Slashdot Mirror
2003 Privacy and Human Rights Survey Released
Privacy Digest writes "Out-Law.com, UK - Global privacy report is the most comprehensive ever . The Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International on Friday released their sixth annual Privacy and Human Rights survey which claims to be the most comprehensive survey on privacy and data protection ever published. The report reviews the state of privacy in over fifty-five countries around the world. Key topics include Total Information Awareness, the public response to the U.S.A.-Patriot Act, traveller profiling, biometric identification, and other new technologies of surveillance. Privacy and Human Rights 2003: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments is available free online or it can be purchased from the EPIC Bookstore."
It seems there's a chicken and egg senario concerning most government's and the rights given to citizens. Here in the United States the govenment is made up of elected citizens who are supposed to, ideally, work for us and pass the laws WE ask for. However, the relationship between the government and the people tends to get distorted through campaign contributions, the media, large corporations and wealthy individuals, etc... I'm not sure we've reached the level of security we want but I'm not sure it's worth our privacy. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: "Those who substitute Liberty for Security deserve neither."
"Terminate?"
"Terminate... with extreme prejudice"
Ah yes, the place all geeks pine for. Well, the government wouldn't do much intrusion simply because it wouldn't be funded. But private citizens would have access to all sorts of spying mechanisms. You would have to use anti-spying mechanisms to defeat it.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
er.. they have plenty about China and many other countries if you followed the links and read a little: http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003 /countries/china.htm
The First Lady has said the best byproduct of ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan was the liberation of Afghan women. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the same thing when asked what the U.S. achieved in its war in Afghanistan.
If the liberation of Arab women is so important to the current administration, then does that mean we'll be invading Saudi Arabia next?!!!
I consider myself a privacy advocate because I consider a high degree of privacy necessary for a free society. The reasons are too complex for me to convey clearly, especially in a slashdot post, but consider that people behave differently when they know they are observed. Would I be posting to /. if I had a camera behind me?
All "basic human rights" fall under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So while privacy may not be itself such a right, I don't feel I can act freely when my actions are monitored.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
You do realize that when the extreme levels happen, and becomes a concern, it is more often than not too late to make effective change.
..an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure seems to ring pretty clearly here.
Then you won't mind your medical records becoming public information? It's being done right now.
Minnesota (and elsewhere) wants to make all medical information available in a statewide database. Who has access to it? Some say that the state will only allow access to statistics without any identification of the "patient". How long will that last?
The gov't isn't very secure. We all know that. Do you trust them? I barely trust the hospital. Who else gets this info? Insurance companies? Hospitals? Prescription drug companies? How about your employer?
What if the gov't sells the info? Did you ever get a sexually-transmitted disease in college? Did you ever imagine every blood test you ever took will be a matter of public record? Did they keep a DNA sample?
It'll be part of your state record. It'll follow you around for the rest of your life. Did you ever take a test for HIV?
How about a family predisposition for cancer? What are your chances of getting that next bank loan when the underwriter starts perusing your medical history.
Do you trust politicians? They just voted themselves a 4% payraise by hiding it in a Transportation bill.
-- No sig for you!
If your credit card number or password gets stolen, you can stop it and have a new one issued. If you fingerprint gets lifted and misused, what are you to do? Amputate your finger?
--
*Art
Since when is common sense an invasion of privacy? Frankly, we should do a lot more of it. If you're a mid-eastern national here visiting or even a patriated citizen from the East, you must understand that you SHOULD be profiled. The fact that we are searching elderly women (causasion, black, etc.) is a mockery to logic. We know what the predominance of the terrorists look like and what they will likely look like should another attack occur. Therefore, only an idiot (Democrat? Liberal?) would hold PC over security...and they do...daily. JAV
One of the primary "selling" points of the Patriot Act was that it would be used against "foreign" suspects. However, to my knowledge, the Patriot Act has thus far been used primarily against US citizens (big surprise). Is anyone aware if the Patriot Act has in fact been used against a foreigner yet? And, if so, what the ratio of Patiot Act vs. Citizens and foreigners is?
Bot, I hope I don't make The List with this post. I'm sorry John, I didn't mean anything by it.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
I don't know about you, but if every book I buy, every movie I watch, every phone call I make, every e-mail I send is being watched, catalogued, and analyzed, it infringes on my liberties, and doesn't make me very damned happy.
Yes, but from where do you infer the right to *be* happy? What can be taken away from you, while it may be called a 'right', is a privilege. We choose to call things 'rights' even though they can be taken away. For example, what right to life does a murder victim have? What right to liberty does a kidnapped person have? The only one of the 'rights' you quoted that is incapable of being infringed is the 'pursuit of happiness'. Though you are always free to *pursue* happiness, you are not guaranteed its attainment. You can pursue happiness from birth until death without ever finding it. Just because an entity promises you 'rights' does not mean you actually have them, nor does it mean that they cannot be taken away (no matter how 'inaliable' they are).
http://xkcd.com/386/
And how long until it's cross-referenced with your grocery buying habits? Tons of people have opted in to shopping club cards.
"Sorry Mr. Doh, your claim has been denied since your shopping history indicates that you gave yourself diabetes with excessive amounts of ice cream and chocolate sodas."
Far-fetched? Maybe...
"A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
I can see it now - news reports of people being mugged for their ID cards, and having relevant digits / organs / limbs amputated as part of the crime.
There are people out there that would do that sort of thing without a second thought.
Anyone seen Demolition Man? The character played by Wesley Snipes escapes from the cryo prison by using a pen to extract an eyeball from one of the guards.
First off, there is no US law or ordinance that I am aware of that guarantees your right to "pursue happiness." The quote from the Declaration of Independence is in no way legally binding; the Constitution is much more precise about what is considered a right, and privacy is not in there (though it is clearly implied). But the original poster's point is difficult to refute -- having your email snooped pales in comparison to the kinds of human rights abuses that take place in many countries in the world (including the US). It's a little disingenuous to compare them as if they were equivalent.
The reasons are too complex for me to convey clearly, especially in a slashdot post, but consider that people behave differently when they know they are observed.
Eh? I think you just conveyed it pretty clearly. It's basic psychology...it's also why staring at animals in a zoo makes them edgey. You know, in nature the animals that stare the most are called predators.
Funny, how the government seems to be staring quite a bit, lately. Why is everyone so edgey?!?
Another aspect to privacy is that who holds the information is also who holds the power. Privacy keeps that information in the hands of the people, where government has to work harder to find out what they want to know. Take federal income taxes, for example. Tax forms provide so much information, that the government can use it as a tool against citizens. There are so many special exceptions, credits, and exemptions in taxes that whole populations of people are artificially oppressed while others are propped up. Any good that this imbalance does is purely superficial, when the truth is that the whole society is being manipulated to fit someone's agenda.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
And it's not a bad thing to be a liberal. :-) It's probably a good thing that conservatives and liberals are constantly fighting it out, lest we slide too far either way. Balance.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
The European countries have also agreed to follow the "Universal Declaration Of Human Rights", mentioned in an earlier article, so the government can't do arbitrary interference.
I don't think that such basic conventions can be too detailed, because it will depend on the current technology. It may give the government a little more wiggle room, but they still have to have a proper justification. Saying that "we will keep your mails, just in case we need them later" violates the intention of Article 8. The final interpretation is left to The Court of Human Rights.
OK, you've read National Geographics ;-)
That doesn't mean this report was written to throw eggs at the USA. Read the article instead of the \. comments. I know, less amusing in many ways, but still.
The USA scores badly on *some* points, better on others. It's still a pretty good country to live in compared to a lot of places in the world.
The real issue is, finding your government is messing with your privacy is like being underground and having your canary dying on you. It's a worrying sign, or it should be.
Instead of thinking "Hey, them's throwing eggs at our beloved nation, that can't be right", you might want to look at other countries and see where that kind of tinkering with basic rights brought them. And remember, it's mostly fellow Americans doing the "throwing", and my guess is they're just as proud of being a US citizen as you obviously are.
Apart from that, I agree, a lot of people have more pressing problems.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Of course, the constitution only protects your privacy from government intrusion. But a right can be considered to exist without being legally codified. Suppose I steal your private correspondence and read your most personal thoughts. Or plant surveillance gear in your bedroom for my own malicious gratification? Wouldn't you feel that your rights had been violated?
Side note: screw the moderator who labeled this "Flamebait". I don't agree with this opinion, but it is an honestly-held one. Read the FAQ before you moderate again!
Can you name a right that can't be taken away? The right to pursue happiness is dependent on our life, but if our life is taken, then our "right" is removed (note that this would fall under the same category you put freedom from being beaten and murdered under). The right to speech has at its most basic physical needs. What happens if our eyes are plucked out, hands cut off, and tongue cut out? Where is the freedom of speech then? Your assertion that "what can be taken away...is a priviledge" is nonsense, because there could be no human rights violations; such violations are by definition taking away people's rights.
That said, speech is dependent on privacy. How can I possibly make an informed decision if I am monitored about what I buy and read? Such monitoring only takes place when one party stands to gain or cesure another party. Since, ideally, a government is not a business making profit, so I can only see censuring as a possiblity.
Likewise, there can be no real freedom of thought without free speech, because the information I can take in, and therefore possible conclusions, is limited. Given those, I should think privacy pretty essential to our rights (I do not believe that if it can be taken away, then I do not have it, as there is no right that really cannot be taken away due to removing its dependencies).
This is a prior posting of mine that was received favourably :-)
Subject: Why I joined ACLU
I believe that we British should support the American Civil Liberties Union.
In fact - the people of ALL countries should - the ACLU are fighting for the Rights of everyone on this matter.
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are
Really?
The Constitution enumerates some rights. In that regard it may be more "precise" than the Declaration of Independence. But that is the maximum extent of that precision. The Constitution itself states that other rights exist even if not enumerated, but the Supreme Court and most other courts, as well as most people (including you, it seems), have managed to see fit to completely ignore the Constitution on this issue.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
As a Canadian, I consider the Democrats to also be right-wing. I mean, it was the Democrats who wanted to drill for oil in Alaska (34 Republicans voted against the party line, but it's okay because 36 Democrats did the same thing!)
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience