? Kinda funny that Greece was the 'best'.

The 'asker' is probably a troll/flame script. Doesn't sound human to me.

FYI: for the believers, from 2007

It has been upheld. As recently as 2009, the Delhi HC used privacy as a reason for the decriminalization of homosexuality.

To quote from the Delhi High Court:
"In the Indian Constitution, the right to live with dignity and the right of privacy both are recognised as dimensions of Article 21"

To quote again:
"It is not within the constitutional competence of the State to invade the privacy of citizens lives or regulate conduct to which the citizen alone is concerned"

How much stronger does this need to be stated before it's recognized that Indian courts protect privacy within the legal framework?

Recently the Supreme Court said that pre marital sex was no one else's business. The foundation for that is is a strong ideal of privacy.

Also, lease agreements do not need to be registered if it's less than a year. Can you tell me in exactly which way the US looks at privacy differently?

Ironically, many card subjects come to interpret this state of affairs in a contra view (the card helps streamline my dealings with authority, rather than the card is my license to deal with authorities). The Australia Card campaign referred to the card as a license to live.

The above is from the ID Cards FAQ by Privacy International. Highly recommended reading, for the sake of us all.

This is a cultural difference. In America you value freedom of speech above many other rights, including privacy. In Germany, it is the other way around - Germans value privacy greatly, but do not necessarily think everyone should always be allowed to speak their mind. For example, you can go to jail for denying the holocaust happened... but on the other hand Privacy International acknowledges german privacy safeguards while naming the united states an endemic surveillance society. (source. It seems even Germany is slipping on PI's scales these days...)

They are private facts. The people who hold that information have always been, and will always be, contractually and legally obliged to keep those facts private.
  The identity of the murderers isn't just a fact, it's a public fact, part of the public record, established in a public trial.

The main facts remain the same, only the names will be expunged from public access. I would say this is because, once freed, criminals regain a lot of their rights to privacy.

The question is whether government has the right to retroactively rewrite public databases, public records, and public facts. The only possible answer is a resounding "no". Fascist states, dictatorships, and communist states rewrite history; democracies do not.

Oh, you can't just denounce everyone who doesn't share to the your particular viewpoint of an ideal democracy as fascist! Different cultures have different needs. Both viewpoints are trying to achieve an ideal but falling short as realistic governments are bound to.

Anyway, it's not altering history, it's expunging names from the public record to protect people. It's not like they're writing someone else's name into the history books.

This is a tough question.

No, it really isn't

It's just that your particular value system only permits one possible answer, but not everyone shares that system precisely. Disagree if you must, but at the very least you have to agree that in Germany, the german people should be allowed to make their laws as they see fit. Now, American law disagrees with German law. How then do you approach such an international thing as wikipedia? You don't think this is a tough question? The obvious answers all leave a lot to be desired.

I didn't really have to read the privacy report which ranks Greece at a comfortable #1. I come from Greece and I happen to know first hand how obsessed the "Personal Data Protection Agency" is with privacy. I actually find it silly that they won't even allow google street view, or even police cameras in public spaces. The only area where Greece does not rank higher in privacy is telecommunications, my guess is due to the fact that there was a well known wiretapping case. Of course the fact that the wiretaps were on politicians of all parties and especially of the governing party kind of tells you that it was not the Greeks who were doing the wiretapping (if you get my drift). But I digress. Anyway, after 6 years in NYC I am going back to Greece as well. My wife especially is sick of the feeling she gets that she is in "1984" (your belongings are subject to search, thumbprints please etc), and of course the climate is really annoying to both of us. We briefly considered going to the UK, however we have the same concerns you have, plus the Greek climate cannot be beat. Well, actually it can be equaled by Spain and Italy, but people don't speak English there, whereas most not too old people speak English in Greece. Now, the wages are much lower than the UK, however people manage to have a much better quality of life than, for example, most parts of the US, and housing, services etc are not as expensive.

At least, as of a year and a half ago, according to the State of Privacy Map.

So what if they want to fingerprint travelers? I think this is a good idea, since it can be used to catch those who may be trying to flee the country because they have warrants out, etc. Please tell me how this is an infringement on your 'rights'?

The DHS/ICE already do biometric scanning of all permanent residents when they're entering the country, and I mean fingerprinting all the fingers in both of your hands. People with US Passports, by comparison, are waived through, which I think is a incredibly stupid thing.

Besides, the EU has been doing this for quite some time. Get over it.

Over time this is going to be a 1:1 census.

In conjunction with e-borders, yes.

Oh take off your US-manufactured tinfoil hat. From TFA:

The authority has repeatedly ruled against Greece's conservative government and banned the use of street cameras for fighting crime. The cameras were set up as part of elaborate security preparations for the 2004 Olympics in Athens.

The DPA even resigned (link in greek) over the goverment's use, despite said ban, of those cameras during demonstrations back in 2007. General overview of privacy in Greece from 2006

The right to privacy is a basic one.

Really? And where would that be?
:-(

Don't worry, fingerprinting's being worked on...

The European Commission is about to announce the compulsory fingerprinting of all visitors to the EU, both visa holders and non-visa holders, along with automated border checks of EU nationals through the analysis of fingerprints and facial scans.

EU to announce fingerprinting for all visitors

Insightful my arse, the Torries would be no different. as proved here*

*link provided by replicant108 (690832) above

That's a nice theory, but it's actually not about the party. The Home Office has been pushing for these powers since long before New Labour came to power.

In fact, the Tories under John Major were pushing for ID cards in 1995 - a move opposed, ironically by Tony Blair.

If you think that a Tory government will be any different then, you will be sorely disappointed.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-61886

Maybe not the 2007 version, in which Germany doesn't fare so well. Or anywhere else, really.

organization of free democracies

Leading surveillance societies in the EU and the World 2007

Clearly in the lead: China, Russia, US ...

CC.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597

Privacy International ranks the U.S. at the same level (their lowest level) as Russia, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and the U.K.

There is precious little evidence that CCTV actually helps in fighting crime overall. Privacy International's FAQ has a few comments and sources.

Anecdotally, I can tell you that despite high profile CCTV being installed here in Cambridge (hardly the crime capital of the UK), it did not help a woman I personally saw being seriously assaulted: there was no coverage in the alley where it happened, so the police came only when I called them. Nor did it help when a substantial sum of money was stolen from a community group's storage at a local church hall: despite reporting the incident within 24 hours and knowing within a fairly small window when it must have happened, there was no evidence that the police even looked at the CCTV camera footage covering the only main road access to the premises. Nor did it help on either of the two occasions when I have been called on to give serious first aid in recent years, despite both areas being covered by CCTV cameras and the casualty obviously being hurt each time. It doesn't even seem to help with traffic, where there are cameras overlooking busy road junctions that get clogged up for everyone when a few selfish drivers don't follow the rules.

They did have a good story in the local press about cameras mounted on buildings on one of the main shopping streets being turned to look into students' bedroom windows on the opposite side of the street a little while back, though.

The US is pretty far down the list. Privacy international rates the United Kingdom more highly.

I love all those "* International" organizations. Some while ago Transparency International has sprung up and today I have found Privacy International. I suppose this can help you find your privacy sanctuary.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597

I for one would look somewhere where people haven't changed their lifestyle much since oil has been introduced as the best thing since sliced bread, or where size of population, bureaucrazy, and tax income haven't changed much since the introduction of oil. You don't want to live there ? Damn.

While I don't feel comfortable with any fear mongering perpetrated by the peak oil crowd, I have to admit that I think peak oil will happen some day and we will have to adjust. Given that there will be many more people around who have nothing to lose when oil costs a fortune and won't seem to get cheaper anymore, security measures will have to be increased and that by governments strapped for cash.

I would also look for a country which will be able to adjust its economy quickly.

Some fellow posted three nice bbc streams some time ago explaining the current state and possible future of our society.

Actually I just found it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentary_series)

I'm still digesting this though. This lack of trust in society as the bbc report explains it to me seems not only be caused by cold war thinking but I could also imagine through increased urbanization and resulting lack of social bonds with your fellow citizens.

Unlike the BBC report I just don't think that society is controlled through psychiatrists.

So after all I would look for a non-western
society with a democratic attitude which wasn't involved in the cold war and isn't a first world country. Once you have found one tell me how you are planning to live there.

"The UK is far from the worst country for piling petty tyrannies onto its citizens"

perhaps, but it's among the worst for surveillance:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597

MPs haven't even seen yet

The truth is a bit more sinister. MPs have seen, and rejected, this. The Labour government then decided they wanted it anyway, and bypassed Parliament (and even democracy) by policy laundering it through the unelected European Commission. The bonus is that they not just bypass pesky "democracy", but they get it Europe-wide which means their corporate masters pushing for this get to sell a lot more "security technology".

Rich.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597
According to Privacy International, Australia's slight worse off than Scotland but a lot better than England and Wales, luckily we keep our own law system when we invited England into the union.

The UK government seems to implementing anything they think they can get away with, CCTV with speakers attached, lamp posts with hidden CCTV and flying CCTV (like the things from HL2).

With all that in mind it has become absolutely imperative that Scotland gains its independence in the 2010 referendum, without that, I worry that we will be heading down the tubes with the rest of the 'UK'.

For those that debate how bad things actually are then the 'Taking Liberties' documentary (as mentioned above) shows how every basic human right has been violated by the Labour government in the last 10 years.

It's time....

Leading surveillance societies in the EU and the World 2007

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597

I don't see a whole lot of green and blue on this map. Greece is doing pretty good. Granted, it's disappointing that USA ranks right up their with Russia and China, but you can't really expect much privacy anywhere unless you take steps to ensure it yourself (GPG, Tor, Freenet, etc).

IMHO the trend we're seeing is the downside of moving to an information-based society: if information is free for the taking, you betcha they're going to take it. Governments have been spying on citizens since there were governments, regardless of any policy-based protections; getting all wired up just makes things easier.

"Their government does not wiretap their citizens' phone calls or endorse torture, and their taxes do not go to supporting a massive military industrial complex or a set of oil cartels."

I beg to differ on wiretapping here.

As for torture its more a domestic thing.

Military industrial complex here? I think petrolium cartels are equally obvious.

Americans, you have lost your aspirations.

Want some goals to aspire to?
Perceived corruption http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html USA ranks 20th.
Press freedom http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=824) US ranks 31st.
Privacy http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597 , got beaten by Philipines.

Switzerland has ID cards, too. It does, however, not have any death vans roaming around towns. Also, while violating some privacy safeguards, it's citizens are protected way better than the U.S.', it's HDI is higher than the U.S.', it's GDP is higher than the U.S.', it's currency is more stable than the U.S. dollar and it's Gini coefficient is smaller.

That's old data. Greece(?!) is number one now. The trend indicates that "off the planet" is the best option.

This is not about Germany's past, this is a global issue of today.

According to a 2007 International Privacy Ranking, there is "weakened protection" in Germany, while the UK and the US are ranked as "endemic surveillance societies".

Yes, we are very concerned about German authorities pushing to weaken our rights, but we also need to understand that Citizen's rights are under attack all around the world these days. Stereotypes are not helpful, we've got to stand up for our rights together.

Well, don't think you'd be moving to the US. Here's a map of the places you could consider. It's a shrinking selection.

2007 International Privacy Rankings

Don't visit the United Gulag.

P.S.: Fuck Blair AND Bush.

Cheers.

RTFA. That is not how "border surveillance" is defined in the Privacy International report. They are specifically referring to collection of data at the border entrance that is useful to and/or distributed to law enforcement.

I'll repeat: I see no problem with this. If I enter another country where I have no records on file, the least I can do is tell them who I am and give them the opportunity to verify. "Trust but verify" is good security policy that need not have substantial privacy implications.

9/11 was triple christmas for Bush-Cheney. Those who would disagree I have one word, ASHCROFT.

Note that the European Union seems to have protected its citizens (from terrorism) without abridging basic civil rights.

A lot of the former slave states from the USSR seem to have gone out of their way to be pro-Privacy. 7 ranked higher then the US and 3 for the top five were former soviet.

This pisses me off as I see friends and family continue to throw their personal information into the shithole that is MySpace when there are better alternatives available. This privacy group spouts loads of uninformed and ignorant crap. This was clear when they placed Facebook lower than MySpace in their "rankings".

http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf

Regardless of what you think of Facebook's controversial features... even YEARS ago, Facebook has offered super granular access control to view different parts of a profile. Non-friends by default have never had access to see a profile unless they were in the same network (which has been optional, too)

To an extent (flame on) - Facebook is to linux as MySpace as to Windows. Facebook usees access controls enabled for privacy out of the box. On the other hand, MySpace is a default privacy trash can. If you want to use a social network (you don't have to) then use one that respects your need to adjust privacy.

You'll also notice that MySpace's privacy controls is a single checkbox, which denies randoms from seeing your stuff. That's all you get for privacy.

Facebook allows you to narrow it down further into limited profiles, or even further with temporary access to a shorter profile through the poke feature. This has been around for YEARS at Facebook. Now tell me, why didn't Privacy International notice the drastic, overwhelming privacy features (though underused) Facebook offers it's users? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T LOOK. It makes you ask, WHO ARE THESE GUYS? I would have LOVED to use these rankings as anti-MySpace ammo... and look what they give me.

Who can we trust to watch the watchmen? One that isn't sponsored by Fox news, please.

Maybe they don't include it because they wrote about it earlier:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-558619

"PI leads coalition of organisations against Japanese Government plans for fingerprinting at border

19/11/2007

Today, in a coalition with 18 Japanese rights groups, Privacy International delivered a letter to the Japanese Minister of Justice to protest against the implementation of a fingerprinting system and face-scanning system at its borders. All visitors and many foreign residents to Japan will be fingerprinted under this plan. Our letter to the Minister is endorsed by 68 organisations from 30 countries."

Note that the European Union seems to have protected its citizens (from terrorism) without abridging basic civil rights.

An interesting study here done by Privacy International:

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-553961

Google were rated "Hostile to Privacy". Read their interim rankings PDF.

The worst thing is that Germany was the best country in Privacy International's recent report.
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-545223/

Private citizens and corporations in Canada have a very hard time getting data that is easily obtained by anyone in the United States because of the privacy safeguards we have in place. This isn't to say that the data is not available... just not generally so. We are top in the world as far as these safeguards go... the US is near the bottom of the barrel. See this map for more info.

Interesting how Germany compares with other companies on this map produced by Privacy International on leading surveillance societies in the world. 02/11/2006 is a bit old however in terms of the Internet and privacy matters.

Ha!

Did you read their study??

How come Microsoft and Microsoft "Live!" are not a single column as a single entity?

Is live somehow a division that does not adhere to MS's privacy policy?

I like the fact that they mentioned that Google's privacy policy is "subject to change and you abide by it" bla bla, but that's just about any online service I use

I really think they were singling Google out (Hi5 is better? give me a break).

I hope "all" online service would abstain from using the "We can do whatever without telling you " clauses though :/

Laptop battery is dieing, gotta submit.. excuse formatting/grammar errors, etc.

Why are these people attacking Google.

Just a pet peeve, but nothing makes someone look as dumb as putting a period where there should be a question mark.

Privacy and anonymity are rapidly eroding in the UK. Hello! You've got bigger privacy problems than Google if you're living there.

What on earth does that have to do with this report? They are "attacking" Google because Google has a poor track record when it comes to privacy. The policies that the UK government chooses to implement has zero relevance with regard to this question.

Maybe you think they have managed to miss the UK's Orwellian tendencies? Somehow, I very much doubt that. Maybe you're just saying that their time would be better spent dealing with those policies instead of Google. Well, they do that too. In fact, that's what they spend almost all their resources on. They have opposed everything from surveillances cameras to national ID cards, often with legal means.

But even if they had in fact done none of these things, saying that this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black" is absurd. Privacy International isn't the organization responsible for the privacy violations, so accusing them of being guilty of the same thing they're accusing Google of (which is what the pot-kettle saying means) makes about as much sense as... well, something really fucking stupid.