Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

2003 Big Brother Awards

Posted by timothy on from the good-year-for-the-war-buffs dept.

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."

35 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Contrary to popular belief... by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Contrary to popular belief... by g_attrill · · Score: 2, Funny

      http://www.capita.co.uk/

      (logo with strapline "Your Professional Support Services Resource")

      "This website is currently undergoing essential maintenance.

      Please call back later."

  2. Privacy Now More Than Ever by John+Leeming · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Privacy Now More Than Ever by EZmagz · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The sad thing is that there's fewer and fewer people willing to SAY that the Emperor has no clothes these days. Education is a big factor I'm sure, as John Q. Public doesn't have a clue as to what's going on with all the disgusting new laws and acts *cough* Patriot II *cough* that are being (or about to be) passed right under his nose.

      And honestly, why would he? The average person (at least here in the US) doesn't think about their personal freedom and liberties like the average /.'er does. Honestly, I didn't either until the Patriot Act was passed. Politics bore the hell out of me...but when I realized that the US gov't turned into an Orwell-esque made-for-shitty-t.v. movie, I raised an eyebrow. And I try to educate people when possible about what's going on that ISN'T going to be on the nightly news at 10pm.

      I'd insert the famous "Those who are willing to sacrifice personal liberty in the name..." quote, but it's been beat to death and I'd only be preaching to the quior. Fact is, it's a scary world out there that's getting even scarier. And as long as John Smith's golf game isn't directly affected in the middle of suburbia, ignorance will remain to be bliss.

      --

      "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."

    2. Re:Privacy Now More Than Ever by OneEyedApe · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A few Examples, pulled from http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/john-ashcrof t/

      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
  3. It's a shame.... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It's a shame.... by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:It's a shame.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Quoting directly from the linked article:
      The 2003 US BBAs will be held on 3 April 2003 at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference in New York City.

      It's only in the second paragraph. C'mon, surely even Slashdotters can read that far.
    3. Re:It's a shame.... by Highwayman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  4. Amateurs, all amateurs by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny

    A.G. John Ashcroft and crew: "Stop having thought crimes and we won't have to arrest you."

    1. Re:Amateurs, all amateurs by Xrc65kl · · Score: 2, Funny
      >> A.G. John Ashcroft and crew: "Stop having thought crimes and we won't have to arrest you."

      Given Dubya's recent rhetoric on Iraq, shouldn't that be "...we won't be forced to arrest you" ?

  5. Across-the-Pond Comparison by onthefenceman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:Across-the-Pond Comparison by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, for starters, American children are implanted with ID tags, which broadcast things like name, address, and favorite foods.

      In the name of homeland security, of course.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    2. Re:Across-the-Pond Comparison by oliverthered · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Umm... your at War and the propaganda machine is running at full speed.

      The UK government was proposing that all ISP's retain data for 3 years. etc......

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

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:Across-the-Pond Comparison by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    4. Re:Across-the-Pond Comparison by benjiboo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Apparently we have more CCTV cameras here in the UK than anywhere else in the world....

      From the CCTV Surveilance regulation campaign: The United Kingdom leads the world in the deployment of Closed Circuit Tele Vision camera technology. However, we seem to have no coherent, legally enforceable rules or regulations which ensure that Public CCTV schemes are run properly. This website aims to open up a debate about the extent to which powerful technologies such as linked CCTV camera systems, neural network facial recognition , car number plate recognition, multimedia image databases etc. are being applied in the UK.

      Why, in the UK, is television reception controlled by licences, backed up by criminal penalties, but no licencing is required to install linked CCTV camera systems?

      Are CCTV surveillance systems vital to keep order on our streets, or are there substantial civil liberties problems to be addressed ? Has the cost effectiveness of Public CCTV surveillance systems been oversold ? Is crime reduced or just displaced next door ?

      --
      Vacancy for signature. Apply within.
    5. Re:Across-the-Pond Comparison by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "We're at war" is the justification for what's going on in the US? Yeah, the infringement on our liberties just started last week...

      Besides, I thought the UK was in on this too.

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
  6. Stand recognised by Jim+the+Bad · · Score: 3, Informative

    Glad to see Stand got a 'Winston'. Long overdue.

    --
    -- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
  7. Thank goodness by Linux-based-robots · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thank goodness I live in the States where we don't have to worry about privacy issues! :P

  8. Worst public servant by Neophytus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Worst public servant by oliverthered · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think you fully understand, Livingston said that the Cameras were duel purpose
      1: the traffic thing, fair enough I say, more people should work from home.

      2: the we will use face recognition and catch everyone and anyone(evil nasty terrorists) in our security ring.

      That's an breach of privacy and trust.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  9. Security vs. Freedom by Webmoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Security vs. Freedom by aero6dof · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Security vs. Freedom by fatcat1111 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While this is in practice generally true, this is actually false. Some good reads on the subject: Simson Garfinkel's Database Nation, and The Transparent Society by David Brin.

      From the former:
      Many people today say that in order to enjoy the benefits of modern society, we must necessarily relinquish some degree of privacy. If we want the convenience of paying for a meal by credit card, or paying for a toll with an electronic tag mounted on our rear view mirror, then we must accept the routine collection of our purchases and driving habits in a large database over which we have no control. It's a simple bargain, albeit a Faustian one.

      I think this tradeoff is both unnecessary and wrong. It reminds me of another crisis our society faced in the 1950s and 1960s -- the environmental crisis. Then, advocates of big business said that the poisoned rivers and lakes were the necessary costs of economic development, jobs, and an improved standard of living. Poison was progress: anybody who argued otherwise simply didn't understand the facts. Today we know better.

      --
      How Politicians Lie: http://www.factcheck.org/
  10. Of course, a parking space tax within the area by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Of course, a parking space tax within the area by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which London already has of course. You need to buy parking permits for most councils in london, and there are extremely large fines (normally £80) if you park in a space without one, or without paying about £2 per hour. That didn't stop congestion, and the money (about £140 million a year if I recall) raised went to individual councils rather than being spent on public transport.

  11. Hmm... by Peterus7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about Australia?

  12. traffic laws enforced by cameras by pmineiro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:traffic laws enforced by cameras by Carbonite · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
    2. Re:traffic laws enforced by cameras by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:traffic laws enforced by cameras by Maeryk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      I have driven for 15 years, and had three jobs that required driving 8 hours a day. I have _never_ run a red light to "avoid" someone behind me coming up fast. Have you? It's a straw man, in my opinion.

      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.

      Heres a thought.. DONT SPEED! Howsabout that! I _hate_ chugging down the highway at highway speed, then suddenly being down to 45 (where the limit is 55) because some paranoiac at the front saw a cop and is now "making up" for going 70 before.

      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.

      I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you dont have anything in the bag you didnt pay for. But I kind of welcome those systems, because I know it keeps prices down. It may not stop _real_ accomplished shoplifters (like the guy I know who used to carry the tool to remove the trackers/dye-packs) but I suspect the majority of thefts are "cause I can" rather than people who are really into shoplifting. (Low number of career shoplifters vs relative high number of people who are kept honest by systems like that).

      Maeryk

      --
      Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
    4. Re:traffic laws enforced by cameras by Kragg · · Score: 2, Informative

      This isn't really about enforcing traffic laws by video - it's about the inner London congestion charging.

      I fully agree that snapping speeders is an excellent idea. If you're doing 120 mph in a 70 zone, then you should be photographed, and ticketed.

      What PI are talking about is the fact that every driver who enters central London is photographed. While this is ostensibly in order to catch offenders who haven't paid their (£5) congestion charge for that day, the result is that the time and location of their entry into London is stashed in a database, regardless of whether they paid or not.

      The government currently say they won't use that information for anything, but it seems to me that having such a superb source of tracking info available is going to mean that this database gets requested by the police and/or defendants in all manner of cases to prove where people were at particular times.
      Welcome to the start of the Big Brother age in Britain.

      ...Of course, having said that it's not really practical for the Transport For London crew to actually throw that data away... that wouldn't make sense unless they were actively trying to promote individual privacy. Which they aren't. Hence the award.

      --
      If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
  13. Kazaa by silvakow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  14. We ALREADY know about MS, people! by Mulletproof · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Instead of beating the dead horse, induct them into the Hall of Fame already!

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  15. Which state is UK again? by YetAnotherName · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's near Oklahoma and Utah, right? I mean, I hardly recognize this "Governor Tony Blair."

    --
    No, I'm not Amero-Centric.