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."
... the fact that the left-leaning pro-privacy folks at slashdot still need to refer to anonymous posters as "cowards"?
YOU INSENSITIVE CLODS!
I know this puts me in danger of being modded down.
But...
Privacy is not a basic human right. Not like freedom to not be murdered, beaten, or starved. There are a lot of human rights violations going on right now, but certain levels of tracking don't even show up on the human-rights-violations radar.
Sure, denial of privacy can reach extreme levels, to the point where it becomes a concern. But I think this report is a little knitpicky.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
I seriously have to wonder how many more years it will be before this report will be merely a commemoration of lost history.
The average American consumer is still oblivious to the erosion of privacy that has occured over the last decade. Only radical action and broad support will stop this continuing trend.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
Mention the PATRIOT Act, not a word on the oppresive regimes of the Communist Chinese
RTFA!!!
You can't take the sky from me...
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
In Soviet Russia you kinda have no rights...
Trust me on that one...my phone was tapped 24/7 in Russia, I still get taped when I call back there. It's the "click"...and at times you can hear them breathing...or music in the background. Sometimes they pick up before the phone connects, sometimes after. I suppose they enjoy the chats I have with my gf...
This whole article is worth shit though. I'd dare not call it a study. They quote laws that are not at all enforced. Russia has NO PRIVACY AT ALL. Yet it's nice and blue and supposedly has laws...BULLSHIT.
They're still hassling my grandparents there asking where I dissapeared to and why I'm not getting raped in the army.
Russia is totaly fucked, considering that the report has failed to show that, the report is WORTHLESS.
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
Quoted from article:
In Russia (especially in Moscow and St. Petersburg) illegal collection and distribution of data on private persons and organizations is quite commonplace. Quite popular are databases on purchase/sale of cars, car owners, passport data and foreign passport data of Russian citizens, data on real estate (purchase and sale of apartments, their parameters, location and proprietors), databases of taxpayers, information about people wanted for crimes and those who have been previously convicted. CDs with such databases are easily available on the streets and the Internet. The CD can cost from USD10 to USD1,500 depending on the subject, amount and accuracy of the data. In the beginning of 2003 a mobile phone company Mobile Telesystems (MTS) suffered a massive security breach that led to the sale of CDs with MTS's entire database of several million customers. By law, MTS was required to share information about their customers with the police and government agencies. MTS claimed that the database had been stolen and that the company had started its own internal investigation without seeking help from law enforcement agencies. The company refused to provide details as to the results of this investigation. Widespread speculation and comments from an MTS spokesperson indicate that the data was leaked by a low-paid employee from one of these government agencies
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
I like the part about CAPS II may deny people boarding based on their composite score.
Scene from Soviet America, next year:
I'm sorry, sir, you are not allowed to travel. No, we cannot tell you why, that would be a violation of security; we can only tell you that you are not allowed to travel. Please return home and avoid transit. We will alert you in the future if you are allowed to travel.
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?!!!
Just to get a more official view:
Quoted from European Convention on Human Rights (available in several languages)
It's the new airline screening system that assigns you a security risk level based upon certain screening data.
More info is here.
Can some one please explain to me what is evil about biometric identification? If having a retina or finger print on my ID prevents people from pretending to be me, isn't that a good thing?
UNIX/Linux Consulting
This was the best site i could find:
(little blurb from the article)
Virtual dragnet programs like TIA and CAPS II are based on the premise that the best way to protect America against terrorism is to for the government to collect as much information as it can about everyone - and these days, that is a LOT of information. They could incorporate not only government records of all kinds but individuals' medical and financial records, political beliefs, travel history, prescriptions, buying habits, communications (phone calls, e-mails and Web surfing), school records, personal and family associations, and so on.
In the last decade we have witnessed an enormous explosion in the amount of tracking and information of individuals in the United States, due mainly to two factors... READ MORE
What can I do to help stop this program?
There are at least four things you can do to help stop the blatantly un-American goal of "Total Information Awareness"
* Educate yourself about this program and tell your friends about it.
* Use the ACLU's "Action Alert" page to send a free and easy fax to President Bush asking him to pull the plug on this research.
* Let your member of Congress know how you feel (locate your member here and check out tips on writing your elected representatives.
* Support the ACLU's efforts to fight this program by joining us .
www.theinquirer.net
>THE UK GOVERNMENT has announced plans to keep an electronic file on every child in England in a range of new child protection measures announced by prime minister Tony Bliar.
>The children's files together with their unique e-number will be managed by local authorities in a "local information hub". The file will contain the name, address and date of birth of each child, together with the name of the school attended and whether the child is known to such agencies as the police, social services or educational welfare. Where multiple agencies are involved the file will denote which one profesional will have overall reponsibilty
Yet again... launched to "protect" the children... and yet another place where incorrect information can have devastating consequences for the parents of a child if a mistake is made during data entry...
Teacher notices bruises on child's torso... entry in database... social services could now be investigating for child abuse when it could have been a simple injury from a fall... but the reason might not have been entered later after investigation by the teacher however that entry will be there forever... Same child misses school several days in a row for a perfectly valid reason some months later... yet again social services could put 2 and 2 together later on and make 5...
What's the bet's they'll try and fly this kite by saying "the innocent have nothing to fear"??? If there's anything to go by from previous cases... the innocent have everything to fear when social services get it in their minds that there could be abuse when there isn't...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Of course you're right, and it's absolutely idiotic. Whoever modded you as flamebait is one of those PC douchebags.
The problem with airport security is that we're giving so much power to some of the stupidest people alive. This isn't an insult, but a fact. Conventional airport security guards are no brighter or better paid than mall security guards.
I hear about an episode where some 65 year old woman who'd had a mastectamy is taken into the back and strip searched for setting off the metal detector. Another one had airport security guards making a woman drink her own breast milk (it was in a bottle, they wanted her to prove it wasnt some kind of flammable liquid). Women are groped by these jackasses all the time, and now they want a machine that would "see through" your clothes.
I have no problem with security measures at airports, but you have to ditch the untrained morons in charge of them first.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
The best way to protect our privacy is to stop doing things that gives our government or entities like RIAA arguably "justifiable" reasons to strip away our privacy rights.
Doing illegal things lead to all of us paying the penalty by losing our rights. The more responsible we behave, the more rights we'll have. Pretty simple stuff.
I seem to remember a shocking act of terrorism in the United States that killed 168 people, committed by someone I doubt would fit into your description of what the "predominance of the terrorists look like" -- his name was Timothy McVeigh.
If you can judge a wise man (or a terrorist) by the color of their skin, then mister, you're a better man than I.
The real reaction to this act from conservatives is more interesting and diverse. Some share the views of Attorney General Ashcroft. Others oppose it just as strongly as the geek community -- many of the articles about the act on the conservative National Review site describe it with terms like the "so-called", "wrongly-termed" or "misnamed" Patriot Act. A director of the Cato Institute raised many interesting questions about the act, to which the Justice Department wrote up a reply.
Also worth looking at is the Justice Department's own Patriot Act Web site. From here you can view the text of the act itself as well as all the arguments for it and rhetoric used to justify it. A valuable resource for any of us trying to formulate counterarguments about why this act needs to go away.
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/
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.
"...If Parliament and the public at large have been slow to react, it is probably because for most people, most of the time, privacy is a pretty abstract concept. Like our health, it's something we tend not to think about until we lose it -- and then discover that our lives have been very unpleasantly, and perhaps irretrievably, altered. But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy -- the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us -- is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being.
If someone intrudes on our privacy -- by peering into our home, going through the personal things in our office desk, reading over our shoulder on a bus or airplane, or eavesdropping on our conversation -- we feel uncomfortable, even violated.
Imagine, then, how we will feel if it becomes routine for bureaucrats, police officers and other agents of the state to paw through all the details of our lives: where and when we travel, and with whom; who are the friends and acquaintances with whom we have telephone conversations or e-mail correspondence; what we are interested in reading or researching; where we like to go and what we like to do..."
"... The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. ... The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.
"If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.
But there also will be tangible, specific harm.
"The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life...
"... The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free.That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society like Canada.
Again, this essay is well worth reading and sending on to others. Other than to Ashcroft and the TSA- don't send it to them, as they'd use it as an antiblueprint. "Don't track everyone all the time? OK, lets track everyone all the time." "Don't allow unsubstantiated data to influence how we treat people? OK, lets use any data available, true or not..."
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!
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
Yeah, easy for you to say, whiteboy.
Profiling seems like a great idea when you look at it as an abstraction - sacrifice some rights of a very small group of people to improve everyone's safety. Sure, why not? It's a whole different story when you take it on an individual level. I'm an Arab, and an American citizen, and I've lived in the United States since I was two years old. Most people assume that I'm white just looking at me; shit, I don't even speak Arabic. I'm no more a terrorist than your theoretical elderly black woman. And let me tell you, getting searched at every. Single. Goddamn. Airport. starts to look a whole lot like racism from where I'm sitting. I'm not suffering because of anything I've done, or even any choices I've made; it's the way I was born that's the issue. Even the most hardcore politically conservative (i.e. pro-equality of opportunity) outlook can't support that. So if it doesn't fit the political doctrine, what could the motivations be? Notice how they didn't start profiling caucasians at government buildings after the Oklahoma City bombing?
That aside, racial profiling was recently proven not only ineffective at hampering terrorists, but actually counterproductive. It's an interesting paper, and a very simple proof, though I somehow doubt that it will change your mind on the matter.
Finally, asshole, your stance here doesn't brand you as a "radical free-thinker" or "defiantly anti-PC", no matter how you might try to paint it as such. It brands you as a fucking racist, and I hope that someday someone gives you the mighty clue-stick bitchslap that you so desperately deserve.
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