Big Brother Awards for Privacy Invaders

Dozix007 writes "The Register reports that the shortlist for this year's Big Brother awards for nasty privacy invaders has been released. The awards include: Worst Public Servant, Most Invasive Company, Most Appalling Project, Most Heinous Government Organisation and Lifetime Menace Award - now renamed the David Blunkett Lifetime Menace Award. Pressure group Privacy International, which organises the awards, said it was overwhelmed by nominations for Blunkett, the Home Office and national ID cards but they had been recognised in previous years."

Comments

Privacy in the UK?

[7Ghent]

I find it rather laughable that they even consider corporate privacy in a state where cameras track your every move and there's no legal guarantee of any kind of privacy at all. I mean, fuck- Britons live in Orwell's 1984 made flesh.

Re:Privacy in the UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived in both the US and the UK. Hate to tell you, but despite the excessive amount of security cameras in public, you guys still come out number one when it comes to repression.

Re:Privacy in the UK?

[thumperward]

If by "your every move" you mean "your every move in busy urban areas" you'd be half-right. This is, of course, nothing like 1984.

There is overwhelming public support for cameras in city centres. As a nation of Crimewatch viewers, Brits see cameras (rightly) as aiding their safety rather than as an evil gummit mind-control scheme.

Seriously, there's nothing like misplaced ideology to mess up a country's administration. An absolute right to privacy in public is every bit as bad for the general public as the police state is.

- Chris

Re:Privacy in the UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're all in public places, I have no expectation of privacy in a public place and I'm not committing any offences, it really doesn't bother me.

It's a question of scale. Yes, a police officer could have investigated you a century ago by following you through public streets. Would you be comfortable with a separate police officer assigned to every citizen, following you every day from the moment you leave your home?

That's the scale we're talking about now; there is no similar limitation of policing resources, so everyone who passes within the cameras' view is monitored -- for whatever purpose those with camera record access decide.

Re:Privacy in the UK?

[flibuste]

France have had personal ID cards for years and really, I don't see where it is a privacy problem.
Moreover, it proved so much useful (sic!) that it is no longer mandatory and is now replaced by the use of passeports, which are not mandatory to have, unless you want to travel outside the country.
In North-America, people use your driving license as an ID card. So can somebody explain why having ID cards is a problem in the first place, whatever kind of ID it is?

Re:Privacy in the UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true to a large degree, but the cameras are not just real-time views requiring constant viewers; they're recording the scenes for review at any time. Additionally, there is plenty of effort being devoted to such algorithms.

It's not unlikely in the very near future to see the system generating pathways of movement over time, linked to individual identifiers, tracked from camera to camera and purchase to purchase. The purchase-to-purchase tracking is already trivial to implement.

Re:Privacy in the UK?

[Long-EZ]

I've noticed a lot of UK citizens are not bothered by the massive amount of government surveilance. They offer the same reasons that I've heard in the US. "The cameras are in public places where there is no expectation of privacy." "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I'm not worried about it." "We all feel safer with the government watching everyone." "Crime rates decrease."

But nobody seems to realize it's a slippery slope, or at least nobody is talking about it. Governments, by their very nature, become more powerful and subsume the rights of individual citizens. Did it occur to you that your government decided they wanted mandatory national ID cards with biometric data after everyone so easily rolled over on the issue of nearly constant surveilance?

An equilibrium will be established between people's demand for individual rights and people's acquiescence of those rights under the (usually mistaken) belief that they will be more secure. The UK citizens have given up more rights than US citizens, but we're on the same path. The US Supreme Court recently decided that citizens can be required to identify themselves when asked by police officers, which reminds me of old movies with Nazis demanding, "Your papers please." Cameras are an increasing part of everyday life in the US. Not so much at the government level, although many urban intersections have cameras spying on us, nominally under the guise of traffic enforcement. But many businesses large and small are installing cameras that not only record images from the business property, but also in the public and private areas in the vicinity.

I value my privacy, and I resent the invasion of it. I DO have some expectation that I can walk down the street without my every move being recorded. And yes, I'm willing to surrender some degree of security, either real or imagined, for that modicum of privacy. I do NOT believe the government has the right to spy on me, simply because I'm not doing anything wrong. Universal surveilance seems to be based on the presumption of guilt. Why else would the government watch everybody, unless it's to catch the citizens whom it presumes to be guilty?

Crime has many complex social causes. It cannot be cured by restricting people's rights. At every point, the goverment assures the citizens, "If you just give up one more right, we'll make you safe." As soon as the citizens accept the loss of that right, there is the government asking for another. "If everyone would carry national ID cards with biometric data.... If only we had a national DNA database.... If only all citizens took government supplied mind control drugs...."

If fear of a criminal element is the lever used by government to obtain power from the people, why would anyone think the government will ultimately be successful in reducing crime? In the US, crime rates are highest in the areas where rights are restricted the most. Whether crime or the loss of rights came first is a subject of intense debate, but the correlation between crime and the loss of individual rights is not seriously debated by anyone. I think in most cases, a breakdown in the social fabric resulted in crime, then the government used people's fear of crime to restrict citizen's rights. But the loss of rights has certainly not resulted in lower crime rates. In many cases, the loss of some rights have resulted in a documented and obvious INCREASE in crime.

You want less crime? Invest in education and a fair and prosperous economy, then wait a generation. Short term fixes like registering citizens, heavy surveilance, and the general loss of rights are not the answer.

Spoilt for choice...

[eamacnaghten]

The judges are simply spoilt for choice here. It would cost a fortune to manufacture the number of awards needed...

Most Invasive Company - LloydsTSB ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bank insists "that customers report to a branch with documents to prove their identities".

The article does not explain under what circumstances the bank requires this, perhaps to open an account.

So why is this invasive? Would the judges rather have the bank naively believe anything a potential con-artist tells them over the phone?

In this age of identity theft, this might be a bank to consider. Apparently, they take a persons true identity seriously.

Uh... RTFA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ashcroft is not mentioned.

And the winner of the irony award...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone notice that you have to register in order to attend the event? Other than filling the organization's mailing list, what's the legitimate purpose for making privacy advocates identify themselves?

I think they should take a look in the mirror.

no nO NO

[Ender Ryan]

The cameras you speak of are only in public areas, where there is simply no expectation of privacy at all anyway. Is a camera somehow more invasive than other people? Maybe a little, by the fact that it makes a (near) perfect, permanent recording, whereas peoples' memories are "fuzzy." It is also more invasive by the fact that the government is doing it, although police walk around in public areas too, so...

No, 1984 would require surveilance in the privacy of your own home, tracking your sexual habits, hobbies, et cetera. Keeping track of everywhere you go, your political opinions, and taking action against you for them. It will be 1984 when your television records YOU.

Privacy invasion?

[bairy]

Well, no. You're leaving a public comment on a public website in the knowledge it may be moderated. It's gonna be logged whether it's summarised on a neat page or not, so no.

The alternative is to not have mod points and although most people don't agree with the odd moderation, they are a great way to filter out the idiots.

Re:I didn't believe I could win!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Michael Moore.

Spin has nothing to do with it. Ashcroft will go down in history as a guy who didn't do anything with the MS case or a person who had a hand in displacing and destroying civil liberties.

He didn't start us down the road, you fool, we were headed down that road for a long time; 9/11 was an opportunity to push that agenda. Much as Congressmen didn't want to vote against the Patriot Act right after 9/11, people get caught up in the situation, and that was the case in the senate race Ashcroft was in.

There are plenty of things which to ridicule Ashcroft for. Losing to "a dead guy" is not one of them.

To ridicule him because he lost to a dead guy is petty and silly, because even those who dislike the guy realize the situation he was in. What was he going to do, attack his dead opponent in the last week of the race? An opponent that very likely got a good number of sympathy votes?

Blunkett

[twem2]

Yeah, I know he's blind and good for him to get to the position he's got, but it doesn't change the fact that he's an authoritarian socialist statist who's ideal society seems to be based upon the Soviet system but with more technology.

He deserves a special prize for his efforts to increase state control and reduce individual liberty and privacy.