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."
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.
Oh come on, the credit-reporting industry has got to be a major contender here. They have a huge impact on the financial lives of American consumers, but their data is notoriously unreliable (at added cost to consumers) and its use is clouded in obfuscation (i.e. credit score calculation). Add to that the increasingly broad use of that information (like insurance rates), and you've got an odds-on perennial favorite...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Actually, and not that I agree with even this, the data to be retained was simply the logs. ie where you are visiting, who you are mailing, who you were phoning and for how long. They would not have been required (or even allowed) to keep the actual data of any transmission (ie what was said).
Since there are so many ways to avoid being caught in ISPs logs (running your own mail server, using a foreign proxy, ssh, etc, etc) I think it would maybe have been a good idea to let them set these laws before they get a clue. All they will get from the ISPs log of my mail will be all the spam I don't have to bother picking up by running my own mail server.
The black market will always operate outside of the government, no tax, no law etc... It's the reqular people that get caught by the invasion of privacy.
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
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.If you want an international perspective try the main page Big Brother Awards homepage. They have links to a couple more countries. This is an interesting award, but I am sure it doesn't really compare to the the much less public tactics that you would find here. The big brother awards thing is a little skewed towards the west. The lack of places such as North Korea and Turkmenistan may just attest to the efficiency of such countries' big brother tactics. Hard to compete with such things like the old East German Stassi room filled with jars of scents of know dissedents for use by tracking dogs. I think these awards are quaint compared to somebody beating you unconscious in a third-world basement.
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.
Instead of beating the dead horse, induct them into the Hall of Fame already!
You need a FREE iPod Nano
The right to freely monitor the activities political and religious groups without a criminal pretext.
New restrictions on open hearings and the public's right to receive information through the Freedom of Information Act.
The ability to stamp down on the dangerous menace of librarians who tip off the media to federal subpoenas of borrowing records.
Permission to monitor conversations between lawyers and suspects, on those increasingly rare occasions that suspects are allowed to have lawyers.
The ability to detain Americans in prison indefinitely without trial or criminal charge.
And to follow this up:
Dramatically loosening restrictions on secret government surveillance of citizens, including on phones, e-mail and bank accounts.
Adding a "deport at will" option allowing the Justice Department to circumvent inconvenient immigration laws.
Expanding terrorism investigations to allow the Department to revoke the rights of anyone within about six degrees of separation of an actual terrorist act.
Criminalizing the use of encrypted e-mail.
Increasing the list of federal death-penalty crimes.
Allowing the government to desecrate the graves of deceased victims of terrorism without permission from families.
Restricting access to information about corporate pollution and environmental crimes. This would, incidentally, not only prevent private citizens from researching toxins in their backyards but would even restrict the ability of local governments to get information about environmental crimes in their own neighborhoods.
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
--Thomas J. Kopp