Slashdot Mirror
2003 Big Brother Awards
MacRonin writes "Privacy International today announced the winners of the 2003 Big Brother Awards. One of the judges, estimable Dr Ian Brown of the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR), writes: "It was alternatively amusing and depressing to be one of the judges for these awards. RIP and data retention played a large part in our deliberations..." ... Read more at The Register (UK) - 2003 Big Brother Awards: The Winners. and Political News from Wired News - Blair Tagged as Privacy Threat."
The most invasive company was Capita, a data management business that develops the software used in many of the government's data-mining schemes.
Try again next year MS!
--------
Free your mind.
Given the upcoming Patriot Act II and current laws, it's good to know that there are those still willing to say the Emperor has no clothes.
"Eustace? Eustace? Are you there? Are you there?" = John Leeming
It's a shame that the awards are for the UK only. Then again, it would be boring to see an awards show where every award either went to John Ashcroft or the MPAA / RIAA.
A.G. John Ashcroft and crew: "Stop having thought crimes and we won't have to arrest you."
I'd be interested to see a comparison of civil liberties between the UK and the US. Video surveillance of public parks and streets is astoundingly common in England, as are photo-radar traffic cameras. However, based on what I've read I think the US has the upper hand in communications surveillance of net traffic and phone lines.
Have you seen my stapler?
Glad to see Stand got a 'Winston'. Long overdue.
-- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
Thank goodness I live in the States where we don't have to worry about privacy issues! :P
Worst Public Servant: London Mayor Ken Livingstone, whose traffic-reduction plan relies on a network of 700 surveillance cameras posted around the capital that photograph car license plates to enforce a new fee for driving during rush hour.
I would disagree. Livingstone's system visibly cut traffic (certainly on the first day, since then the pictures havn't been plastered all over TV) and anyone can note down your registration plate anyway. In central London you cann't have ten lane wide payment barriers, nor can you widen roads or build flyovers. Something needed done, and this seemed drastic but as far a I can see it was one of the only viable options.
Security and Freedom are mutually exclusive. When the Guvmint proclaims "we need to do this in the name of security," you can bet your freedoms will be trampled in the process.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Big brother is watched by YOU!
Would have had a similar effect but without the need to spend £120 million initial investment and put the citizens under continial surveillance...
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
At least in his pursuit of justice his morals will (hopefully) keep Bush somewhat in check.
Ahhh, the right thing to do, but for all the wrong reasons. That sums up my opinion of the current world leaders.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
What about Australia?
scripsit Angry White Guy:
Yeah, it's worked so well this far.
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Worst Public Servant: London Mayor Ken Livingstone, whose traffic-reduction plan relies on a network of 700 surveillance cameras posted around the capital that photograph car license plates to enforce a new fee for driving during rush hour.
I'm going to argue in favor of this strategy of enforcing traffic laws (speeding, stop signs, etc.) by video.
First, I think it's a fairer approach. As we all know, being pulled over for traffic offenses is biased. Minorities and those driving tricked-out racer cars are more likely to get pulled over. The videocamera is totally unbiased. Of course, we must be careful to guard against bias in determining where these video units are deployed.
In addition, I can't count the number of times attractive female (just) friends of mine have cried/clevaged their way out of various traffic tickets. Doing that in front of the camera might make them popular on the internet, but won't get them out of the ticket.
It's also very easy to beat a traffic ticket by pleading not-guilty, moving the court date several times, and counting on the cop not to show, thus winning the case for lack of evidence. This latter strategy both shifts court costs to the public (no court fees collected when not guilty) and favors those who have enough time or a flexible enough job to handle the requisite scheduling. This strategy would be stopped dead by the permanent and available nature of video as evidence.
Cops *have* died during traffic stops, either by being shot (purposefully) or by being run over (accidentally). So, traffic stops are dangerous from the police perspective, and probably creates some citizen-police tensions as some police are on guard during them. Video minimizes unnecessary, dangerous, and potentially explosive contact.
Finally, I feel personally that this will lead to *less* invasive search, not more, because I don't have to worry about a cop searching my car for drugs, guns, or whatever he thinks I might have now that he had a valid reason to pull me over.
-- p
I am reserving judgement on Blair until after the war. If he prevents the prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq and prevents the U.S. from planting damning evidence in the event that there are no chemical weapons, then I'm glad he went in. That being said, he's (for this moment anyways) a weenie.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Together they are the original odd couple
'tum-tee-tum-tee-tum tum-tee-tum tum-tee-tuuum-tum'.
The reason the US is so reviled abroad is that your government has committed evil in your name. You've supported brutal dictators, you've torn down democracies, you've bombed civilians, you've supported invasions of sovereign territory.
The real way to stop terrorism is to stop pissing people off so much that they're willing to die just to slap your face. "Shock and Awe" isn't going to stop terrorism, unilateral action isn't going to win friends.
Swallow your pride, work through your anger, stop killing so many people. Please.Big Brothers Big Sisters of America
Meet the 2002 National Big Brother and Big Sister of the Year
Richard Gandarillas and Devin Little Brother Devin is determined that his match with Big Brother of the Year Richard Gandarillas will be the longest one ever in the history of Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America."He is a Big Brother you can talk to. We have a lot of fun together, and he also helps me with my problems," says Devin. "He talks to me about things that can help me now and in the future."
Big Brother Richard calls their friendship "outstanding." "Devin is a bright, charismatic, 11-year-old who enjoys any challenge," he says. "He is blessed with the spirit of youth and the passion to learn, which I am eager to share. He is a great kid, and I expect someday will be a great man."
According to Richard, "The high point of my relationship with Devin can't be summed into one event. I recall the first time Devin trusted me enough to open his communication. Today, we can't wait to have conversations and share our thoughts. In our years together, we've taught each other a great deal."
In addition to his relationship with Devin, Richard is involved with Greater Columbus' BBBS in Schools program and has three school-based Littles. He has also been instrumental in developing the agency's first bilingual program for Hispanic students.
Before moving to the Columbus area and being matched with Devin, Richard had a Little through the Lynchburg, Virginia affiliate. "Big Brothers Big Sisters came into my life when the time was right for me to become involved," he says.
These are the UK Big Brother Awards! The American awards don't happen till April 3rd. Could ya change the article title to reflect that, por favor? I kinda don't wanna be lumped in with the lymies...
It's played a lot on Cartoon Network. Watch Courage the Cowardly Dog tonight and you'll proably see her. It is a little odd to be watching Courage with your pants around your ankles tho, let me tell you.
scripsit Angry White Guy:
That's an interesting perspective, but I fail to see how we'd know, at least for another fifty years... It's not like BBC will run a story: ``Paras Prevent Yanks Planting Evidence.''
Not a weenie, just a Tory with a red shirt ;)
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
It's a delicate balance, as others can see his support as giving too much legitimacy (putting the 'coalition' in the 'Coalition of the etc.') to the war effort.
I haven't follow Blairs actions in detail- but your line of argument would only hold if Blair was strongly principled enough to look out for manufactured evidence and/or has not staked his support of the invasion primarily on the possible existence of Nuke/Chem/Bio weapons.
As for reserving judgement, this is my drowning-witches test: In extreme situations, a principled person should be able to follow an unpopular and possibly just plain wrong course of action with ulterior respectable motives in mind, and then accept all consequences (jail, lost re-election, lost face) without complaint. If Blair knows and accepts poor judgement now and afterwards, then he's probably doing the Right Thing. So, I say, curse Blair aloud and but silently praise him for the small good he may be trying to do.
How did kazaa not make the list? They collect demographic information from every computer that is on its network.
In the long run, we're all dead.
NOT! These awards seem only for open source. Not Big Brother but UCOSA.
Instead of beating the dead horse, induct them into the Hall of Fame already!
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Blair has consistantly stated that the U.N. would play a key role in the rebuilding of Iraq. This is a welcome change from the U.S. doling out contracts to their friends and supporters. But like I said, this remains to be seen. And for all of you ready to jump all over me re: the Haliburton subsidiary contracts et al, My stance on that matter is taht I think that it's a conflict of interest to have a contract go to Cheney's friends, but I don't think that one contract was enough to start the war. We're all aware of opportunism in office. We cannot hold one's government to be completely beyond reproach. That would put them on the level of Gods, and that's no good for anyone.
It's near Oklahoma and Utah, right? I mean, I hardly recognize this "Governor Tony Blair."
--
No, I'm not Amero-Centric.
I really couldn't agree with you more. I don't know.. *I* never gave Experian/etc ANY right to my financial information. Why should they have it? Why can't I say "remove any information you have regarding my SSN xxx-xxx-xxxx, now!" and have them do it?
Annoying.
..But personally, I'd prefer knowing that the Empress has no clothes.
Mmmm. Naked sovereigns.
When did he EVER say they were going to use facial recognition?
Come on! Ashcroft would kick everyone's ass.
They're much more sophisticated than the old ones and the police will be able to use them. So if a terrorist group is trying to drive in we can identify the car, it can be flagged up instantly and we can even possibly be in a position where we can recognise the driver. So there's now an added benefit that we didn't anticipate when we thought about this but since Sept 11th central London will be dramatically safer, not impossible for anybody to get in, but a lot more difficult for a villain to get in and do their damage.
etc....
It dosn't have to be computerised to be facial recognisionl
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I can dig it.
That was excellent.
Expect now all sorts of rumor and innuendo to be included, such as results of police activity spying on lawful political groups.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Not a flame.. an honest question
...but when he threw Jose Padilla in military detention, not many people batted an eye. He actually got away with throwing an American in miltary detention, which would have been difficult to impossible a couple of years ago, EVEN if he was a terrorist.
My response isn't just to you, but to others who don't think losing freedoms aren't that big a deal.
Imagine one day you were arrested for being a terrorist (I know the idea is silly, but bear with me) planning on performing a terrorist act.
Given the current state of affairs, President Shrub could label you, an American Citizen, an "enemy combatant" and throw you into military detention indefinitely without the right to talk to an attorney to plead your case.
He did it with Jose Padilla (The Dirty Bomber).
*EVEN* South Africa allowed Nelson Mandela to talk to his attorney.
Realistically, You're not a terrorist, and I doubt people have a personal vendetta against you. After all, you're no rabble rouser. Even if you were, I doubt President Shrub would throw you into military detention for being a rabble rouser. He still has to justify it to the apathetic masses. He wants to get re-elected, right?
People who aim to take away your personal liberties aren't stupid. They either do it by justifying it with special circumstances (exception to the rule). If they persist with special circumstances long enough, the exception to the rule tends to become the rule.
I don't consider myself THAT informed, but I came up with "due process rights" pretty quickly , which wasn't even LEGISLATED. Let me repeat that: They took away your due process rights without legislating anything, let alone ammending the constitution.
Is it REALLY unlikely they won't abuse the Patriot Act and Patriot II legislation if they clearly don't respect due process?
By all means, Love your Country, NEVER Trust Your Government
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
They were up for nomination (GUS the parent of Experian also owns Argos who were up for nomination too).
Experian is a credit, car-data, everything you've ever done or want to do, data-warehousing company. (I only deal with injury fraud and car insurance none of the real nasty stuff)
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Ruby Ridge happend in 1992. Clinton was sworn in in January, 1993.
r ms/en force/rubyridge/
Anti-Government site about it:
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firea
Again, tell me a right you have lost. You listed a number of things the Government changed, but you have yet to mention a right you have lost.
What were you expecting? Lost your right to take walks after 10:00 PM, or use Linux as an operating system?
The right to privacy and due process is not so much about the freedom to do things, it's mostly about protecting the public from corrupt government officials who abuse thier powers.
Traditionally, wisely, and conservatively, power has been balanced with accountability and/or transparency. Every official must be either accountable for thier actions. To ensure that an officials actions can be held accountable, they must be transparent to a third-party/public to prevent an official from concealing corruption.
I feel like a mother telling her son that we live in a dishonest world. "You NEVER give your money to a stranger, even if he says he'll give it right back with 100% interest." (Do you know how many people STILL fall for that kind of scam?)
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Check this link to an oregon senate bill.t m
http://www.infowars.com/print_oregon_742.h
You will be defined as a terrorist if at least
1 person in a group planned to disrupt traffic.
oh and it is life in prison.
The Aljazeera videos of the dead U.S. soldiers and POWs are up at http://fuckthat.org.
Well "our" governement tried to push through a bill to add to the powers of ASIO (Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation) for a third time just at the start of the war. The bill would have allowed the government to hold even children (who committed double-plus ungood thoughtcrimes) for weeks with out informing any one. Fun.
James
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
This would've been a great solution, but the speed limits are much too low where I live. AFAIK, they are also too indiscriminate in most of the world -- they don't take into account the quality of the car (its suspension, breaks, and tires) nor the quality of the driver (a NASCAR participant at 85 mph is a safer driver than an 80-year old at 50 -- especially, with a turn-light blinking for the last 10 miles).
Montana's law, that allowed any "reasonable and proper" speed was recently struck down as too vague :-\ I'd love a system, where someone
could run through (and pay for) a higher classification for her/his car and him/herself to
get authorization to drive, say 40% above speed
limit, or something... But this is far too offtopic.
"The only car, that does not slow down at the sight of a policeman is a parked one". (Don't remember the source).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Whatever you do, don't ever move to New Jersey
I have been in cases where I have been stopped at a red light and run it - divided road, I was in the right lane, another car was in the left lane, and an ambulance running hot was coming up behind. I checked the intersection, gunned it, ran the light, and immediately pulled over on the other side to make a hole for the ambulance. I conjecture the driver of the ambulance appreciated my efforts.
So there are the rare occasions that it is needful to run a light.
Also, Montana did have a speed limit, even during the "reasonable and prudent" days. If you were hauling along at 100MPH and passed a trooper, he was probably going to have a talk with you, unless the road was damn straight and you were in a vehicle that was competent for 100MPH - damn rare circumstances.
But yes, there were the idiots who couldn't understand what "reasonable and prudent" was, and when they got a ticket would fight it in court, saying "Unconstitutionally Vague! I want a Number!". So finally Montana had to change.
A pity. Back in 1997 I was on vaction in that area (heading from the Black Hills of South Dakota to Yellowstone). I maintained an average of 90MPH on I-90. Of course, I *was* being reasonable and prudent - the road was basically empty save for me, I was driving a 1997 Grand Marquis (think Police Intercept but plush), and if I couldn't see at least a minute down the road I slowed down. I was being "reasonable and prudent", and now due to stupid people I can no longer do that - a capsule view of our society today.
I swear - give me a time machine (I already have the scoped rifle), and I'd be considering looking up Dr. Spock for what his stupid ideas have done for society.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Tax on any space used for parking a car, so, no, it doesn't already have a tax on parking spaces...
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
At least in his pursuit of justice his morals will (hopefully) keep Bush somewhat in check.
Was that supposed to be tagged as 'Funny'? Bush's morals are what got us here - he's convinced whatever he does is blessed by God.
Firstly, the blessed by God falls on Rumsfeld before Bush, and secondly, I was talking about Blair's morals. I hope that Blair acts as the sober voice of reason in this conflict, but alas, the die has bin cast, hasn't it?
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
I think there's a little miscommunication going on here. Apparently, when someone mentions "rights" to you, your definition isn't inclusive enough that it includes protection from the government. You seem to be equating rights (n. 6a-6b) with freedom .
In this case: We're talking about legal rights (Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature) AS protections which were designed to protect citizens corrupt government officials wielding their power unjustly.
Our friend "OneEyedApe" listed the protections (RIGHTS) and freedoms that we lost.
First of all, I'm all for hunting terrorists, and I'm even for the invasion of Iraq. I'm also for the protesting (not their goals, just their protests) as I think I believe they are playing a key part in showing the world that not all Americans are daemons. If it weren't for them, I believe we would truly be having an undeclared holy war much like Israel/Palestine.
You're not talking to a liberal hippie who's just following the crowd chanting anti-corporate ideology. If you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm consistently for free market and free society but most of all I believe that these things can only be achieved by continuing the tradition of limited authority and transparency in government positions.
I understand the government is an integral institution that needs to crack down on organized crime, corruption, terrorism, and everything else that plagues society and prosperity. I also understand that organized crime, corruption, money laundering, and other illegal activity can easily permeate itself WITHEN the institutions which are supposed to protect us from crime and corruption.
Laws, Regulations, and Rights are all subject to circumvention. Criminals, Politicians, and Industry have been circumventing these protections for years. It doesn't necessarily mean politicians and industry is bad (sometimes criminals aren't bad). What it does mean is that we need to give them incentive to keep honest people honest, and make life more difficult for people who wish to not abide by the law.
I suggest you take another look at OneEyedApe's list of lost rights we lost, and then consider how as a criminal, corrupt politician, or lobbyist group could abuse these circumstance.
I invite you to take an active roll researching newspapers for past stories about corrupt politicians, criminal organizations, whistle-blowers, blantent lobbying, and read how they circumvent existing protections, let alone with when the protections are gone.
Having lived in the third-world, where politicians respect rights about as much as you seem to respect them, I can personally attest as to how thier lack of rights and protections from corrupt government officials stagnates any chance for prosperierity.
I thought I would include a brief example of how one MAY lose your rights (There are many ways of taking peoples rights away).
1. Someone finds an exception to the rule. (Pinky inserted into anus)
2. Others test exception, try variations of the exception. (Index finger inserted, followed by Middle finger, and Thumb)
3. People start testing things that appear to be exceptions, which aren't exceptions. (Two fingers)
4. Person discovers form of exception which circumvents the purpose of the rule entirely. (Three fingers)
5. Everybody uses this unique exception. (Anus is fisted and bleeding at this point)
...and that's how the exception becomes the rule...
I understand that many of hippies don't understand the complexity of the situation, but don't throw away this orthodoxy just because they can't explain why it's necessary.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce