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."

Comments

Security vs. Freedom

[Webmoth]

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.

Re:Security vs. Freedom

[aero6dof]

I would argue that Security and Freedom are not exclusive at all. Furthermore, in the long run, freedom is the best guarantee of security.

Re:It's a shame....

[TopShelf]

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...

Re:Across-the-Pond Comparison

[JonnyCalcutta]

Maybe you run more wire taps in the US, but in the UK they just keep the data, no wire taps required.

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.

traffic laws enforced by cameras

[pmineiro]

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

Re:traffic laws enforced by cameras

[Carbonite]

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.

I agree that drivers of "tricked-out racer cars" will get pulled over more often than someone driving a beige Volvo, for example. This doesn't necessarily mean that the type of car increase the chance of being stopped. Driver of these "race cars" tend to race them. They tend to drive above the speed limit, sometimes, way above. This makes them likely targets for traffic stops.

The issue of minorities being targeted leads into the issue of racial profiling. It's still very unclear to what extent racial profiling is practiced or even if it exists at all (during traffic stops). Studies have produced results to show both prove and disprove its existence. I believe that the vast majority of police practice behavior profiling, not racial profiling. If minorities are being pulled over in disproportionate numbers, could it be possible their behavior is the cause? I honestly don't know but it does seem to be very politically incorrect to suggest such a theory. Perhaps an automated system could prove useful data for this debate.

Re:traffic laws enforced by cameras

[geekoid]

SO your sitting at a stop light and notice the trck approaching you from the rear is not slowing down. As a intelligent being, you move into the intersection and get out of the way.

Now the automated system is sending you a ticket. One that will be near impossible to get out of, because, you know, computers don't make mistakes.

A human being can make a judge ment and say, perhaps they shouldn't be ticketed.

How many times will the system ticket you if you are speeding? If I am speeding, I get a ticket and then slow down. An automated system would ticket me over and over and over.

So now an automated system is trusted more then you are.
This is already a problem in stores. You are leaving a store, then suddenlt some infernal machine is beeping and flashing. So now you are in a position of proving your innocences to the shop keeper*. as a personal note, I will not stop because of that, nor will I let anybody stop me and check my bag as I leave a store. I urge others to do the same.

Traffic cameras are only used as an alternate tax.

Kazaa

[silvakow]

How did kazaa not make the list? They collect demographic information from every computer that is on its network.