Slashdot Mirror


Annual Big Brother Award Winners Announced

SteamyMobile writes "Privacy International announced its Sixth Annual Big Brother awards today. These are awards given to the governments, business and individuals who are doing the most to bring us closer to Orwell's world of 1984. Normally this award is reserved for the British, but there are so many great candidates from other countries this year that they had to acknowledge that. So, who won, and who shall we nominate for next year? This certainly is an area with some tough competition lately."

438 comments

  1. Oh, THAT Big Brother by tehspuddy · · Score: 1, Funny

    And i thought it had something to do with that godforsaken TV show!

    1. Re:Oh, THAT Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i love that this was modded informative. considering his post was all about how he was misinformed (and going to a stupid joke, too)

      gotta love slashdot.

    2. Re:Oh, THAT Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      AFAIK, this particular award is for UK only (even when there is an entry for US for immigration fingerprints). A similar award ceremony, for US specific things, will be held in US sometime later...

    3. Re:Oh, THAT Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a n00b (800xxx UID)
      thanks for pointing that out, mr infinity (or is it mr null?). Am i talking to myself again?

    4. Re:Oh, THAT Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found it very informative. I was about to see whether anyone had already complained, or if I should :)

    5. Re:Oh, THAT Big Brother by mirko · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward's ID is 666 on Slashdot.
      (And 1, by default on other Slash enabled sites).

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    6. Re:Oh, THAT Big Brother by Darth+McBride · · Score: 2, Funny

      Big Brother gets all the attention!

      What about lil' Brudder? Doesn't he deserve more?

      You just keep scaping along lil' budddy.

      *sniff*

  2. I'm disappointed.. by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that John Ashcroft didn't take the "Worst Public Servant" prize.

    I realize that this is an international competition, and certainly the idea of tracking kids and trying to determine which of them are most likely to become criminals (this was covered previously on Slashdot, but I can't manage to find a link) is abhorrent. But I believe Ashcroft is most deserving of "Worst Public Servant," worldwide.

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    1. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it appears that I misread, this isn't an international competition, but a British award which branched out this year due to egregious offenses in other nations. But my comment about Ashcroft stands.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    2. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But I believe Ashcroft is most deserving of "Worst Public Servant," worldwide.

      Oh, please. If you really want to take a worldwide competition, I can immediately name a few serious contenders - such as Fidel Castro (Cuba), Kim Jong Il (Norh Korea) and Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe). South America and Central Africa probably offer abudance of these, but I have no knowledge of their leader names. While I'm not a fan of Bush administration, I really can't understand the contemporary American trend for self-loathing ("oh dear, with the Patriot Act we are now the worst dictatorship of the world").

      Maybe you wanted to name Ashcroft "the worst public servant that at least actually tries to serve the public"?

    3. Re:I'm disappointed.. by grepistan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You make a very good point, but the competition wasn't to find the worst government agency, but the most invasive one. I'm not sure that Mugabe, for example, really has the resources to fingerprint everyone entering Zimbabwe. They are pretty keen on political violence and the like though.

      But come on, Ashcroft tries to serve the public? I'm not sure who he is serving, but I don't think cracking down on dissent and launching paranoid security measures is in the public's best interest.

      --
      Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
      -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
    4. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Maybe you are right - one has to compare the US with nations like Zimbabwe, or Cuba, or North Korea in order to acknowledge: "yep, it could be worse" ... well.

      Doesnt that frighten you? For me, it scares the hell out of me. And I am not even a US citizen.

      And to be honest: I think the difference between Ashcroft and Mugabe is not that Ashcroft tries to serve the public - the only difference is this: everybody knows that the dictator of some African nation is only serving his own fortune - and we would expect better from officials of a democratic nation.

    5. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      None of the people you mention constantly claim to be "leader of the free world" while constantly removing their nations freedoms under the smokescreen created by the press at whatever "terrorist" incidents have occured.

      "oh dear, with the Patriot Act we are now the worst dictatorship of the world"

      Nope, but you're definitely among the worst of those claiming to be a democracy but acting like a dictatorship, and that list is pretty damn short.

    6. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nope, but you're definitely among the worst of those claiming to be a democracy but acting like a dictatorship, and that list is pretty damn short.
      Unfortunately you are pretty damn right. But the list isnt that short ... a lot of the stories that dont make into the US media (like http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0729-11.htm) can't be found in other western newspapers, too.

    7. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You make a very good point, but the competition wasn't to find the worst government agency, but the most invasive one. I'm not sure that Mugabe, for example, really has the resources to fingerprint everyone entering Zimbabwe. They are pretty keen on political violence and the like though.

      You don't need to take fingerprints to be invasive. All you need is a local mullah, local Commitee For The Defense Of The Revolution or local secret police agent down in every village, spying on everyone. Then you have a state with no privacy whatsoever, without any computers or fingerprints, just some bamboo sticks, a couple of firearms and loooots of local agents. That's how Pol-Pot dictatorship was working (and maoist China, and stalinist Soviet Union, and Castro's Cuba etc.; with the only difference that the stick was not always made of bamboo).

      But come on, Ashcroft tries to serve the public? I'm not sure who he is serving, but I don't think cracking down on dissent and launching paranoid security measures is in the public's best interest.

      If a waiter serves me a juicy steak, eating it might not be in my heart's best interest and this steak might shorten my lifespan for a few months, but still the waiter serves me, because the juicy steak is precisely what I want. After all, the waiter wants to get a tip. In a democratic state, politicians offer the public stuff that might not really be in the public's best interest, but this is what the public wants. After all, they want to get reelected.

    8. Re:I'm disappointed.. by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Funny
      The USA: Not as Bad as North Korea

      There's an inspiring slogan for the free world, eh?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    9. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Trent05 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good call.

      I wonder why there aren't "Animal Farm" awards.

      --


      --
      The Marines: The few, the proud, the not very bright. - Slashdot tagline 04/21/05
    10. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope, but you're definitely among the worst of those claiming to be a democracy but acting like a dictatorship...

      Um, no.

      For example, the Republic of Zimbabwe claims to be a democracy, but people who vote for the opposition get beaten, imprisoned, and sometimes murdered. I don't see Democrat voters being dragged away by gangs of Republican blackshirts yet.

      Then there's the People's Republic of China, where the People get sent to labour camps by their Republic if they choose the wrong religion. Last time I checked, it was perfectly acceptable to follow whatever creed you like in the USA - even Islam, despite that being the religion of most of the enemies of the nation.

      What about the Democratic Republic of Congo, where two million people have died in constant fighting over the last six years? Kind of makes 9/11 sound a bit tame, doesn't it?

      In short... nope, I can't really say the list is particularly short, and the US is nowhere near the top of it. That's not to say the Patriot Act, Guanatanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and so on aren't despicable violations of human rights, because they are. But they're nothing on what some "democracies" have done.

    11. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think the difference between Ashcroft and Mugabe is not that Ashcroft tries to serve the public - the only difference is this: everybody knows that the dictator of some African nation is only serving his own fortune - and we would expect better from officials of a democratic nation.

      Zimbabwe is (in theory) a democratic nation. They have open elections; they have an opposition party which it is legal to join and legal to vote for. They have an independant judiciary with a history of standing up to Mugabe. They are not some banana republic with a new military dictator every week!

      That's why it's a good comparison with the USA: they're actually quite similar in setup. And the USA hasn't gone nearly as far downhill.

    12. Re:I'm disappointed.. by SQL+Error · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Oh good grief, not the Allawi story again!

      Paul McGeough got the wool pulled over his eyes good and hard, and the Sydney Morning Herald published it without doing any checking whatsoever.

      If they had done the slightest bit of research, they would have found dozens of similar rumours circulating Iraq wherein Allawi does in various bad guys, often catching them bloody handed at their crimes.

      McGeoughs evidence? A couple of guys told him. Their stories didn't match - neither one could even remember which day it was supposed to have happened, even though it was less than two weeks previously that they had supposedly seen their Prime Minister personally execute several prisoners.

      But that wasn't a problem for McGeough or the Herald.

      The reason that you didn't see this in the US media is that unlike the Sydney Morning Herald, they retain some standards.

      Did you even read the article you linked to?

      There are many versions of the story on the street. In one, interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is driving through downtown Baghdad and sees a frail old man being confronted by three armed men attempting to steal his vehicle.

      Allawi leaps out of his car and shoots dead the would-be carjackers.

      In another, Allawi is in a Baghdad jail where he interviews suspects, hears their confessions, declares "they deserve to die" and shoots them on the spot.

      A third version sets the scene of his violent retribution in the Shiite city of Najaf, which has been racked by violence in recent months.

      Gets around a bit, does Allawi.
    13. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's why it's a good comparison with the USA: they're actually quite similar in setup. And the USA hasn't gone nearly as far downhill.


      Lucky you to not be that far downhill.

    14. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I got Ashcroft on the phone for you.

      He says the only reason your comment stands is because you can't sit in solitary confinement, and that you're on the list now. You are on the god damned list and you ain't never getting off!

      Then he started laughing in this evil way, so hard that he started to cry. Last I hear was that he was going to kill some kittens for the fatherland or something.

      anyway, war out,

      Right wing nutter.

    15. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You are right - the list of nations that claim to be democratic and act otherwise is pretty long.

      But the list of nations that claim to be the best democracy whatsoever and that feel entitled to liberate other countries on the fly [killing thousands and thousands - without couting them btw] ... while acting otherwise; well that list is much shorter.

    16. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      McGeoughs evidence? A couple of guys told him.
      Funny thing this is. For other folks that is enough evidence to assume that they will be greeted with flowers when entering the cities of the to-be-liberated people ...

      The reason that you didn't see this in the US media is that unlike the Sydney Morning Herald, they retain some standards.

      It could well be that the whole story is just that ... some kind of rumor to libel Allawi. But the arguments that you point our arent evidence either. So we are left some serious allegations ... isnt that quite odd: that kind of stuff was enough to go to war; but vice versa it might be to thin to even show up in US media?

      You are right, there is some kind of standard to the US media. But this standard has nothing to do with quality - but with politics. If something makes the US look good - you will see it on all TV channels. But if it might challenge the "we are the nice guys" attitude of Joe Average - then chances are much lower that this piece of information will make into nationwide news coverage. Pls get me right: I dont say that you won't notice such things at all - but they are not going to be addressed in the same way. I guess the "Superbowl breast" got more TV coverage within the US than all voices of "we dont want that fucking war" combined.

    17. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      Name a single thing that Ashcroft has done that the public wanted. afaik, everything he has done has been to advance his own agenda. just listen to his 9/11 commission opening statements - he was trying to push the patriot act from the day he took office!

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    18. Re:I'm disappointed.. by sacmog · · Score: 0
      Your points are valid to a certain extent.

      I have problems with my countries current trends for a different reason entirely.

      I'm not all that up on my history, so I could be wrong on this, but to the best of my knowledge, none of those countries were ever a free democratic country.

      The only thing worse than not having something good is to have the best there is and have it taken away from you. For your own safety, of course.

      That scares me more than anything else.

      --
      --- last minute desparate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people.
    19. Re:I'm disappointed.. by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Actually, I read such story in my Polish mainstream newspaper, but we're probably not "western" enough.

      I think that the person most interested in spreading such stories around is Alawi himself, 'cause they show him as a really tough guy, and that counts in the Arab world. He's got to match Saddam's legend. In the article I mentioned above reactions of ordinary Iraqis were cited: some were scared, others were impressed. Just like with Saddam, only Alawi goes after the bad guys only.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    20. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "Doesnt that frighten you?"

      No. Why? Because the statement purposely only chooses the worst in the world to compare to. Your country is better than Zimbabwe, Cuba, or North Korea, doesn't that scare you?

      It's banal. I think a (not the) difference between Ashcroft and Mugabe is that Ashcroft isn't killing people.

      "...the only difference..."

      Flame bait for sure. And this was modded insightful?

    21. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      That would be because a third-string Australian reporter made an article where two unnamed supposed informants (who talked to the third-stringer only) made unsubstantiated claims that they saw it.

      It has turned out to be a fraud. Perhaps you are disappointed that is was a fraud, not that it wasn't reported as fact in western newspapers?

    22. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Trelane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I'm pretty sure most of you here would appreciate him working to protect abortion providers and track down anti-abortion killers. It was discussed in a profile of Ashcroft that Newsweek published back last year.

      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
    23. Re:I'm disappointed.. by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love the doublethink that most Americans have about Cuba. Human rights abuses by Cuba on Cuban soil are heinous crimes but human rights abuses by the US on Cuban soil (Camp X-Ray) are a good thing.

      But, hey, it's only hypocrisy, right?

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    24. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's not forget covering the naked statues, I really wanted that so I wouldn't see naked marble titty.

    25. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those countries arent democracies, they arent public servants. The people had those leaders forced on them....oh! wait!

    26. Re:I'm disappointed.. by deadhammer · · Score: 1
      And I'm sure he's staying up real late every night with a cup of coffee and everything working on this too. 'Cause if it's one thing that John Ashcroft wants, it's to protect the right to have an abortion.

      Yes, that's sarcasm.

      --
      I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
    27. Re:I'm disappointed.. by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the problem is that none of the people you list have much world wide reach. The U.S. has soldiers and FBI agents in a remarkably large number of countries around the world thanks to the excuse of the "War on Terror" in particular.

      The U.S. has declared its willingness to take preemptive action against anyone and any country it "suspects" of being a threat to the U.S. or its citizens.

      Ashcroft has been bending the Patriot Act to give him jurisdiction over anything he considers to be a criminal act any place on the planet. There are two recent cases showing this tendency.

      He's using the patriot act to charge an American civilian contractor in Afghanistan with killing an Afghan prisoner. The contractor was working for the military but you apparently can't court martial civilian contractors unless there is a declared war. They didn't want the Afghans to prosecute him though its their jurisdiction, presumably because their judicial system is a shambles and they probably didn't want any of the secrets he knows to get out. It is a scary precedent that someone can be prosecuted for murder by the U.S. though it occurred in another country.

      The other case is Ashcroft is taking the power on himself to prosecute American's for sex crimes committed any place on the planet to fight sex tourism. Unfortunately, again these crimes should be prosecuted by the sovereign nations they occur in.

      You may dimisss these now but they are setting a precedent that would allow Ashcroft to prosecute anyone for anything anywhere in the world he can lay his hands on you. This is basically whats happened to most of the people held in Gitmo. It appears the U.S. was offering bounties after the Taliban collapsed for Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Unscrupulous people rounded up anyone that looked the part, collected the bounty and innocent people ended up detained in Gitmo indefinitely, so far without review, and when the review comes it will likely be in the form of military show trials.

      --
      @de_machina
    28. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Trelane · · Score: 1

      Based upon what evidence, aside from your own prejudice?! You counter my providing evidence of one thing that most of you want that he does, and you counter with your own supposition that, well, he doesn't really do it, with no supporting evidence other than your own prior beliefs about the man!

      You know, attacking someone without evidence is indicative of something called "having a closed mind". If you actually do have evidence of him slacking in his protective duties, I'd be glad to review it and maybe change my position.

      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
    29. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The free world has plenty of nice countries to feel good about. It doesn't need USA (which, some would argue, isn't much part of the free world anymore).

    30. Re:I'm disappointed.. by teromajusa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "isnt that quite odd: that kind of stuff was enough to go to war; but vice versa it might be to thin to even show up in US media?"

      I don't really have anything to add to this, but I wanted to bump this comment by an AC up the karma threshold a bit.

    31. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After all, the waiter wants to get a tip. In a democratic state, politicians offer the public stuff that might not really be in the public's best interest, but this is what the public wants. After all, they want to get reelected.

      No, what they offer is flowery language and lip service to what the public wants. That and one or two concessions to what the public really wants near election time. Then they just push whatever their corporate masters want in the intervening years. It's all just sleight of hand and marketing.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    32. Re:I'm disappointed.. by goodhell · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of an old show about marketing, Crazy People.

      "New York: It's cleaner than you think"

      "New York: Fewer people were murdered last year."

      "Sony, because Americans are too damn tall!"

    33. Re:I'm disappointed.. by danila · · Score: 1, Troll

      Fidel Castro is not that bad. Neither is Cuba. After all, do all American children get free milk until they are six? Do they get free college courses on television? Though so.

      As for Kim Jong Il and Robert Mugabe, they are not "public servants", they are more like dictators - that's a different category, since dictators are not supposed to worry about some pesky privacy laws.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    34. Re:I'm disappointed.. by kmankmankman2001 · · Score: 1

      Self-appointed dictators are, IMO, disqualified from consideration as "public servants".

      --
      "The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
    35. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Hatta · · Score: 1
      Maybe you are right - one has to compare the US with nations like Zimbabwe, or Cuba, or North Korea in order to acknowledge: "yep, it could be worse" ... well.

      It's worth pointing out in this context that the US is the largest incarcerator in the world. Both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of its population.

      From a UK Home Office brief (pdf):
      More than 8.75 million people are held in penal institutions throughout the world, mostly as
      pre-trial detainees (remand prisoners) or having been convicted and sentenced. About half of
      these are in the United States (1.96m), Russia (0.92m) or China (1.43m plus pre-trial
      detainees and prisoners in 'administrative detention').

      The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 686 per 100,000
      of the national population, followed by the Cayman Islands (664), Russia (638), Belarus (554),
      Kazakhstan (522), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459), Bahamas (447), Suriname (437) and
      Dominica (420).


      While the US has more crime than any other first world nation, this cannot in itself account for the extreme incarceration rates of the US. Sentences for non-violent crimes tend to be much more severe in the US, with particularly draconian penelties for drug violations (I will not even call them crimes). Case in point, "three strikes" laws.

      When the US has both the highest crime rate in the first world, and the highest incarceration rate in the 3rd world, it amazes me that anyone still believes that imprisonment serves as a deterrent.
      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    36. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On the other hand, do thousands of people from Florida jump in boats and try to make it across 90 miles of water in order to reach Cuba? Not that I've heard.

      People are obviously fleeing Cuba for a reason. Perhaps it's legal troubles, or something that Fidel can't be blamed for (what? You mean it's illegal to kill someone? I need to get out of here!). Then again, maybe they know something we don't.

    37. Re:I'm disappointed.. by wayward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I think his singing (remember "Let the Eagle Soar" from "Fahrenheit 911?") puts Ashcroft in a special category.

    38. Re:I'm disappointed.. by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      do all American children get free milk until they are six?

      Effectively yes. Children don't pay for anything, and milk is not a high-price commodity for most American parents. There is a wealth of welfare programs and food stamp programs for any one who might have a problem paying for milk.

      Do they get free college courses on television?

      There's always PBS. The US has a lot of scholarship programs and federal funding to get anyone who really cares to college.

      In reality, college courses build on each other and each lecture builds on the last. They build on books and graded homework. The number of people who would actually watch and gain something from college courses on TV is minimal. Frankly, if you want to teach on TV, you should use the advantages of TV; use video and audio for first-hand sources, reconstructions and interviews with people who were there, and don't depend on a book or other supplemental material.

      One good part of a capitalist society is that college courses won't be shown on TV if nobody is going to watch. There's one or two channels on digital cable or satillite that show college courses, but not on basic cable or wireless. It would be cheap to film college classes and air them, but people aren't going to watch them.

    39. Re:I'm disappointed.. by SQL_SAM · · Score: 1

      I think you forget to mention that in other countries they just simply kill you or you'll go missing for a loooong time never to be seen again. So of course their incarceration rates are lower, And I'd say you're lucky if you even get a trial. Also not mentioned is how many illegal aliens are in the U.S. prisons? I've heard that many prisons in the south west have a majority population of mexican nationals - go figure. When the U.S. tell the world to "give us your poor and tired" i'd wish it would also include to leave your theiving/killing bastards back in your own country!!

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world: Those that know Binary and those who don't.
    40. Re:I'm disappointed.. by danila · · Score: 1

      Even though in theory American children should be allright, the facts are that a very significant (i.e. huge) number of American kids are undernourished. Not to mention that another large group is overweight.

      As for college courses, I am not very familiar with the situation in America, but I can tell you that educational TV is very much supply-driven. There was excellent educational programming on Soviet TV, really quality stuff, and very popular. But the transition to market economy slowly but surely killed it. Because, truth be told, softcore-porn reality shows, stupid talk-shows and shows about mobsters attract people much easier. Heck, there weren't even any "shows" in the USSR, those were "programs" or "transmissions".

      In reality, college courses build on each other and each lecture builds on the last. They build on books and graded homework. The number of people who would actually watch and gain something from college courses on TV is minimal.
      This is simply false. In countries where there are quality college (or other level) courses on TV, people do use them to study. Of course, these are not just filmed college lectures, but special TV courses that try to use the advantages of the media.

      Markets don't always work, and TV is one example where public organisations guided by public interests can fare much better than ad-supported private channels. It must be obvious - if PBS is good, than public television must obviously be excellent. Logic. :)

      In any case, about 10 percent of teens in the US are not attending school, and the school results are generally considered appalling.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    41. Re:I'm disappointed.. by terrymr · · Score: 1

      He's also scared of cats ... so just carry one around with you and you'll be fine.

    42. Re:I'm disappointed.. by beakburke · · Score: 1

      http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/ashcroft.h tml

      --
      ----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
    43. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm..Are you from the US? Supreme Court Justices have the job for Life, or untill they step down once they're appointed.

    44. Re:I'm disappointed.. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You might have a point if we were only talking about the US vs. countries like China, North Korea, the Sudan, etc. But why is the incarceration rate in the US so much greater than that in Canada, Australia, or countries of the EU?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    45. Re:I'm disappointed.. by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      the facts are that a very significant (i.e. huge) number of American kids are undernourished.

      What is "significant" or "huge"? Short of actual numbers, I'm forced to dismiss that as meaningless.

      There will be a certain number of undernourished kids, children of poor families who don't trust the government, children of mentally-ill or drug-addicted parents, and children of parents with bizarre nutritional beliefs. The government giving out free food can't change that a bit.

      Not to mention that another large group is overweight.

      And giving out free milk helps that ... how? This is a red herring; it has nothing to do with the give away of free milk, nor the differences between Cuba and the US.

      educational TV is very much supply-driven. [...] softcore-porn reality shows, stupid talk-shows and shows about mobsters attract people much easier.

      So it's demand-driven, as I said. Supply-driven would mean it is about the making, not the selling.

      This is simply false. In countries where there are quality college (or other level) courses on TV, people do use them to study. Of course, these are not just filmed college lectures, but special TV courses that try to use the advantages of the media.

      That is a horse of a slightly different color. How does this differ from the History Channel and Discovery Channel and the like that most Americans get on cable?

      if PBS is good, than public television must obviously be excellent.

      I don't watch PBS. I don't use the TV to learn; I use a TV to be entertained. Many of my fellow Americans agree. You can't replace the rest of the stations in a free country, and then it will be in competition with all the other stations. Perhaps more public television should be created for those who will watch it. But I don't believe that's an effiecent use of money that could be spent on libraries or schools.

      about 10 percent of teens in the US are not attending school,

      It's off-topic. I wish people could discuss these subjects without going off on a diatribe about America.

    46. Re:I'm disappointed.. by danila · · Score: 1

      What is "significant" or "huge"? Short of actual numbers, I'm forced to dismiss that as meaningless.

      I don't have the reference handy and I don't remember it very well, so I didn't want to mislead you. I think it was 5-10%. Of course, there is always an explanation for that, because USA is the best, but when one child dies in Cuba that's because of evil Castro.

      And giving out free milk helps that ... how? This is a red herring; it has nothing to do with the give away of free milk, nor the differences between Cuba and the US.
      It just shows that Castro (his government) cares about children and actually does something for them. Meanwhile the US government (and the President) prefer empty rhetoric about leaving no children behind without funding or any actions.

      So it's demand-driven, as I said. Supply-driven would mean it is about the making, not the selling.
      Not exactly. The amount of watching of educational TV depends on how much programming is produced. If you make it, people will watch it, if you don't people won't. It's determined by how much you produce, so it's supply-driven.

      That is a horse of a slightly different color. How does this differ from the History Channel and Discovery Channel and the like that most Americans get on cable?
      Discovery Channel is masqueraded as edutainment, but it's not even that. It's mindless drivel. Can't say that about History Channel, specific Discovery subchannels and PBS (PBS apparently does have some decent programs). Cuba has college courses, not random programs about UFOs and Yeti (which is apparently all that Discovery ever shows). College courses are education, not edutainment, even when they are designed for TV.

      I don't watch PBS. I don't use the TV to learn; I use a TV to be entertained.
      TV is just a medium. Like the Internet it can (and should) be used for education. The fact that the US government prefers people watching 4 hours of entertainment per day is just sad. Showing educational courses on TV is one of the most efficient investments in education that you can make - much better (in returns per dollar spent) than improving libraries and schools. Of course, Cuban government also spends on schools and libraries. For example, according to the figures I once read, average class is 30 children in the US and 20 children in Cuba.

      It's off-topic. I wish people could discuss these subjects without going off on a diatribe about America.
      It's not off-topic because less children drop out of school in Cuba, proving that the state cares about the children and about effective education system.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    47. Re:I'm disappointed.. by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      Of course, there is always an explanation for that, because USA is the best, but when one child dies in Cuba that's because of evil Castro.

      Except for some people, for whom it's the exact opposite. Stop painting things in extreme; real life is shades of grey.

      http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y01/jul01/26e4.htm and
      http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ111.ht ml give figures of 23% and 30+% for the number malnurished children in Cuba.

      It just shows that Castro (his government) cares about children and actually does something for them. Meanwhile the US government (and the President) prefer empty rhetoric about leaving no children behind without funding or any actions.

      Give me a break. Children can not live on milk alone. The US government, mainly the states as is appropriate in a federal system, gives out millions in food stamps and welfare. Both societies obviously care about the children; a serious comparison of the two is probably worth a dissertion or at least a term paper.

      (BTW, the second article above points out that the free milk is only to age 6.)

      The amount of watching of educational TV depends on how much programming is produced.

      There's tons of educational TV being produced, for schools and private purchase. Furthermore, it's cheaper to make an educational video; there's no million dollars being given away at the end of the night. There is no problem in supply.

      College courses are education, not edutainment, even when they are designed for TV.

      People who want education can find educational material. People who watch "Who Wants to Marry My Dad" don't want to watching education instead.

      In any case, why are they college courses? A college course without interactivity, a book, homework or tests isn't really a course. You don't learn nearly as well passively, especially if it's material that's not going to be on the test.

      TV is just a medium.

      Mediums have strong points and connotations. There's a much more limited selection on TV than in even a small library; it's slow and harder to replay (frequently necessary in the learning process) than a book; and it's understood as a tool for entertainment, not education.

      The fact that the US government prefers people watching 4 hours of entertainment per day is just sad.

      The US government does not control what is on TV or what people watch. In a capitalistic, democratic society, there's no need for them to. People watch 4 hours of entertainment every day because they want to.

      Showing educational courses on TV is one of the most efficient investments in education that you can make

      What an assertion! Of course, without evidence, its value in this debate is zero.

      average class is 30 children in the US and 20 children in Cuba.

      And why doesn't Cuba spend that money on more TV programs?

      less children drop out of school in Cuba, proving that the state cares about the children

      Everyone cares about the children. It's been drilled into our essence during hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

      For one thing, the US's population has a large transiant immigrant population. And students who don't stay in one school for long have a hard time graduating.

      You want to toss a few unverified facts out and come to a dramatic conclusion about the US government. It just doesn't work that way in real life.

    48. Re:I'm disappointed.. by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      protect abortion providers and track down anti-abortion killers

      If not all of your AGs want to stop people getting murdered, your country has gone further downhill than I thought.

  3. My favourites by manavendra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    #1: US-Visit . This security program requires that most foreign visitors traveling to the United States on a visa have their index fingers digitally scanned and a digital photograph taken, so that immigration officers can verify their identity before the visitors are allowed entry into the United States - yeah right! that should stop Osama Bin Laden from getting in !!

    #2: British gas - privacy rules prevented it from helping an elderly couple who were found dead of hypothermia in their home last winter, weeks after their gas service was cut off due to nonpayment of a 140-pound ($255) bill. - yes, this can happen only in good ol' england

    Also rans:

    1. Vodafone - which blocks customers from logging onto adult websites through their phone handsets
    2. Lloyds TSB - which has been demanding that customers present themselves at their local branch office with proper photo ID or face having their bank accounts frozen.

    --
    http://efil.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:My favourites by Veridium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You beat me on mentioning British gas.

      Man, what kind of a sick culture do we have that things like that go on? I know, I know, I know that there are many worse humanitarian crimes happening around the world in terms of magnitude, but this is pretty damned depraved.

      I guess I shouldn't blame my culture, since I'm a yank and not in England, but something tells me American corps would pull something like that if they could get away with it. Maybe I've just grown too cynical.

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
    2. Re:My favourites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US-Visit is a horrible, henious scheme. Verifying the identity of a visitor doesn't help if the person is not on any wanted lists. It would never have helped to stop September 11th; all of the hijackers flew on their own perfectly valid travel documents, all under their own names. Under US-Visit they still would have been allowed entry.

      As a UK citizen I'll have to go through the demeaning process of providing a fingerprint and mugshot when I visit the US at Christmas, even though I've been married to my US citizen wife for three years and living together here in the UK. As if having to queue for an hour at US imigration while my wife waits for me on the other side wasn't bad enough, now I get to be treated like a criminal. If it wasn't for her sake I'd never visit the US while US-Visit is in force.

    3. Re:My favourites by beuges · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The South African government passed laws about 2 years ago, requiring that all personal bank accounts be verified in person by the accout holder by providing an original ID book, as well as proof of residential address, in the form of an account (phone, electricity, water, etc) or a tax return. Accountholders who did not provide the information by the deadline (which was June30 or something) faced having their accounts frozen.

      Of course, in the weeks before the deadline, everyone realised that a very tiny percentage of the bank accounts had been verified, and the deadline was extended by about 2 years.

      Note that this isn't an individual bank that is requiring this information, its the government forcing the banks to obtain this information.

    4. Re:My favourites by Veridium · · Score: 3, Informative

      After reading this:
      http://www.eurosceptic.com/sources_of_information/ articles/Elderly_couple_died_after_gas_was_cut_off .htm

      It really doesn't seem fair to blame British Gas. I agree with the other posters after reading about this incident, I don't see why British Gas gets the award.

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
    5. Re:My favourites by alasdair · · Score: 3, Insightful

      #2: British gas - privacy rules prevented it from helping an elderly couple who were found dead of hypothermia in their home last winter, weeks after their gas service was cut off due to nonpayment of a 140-pound ($255) bill.

      So British Gas gets an "Invasive" award for not passing personal information to the state? But Margaret Hodge gets a "Worst Public Servant" awards for requiring the National Health Service to pass personal information to the state?

      This is having your cake and eating it. The defence for greater integration of computer systems and greater sharing of private information is just these situations: if private companies or government agencies are allowed to share information, then problems such as old people not able to pay their bills can be resolved and they wouldn't be dead.

    6. Re:My favourites by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      IIRC my great uncle has a cheap thermometer which says when to turn the heating on (since old people can't tell) that was either from British Gas or SEEBOARD (the electricity company).

      And yes, august was pretty hot.

    7. Re:My favourites by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I completely disagree. But then it wasn't really explained well enough, I think for non-Brits to understand the problem.
      Yes, maybe BG were justified in cutting them off and maybe they followed the procedures to the letter, but after cutting off the gas supply to a couple who are both over 85 years of age they informed no-one. They then claimed that they wanted to tell someone in authority but were prevented by the Data Protection Act (the law in the UK that companies must follow when dealing with data they hold about private citizens). Now this might be strictly true, or actually a bit of a grey area, but these are peoples lives they are dealing with - old people who are perhaps not as able to look after themselves as well as they used to. Perhaps they couldn't get out the house to pay their bills - perhaps they could, but to say that you couldn't inform anyone because of the Data Protection Act is a bit like saying you couldn't drag someone out of a burning building because you would be guilty of 'breaking and entering'. Its strictly true but in spirit its not.

      In the UK we call these kind of people 'jobsworths' - the kind of person who says things like 'I'd love to help you, but its more than my job's worth'

    8. Re:My favourites by Veridium · · Score: 1

      That's the type of reply I was hoping for. I found it extremely difficult to find a non-sterile media British perspective on this.

      I much appreciate your reply.

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
    9. Re:My favourites by Ricwot · · Score: 1

      God bless the british media

    10. Re:My favourites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > #2: British gas - privacy rules prevented it from helping an elderly couple who
      > were found dead of hypothermia in their home last winter, weeks after their gas
      > service was cut off due to nonpayment of a 140-pound ($255) bill. - yes, this
      > can happen only in good ol' england

      Well, it's not going to happen in the Sudan, is it?!

      Oh, and how does not passing on info to any agency which asks for it make it worthy of a Big Brother style award?

    11. Re:My favourites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In the UK we call these kind of people 'jobsworths' - the kind of person who
      > says things like 'I'd love to help you, but its more than my job's worth'

      You'd risk your job to help someone?

    12. Re:My favourites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If it was a case of doing the right thing with a chance that I might save someones life, or doing my jobs worth and following the law to the letter, I'd do the right thing, every single time, without doubt. It's only a fucking job, you can get another one. Lives a little harder to come by.

    13. Re:My favourites by magurozushi · · Score: 1

      US-Visit: That's in fact even stronger than what you write. It applies to most foreign persons on a visa, period. I'm legally working in the US with a visa and have to give the finger each time...

    14. Re:My favourites by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 1

      Or at least God do something to them. Going off their current inexcusable behaviour, bless isn't the top of the list for what I'd like God to do to them though.

    15. Re:My favourites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      So British Gas gets an "Invasive" award for not passing personal information to the state?

      No, they didn't get the award for this at all. They got the award for foolishly cutting off the gas to an elderly couple's house without taking adequate steps to warn them or their family, and then saying "But the privacy laws made us do it!".

      When you are dealing with critical infrastructure such as the gas supply, you have a duty of care to ensure that nobody is harmed due to the unavailability of the service. Blaming it on those crazy privacy laws simply isn't acceptable.

    16. Re:My favourites by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      well if the award is about being inhumane or whatever like that then they would be worth it.

      but giving them an award about INVADING PRIVACY when they stood from doing that way too far.. it's just stupid.

      those elderly people should not have been living on their own anyways if they were unable to pay the gas and after that unable(or too shamed) to ask for help they should have been deemed unfit to take care of themselfs anyways...

      this is a case where the society *should* have acted more like a big brother.

      *besides*, doesn't UK have quite a few of totally homeless people too, in much bigger need of help(than two people who have at least 4 walls around them)?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    17. Re:My favourites by pilybaby · · Score: 1

      Lives a little harder to come by.

      I disagree, "I've wiped entire galaxies off my chest" (Bill Hicks)

    18. Re:My favourites by blugeoned · · Score: 1

      If BG was truly following the law, how would they know that the gas they turned off was to a house with 85 year-old people in it?

      It is my understanding that part of observing privacy is that this kind of information is not known to people internal to a company (and hence exploitable) except in specific "need-to-know" instances.

      My point is, the people at BG probably had NO IDEA that they were turning off gas to an elderly couple. I imagine that an accounting database routine kicked out an address to a field tech who went to the address and turned a knob without talking to anyone in the house. I am sure the whole "the privacy laws prevented us" story was made up after the BG's publicity people heard about the story.

    19. Re:My favourites by MacGabhain · · Score: 2, Insightful
      US-Visit is a horrible, henious scheme. Verifying the identity of a visitor doesn't help if the person is not on any wanted lists. It would never have helped to stop September 11th; all of the hijackers flew on their own perfectly valid travel documents, all under their own names. Under US-Visit they still would have been allowed entry.

      Since when is the standard for all US policy "would it have stopped the September 11 attacks"? US-Visit has managed to catch thousands of people trying to enter the US while legally banned from doing so. It is not the least bit invasive -- as you said, if you're prints aren't there to be matched, they've got nothing more from you. It's a simple biometric identification system, like the photo on your passport is. National customs services have every right to know exactly who is entering their country. I'm sure your wife can attest to the seriousness with which the British passport control stations are taken.

      Oh, and lets not forget that one of the post-September 11th attacks that was foiled was attempted by a British citizen. Yes, we tend to like you, and you tend to like us. But it's not like we get to go through the short line at Gatwick.

    20. Re:My favourites by wcrowe · · Score: 1
      #2: British gas [house.co.uk] - privacy rules prevented it from helping an elderly couple who were found dead of hypothermia in their home last winter, weeks after their gas service was cut off due to nonpayment of a 140-pound ($255) bill. - yes, this can happen only in good ol' england


      Yes, this is bad. But how is this invasive?

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    21. Re:My favourites by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "It is not the least bit invasive -- as you said, if you're prints aren't there to be matched, they've got nothing more from you."

      Except your photo and prints, which is what the big deal is all about. You see, when you start collecting prints from EVERYBODY, that means you are treating everybody as a criminal since in the past, the only people who got their prints collected by law enforcement were criminals.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    22. Re:My favourites by wayward · · Score: 1

      Speaking of intrusiveness, I thought this was funny: http://www.aclu.org/pizza/index.html?orgid=EA07190 4&MX=1414&H=0

    23. Re:My favourites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On our last visit to the states it took nearly an hour for me to clear imigration at Charlotte (NC).

      On the way back my wife was through the non-EU line at Gatwick faster than I could get through the EU line waving my purple passport.

      The British passport control is not serious at all. I've travelled to the Netherlands before without my passport; on entry to NL and back into the UK we were waved on through the customs booth.

      It is not the least bit invasive..

      You don't have to go through it. Having your fingerprints and mugshot taken like a common criminal is both invasive and demeaning.

    24. Re:My favourites by SQL_SAM · · Score: 1
      #1 Being a yank - I really dont mind that foreign visitors traveling to the United States on a visa have their index fingers digitally scanned and a digital photograph taken. If I were to visit a foreign country I would have no problem being fingerprinted or having a snapshot taken if that country required it (when in Rome you do as the Romans do - or tell you to do) - If you dont like it you dont have to visit. Also if it disturbs you that bad you can just travel to Mexico instead and come across the border like all the other's do! This way you would be helping a third world economy in the process! you could consider yourself a humanatarian!

      #2 what about the 1500 people that died in France last year do to heat related incedents? How come this doesnt get mentioned? I'm not trying to play down the deaths of the elderly couple - it is a sad case when anyone dies.

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world: Those that know Binary and those who don't.
    25. Re:My favourites by The+Dark+P · · Score: 1

      What are "adequate" steps, would that be multiple letters and home visits?

    26. Re:My favourites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Multiple home visits with patient explanations at least, when you are dealing with elderly people.

    27. Re:My favourites by MacGabhain · · Score: 1
      Prints are NOT just taken from criminals. Prints are held in some smartcards for identification. Prints are scanned for access into secure areas of many governments and private enterprises. My prints are on file with the FBI and US State department because I held a security clearance over a decade ago.

      In US-Visit you are not taken over to a table where your fingers are guided over ink and paper by a police officer. You put your hand on a scanner, just like NOC access at any number of security-focused companies.

    28. Re:My favourites by MacGabhain · · Score: 1
      I've never gotten through passport control in London in less than an hour -- probably an hour and a half.

      What is it with this theory that fingerprints are only taken from criminals? I have no problem with Brit passport control knowing who I am, exactly how long I'll be there and where I'll be staying. If they want me to put my hand on a scanner, whoop-d-do. I've done it before, and will probably do it again (although don't have to in my current job). I frankly wish more countries would do this, so criminals wouldn't have free reign of most of the world.

      I'd be much more concerned about your own country's nearly comprehensive network of police-monitored video cameras in public. In the US, you have to submit to a quick, electronic print scan to verify that you haven't been banned from entering the country. In Britain, your local police can know where you stop for lunch every day if they wish.

  4. U.S.-Visit? by sinnfeiner1916 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is this "big brother"ish? We are just supposed to let foriegners in willy-nilly to trapse about and not know anything about them? Hello!! Defense of borders is part of maintaining soverignty...since when is that "orwellian?" The fact that the US has computers to help just means that we have a better chance than the Roman Empire. This is not a troll, I really believe this is a basic, common-sense thing. Maintaining the integrity of the borders is a basic function of ALL government.

    --
    The More Laws, the less Justice --Marcus Tullius Cicero
    1. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutley right. And there would ne not a single word of protestin the USA if its nationals were required to be finger printed and digitally photographed before entering the EU I suppose.

    2. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Veridium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well that's different. WE aren't foreigners! I hope the humor is recognized.

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
    3. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We maintain our borders just fine, without giveing people a full cavity search here. I cancelled my tour to the US after i heard i would leave with my photo taken and a "copy" of my fingerprints. I commited no crime, so i refuse to do that, if i ever commit a crime though, it would make sense. But as crime prevention its just yet another dumb american law, made so you can live your life, beleaving you are safe :).

      We'll - if terrorists wants, they wont be comeing thru a standard airport anyways, so its just an invasive law. Departement of Homeland security, sure knows how'da handle 8 Billion dollars!

    4. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, certainly not anything like the big stink they kicked up about Brazil demanding similar measures. How unfair of anyone else to try and tell the U.S. what to do... tut tut!

    5. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We are just supposed to let foriegners in willy-nilly to trapse about and not know anything about them?

      No, that's why you have passports and visa requirements. Why do you need fingerprints and a mugshot?

      ..since when is that "orwellian?"

      Since the data will be kept in a database in a "foreign" country where the person whom the details refer to has no legal recourse to oversee the data. How will I know who will use the data in the US-Visit database? How can I stop them when I'm not in the US? I can't.

      Defense of borders is part of maintaining soverignty

      Great, you're correct, but US-Visit does nothing of the sort. You do realise that none of the September 11th hijackers used false documents to enter the US, right? They all used their own passports issued in their own names. They would have been allowed entry under US-Visit; the only difference is that their fingerprints and mugshots would have been in a database. What use would a fingerprint have been to the authorities at 9am, September 11th, 2001?

    6. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
      -- Benjamin Franklin, "Historical Review of Pennsylvania", 1759

      "Maintaining the integrity of the borders is a basic function of ALL government."

      which is why the US has always operated a visa system.

      did you know that "for our convenience" our records will be kept? we can be tracked while in your country? ooooh, let's go relax in florida where we can be spied on...
      i have friends in the states i would love to visit. i love shopping in the states. but i will not go to the states if i am going to be treated like a criminal before i even get there.

      if U.S. Visit is designed to keep people out of the states, it's doing a great job.

    7. Re:U.S.-Visit? by mpe · · Score: 1

      How is this "big brother"ish? We are just supposed to let foriegners in willy-nilly to trapse about and not know anything about them? Hello!! Defense of borders is part of maintaining soverignty

      I don't recall any reports of the US building a "wall" to protect its borders with Canada and Mexico. It's rather pointless to have all this "security" at ports when someone can simply walk across the border anyway.

    8. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they're planing on taking tips from Israel. You know, test it on a smaller scale first, then ramp it up!

    9. Re:U.S.-Visit? by zors · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, to be fair, that was being applied only to US citizens, which is blatantly vindictive. Not that i agree with our program (or disagree even) but there is a difference. I dont think we would have made any stink about the brazilian measures if they had been blanketed over all foreigners like ours.

    10. Re:U.S.-Visit? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Since the data will be kept in a database in a "foreign" country where the person whom the details refer to has no legal recourse to oversee the data. How will I know who will use the data in the US-Visit database? How can I stop them when I'm not in the US? I can't.

      There is also the problem of the US lacking any data protection legislation. Hence US based entities making a big song and dance about "privacy policies". This means that there is no requirment for such data to be kept secret or even accurate.

      Great, you're correct, but US-Visit does nothing of the sort. You do realise that none of the September 11th hijackers used false documents to enter the US, right? They all used their own passports issued in their own names.

      Actually more than a third of the alleged hijackers turned up alive. Basically if the Al-Quada Conspiracy theory was not advocated by the US Government it would have been instantly ridiculed.

    11. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my wife and I were to visit her family in the USA this Christmas. But I had forgotten about the US-VISIT act. I'm glad these awards reminded me of it. As we both require a visa to visit the USA we'll be boycotting the USA from now on. Maybe we'll go to Canada instead and invite her sisters to visit us there.

    12. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cancelled my tour to the US after i heard i would leave with my photo taken and a "copy" of my fingerprints.

      See, the system works!!

    13. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my wife and I were to visit her family in the USA this Christmas. But I had forgotten about the US-VISIT act. I'm glad these awards reminded me of it. As we both require a visa to visit the USA we'll be boycotting the USA from now on. Maybe we'll go to Canada instead and invite her sisters to visit us there.

      So we're keeping someone with something to hide out of the conutry?? Sweet!!

    14. Re:U.S.-Visit? by einar2 · · Score: 1

      A decent society with a working legal system tends to apply the same law to all people. So instead of registering finger prints from foereigners, like you do with your own criminals, let's register everybody in the US. It is only common sense to know who is crawling inside the borders of you sovereignty, isn't it? Does it feel orwellian now?

    15. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Trent05 · · Score: 1

      I don't recall any reports of the US building a "wall" to protect its borders with Canada and Mexico. It's rather pointless to have all this "security" at ports when someone can simply walk across the border anyway.

      I think the point of it is to make it a little harder to enter the country. Technically I could kill 100 people with a butter knife if I REALLY wanted to. But it'd be a lot easier with fully-automatic chaingun. Why make the fully-automatic chaingun illegal if I can have the same effect with a legal butterknife.
      Anywho, yea it's not too hard to come in through either land border, but then the administration (current or next) has some blame to spread around.

      "Timmy the terrorist came in through country XXXX. If their immigration policy was better then this wouldn't of happened."

      Gotta love polititions covering their butts.

      --


      --
      The Marines: The few, the proud, the not very bright. - Slashdot tagline 04/21/05
    16. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So we're keeping someone with something to hide out of the conutry?? Sweet!!

      Conutry? Nucular? What next?

    17. Re:U.S.-Visit? by GbrDead · · Score: 1

      I think it is not your business to decide whether US-Visit is orwellian or not - you are not affected, after all.

    18. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative

      To be fair, this was enacted by the Brazil justice, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. When the justice learned that brazil citizens were subject to fingerprinting and getting their image taken when entering the U.S. as tourists, he ordered that the same applies to U.S. citizens who enter Brazil as tourists. Basicly the current situation is that whatever a state demands from brazil citizens before entering, the same demands are valid for citizens of this state before entering Brazil.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    19. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually more than a third of the alleged hijackers turned up alive. Basically if the Al-Quada Conspiracy theory was not advocated by the US Government it would have been instantly ridiculed.

      And your source for this assertion is...?

    20. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, he's loves America so much that he pretends to be Irish. Go figure!

    21. Re:U.S.-Visit? by andrewscraig · · Score: 1

      Visa/Visitor rules are always mutual -- Americans can come over here without a visa, therefore we can go to you without a visa (the 90 day waiver applies). Similarly, Brazilians are required to be subject to fingerprinting/photographing when entering the US, therefore it is only fair that Americans are subject to fingerprinting/photographing when entering Brazil. Otherwise the whole point of "mutual agreements" doesn't apply.

    22. Re:U.S.-Visit? by rmerrill11 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You've never actually been to the US Mexican border have you? The US has built large walls to keep Mexicans out.
      Wired: Beyond the Wall
      Operation Gatekeeper

    23. Re:U.S.-Visit? by zors · · Score: 1

      hmmm. makes sense actually. US is the only one demanding it, so they're the only ones who have it exacted back on them. thanks for the explanation.

    24. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Great, you're correct, but US-Visit does nothing of the sort.

      Unless you happen to work at the same place I do, I'd suggest that you don't have a clue about this. I'm glad my company won this giant contract, and I do think it will help protect our borders. However, as a fan of personal privacy, I feel conflicted in that I wouldn't want to submit my own fingerprints when entering another country.

    25. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Madcapjack · · Score: 1
      i have friends in the states i would love to visit. i love shopping in the states. but i will not go to the states if i am going to be treated like a criminal before i even get there.

      In the United States, when a person seeks certification to become a teacher, the person has to have a background check, a mug shot, and a finger-printing. This is done for the safety of children in school. Naturally we don't want child molestors in our schools, or psychotic killers either. However, I have never felt that I was being treated like a criminal for having it done. I'm not sure I understand why you would feel treated as a criminal for it being done to you at the U.S. border. I am well aquainted with how difficult (and sometimes demeaning) it is to pass through immigration etc, how disprespected people feel during the experience (for example, my fiance was held up in U.S. immigration for 7 hours). Nonetheless, I think that people are over-reacting here.

    26. Re:U.S.-Visit? by TheDredd · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like every foreigner is a terrorist, looking for an opertunity to bring America to it's knees!

      If you're looking for terrorists look at the government running your country now, those are the people creating these terrorists.

      Stopping people at the border, turning them inside out, to see if they are terrorists is not going to work, if a terrorist want's to get in the country, they will get in. For example check Israel, how many suicide bombers succeeded after the country was completely bricked shut?

    27. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1, Funny
      How will I know who will use the data in the US-Visit database?

      Seeing as the data consists of a picture and finger scan, it'll most probably be sold to advertisers of skin care products, using advanced image analysis tehniques to determine what products certain individuals might need.

      "Hey, this kid has acne! Let's send him some sample treatments!", or "This dude has dry skin, let's sell him some moisturizer!"

      What, you don't think the dermatology industry doesn't have its well-cared-for hands on the puppet strings in washington? Think again!

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    28. Re:U.S.-Visit? by ooze · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, maintaining borders is the function of all gouvernment.

      Just a little comparison.

      Eastern Germany was a bad orwellian Tyranny. About 200 people died on it's borders in the 28 years of the wall and the Iron curtain was up.

      Well, that's about the number of people dying on the American-Mexican border every month.

      --
      Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
    29. Re:U.S.-Visit? by dcw3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is also the problem of the US lacking any data protection legislation.

      What exactly would you call this?
      http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/privstat.htm

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    30. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first reaction to this post was to disagree strongly with it. But when I lived in the states briefly, I had to be finger-printed to get a drivers license. And they are pretty universal, even to having a non-drivers drivers license. So the requirement is not that different than the requirement on locals.

      So actually, I think we should just set up an EU-visit scheme to track Americans in Europe, and it will all be fair.

      More worrying is the fact that the US requires passenger records, including credit card details, of all passengers. And that EU govts hand this over, in violation of the EU data protection laws.

    31. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      doesn't the saying go something like:
      When they came for Jack, I said nothing because I wasn't involved.
      When they came for Jill, I said nothing because I wasn't involved.
      When they came for me, there was nobody left to say anything for me.

      isn't that a great paraphrased poem? afaik, it's from nazi germany.

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    32. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have nothing to hide, which is why we are opposed to being treated like criminals should we choose to visit the USA for a holiday and why we will not be visiting later this year. Besides, I prefer Canada.

    33. Re:U.S.-Visit? by kamapuaa · · Score: 1
      No, that's why you have passports and visa requirements. Why do you need fingerprints and a mugshot?

      While I doubt the grandparent post has personal need of either, obviously figerprints and a mugshot are used to identify criminals after the fact.

      Since the data will be kept in a database in a "foreign" country where the person whom the details refer to has no legal recourse to oversee the data. How will I know who will use the data in the US-Visit database? How can I stop them when I'm not in the US? I can't.

      Please, don't be so naive. The US government has access to a lot more information on UK citizens, even ones who've never been to the US, than a current mugshot and a fingerprint. The procedure is rude and intrusive (reminding one of how criminals are booked), but it's hardly the most severe US infringement on UK privacy. Google or Carnivore deserve this special "award", far before US Immigration.

      What use would a fingerprint have been to the authorities at 9am, September 11th, 2001?

      Not much. On the other hand, such information could potentially be very useful to the Spanish Government, in investigating the Barcelona bombings.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    34. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you never know, Timothy McVeigh might not have blown up that building in Oklahoma.

    35. Re:U.S.-Visit? by GbrDead · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what I meant :-)
      But see what he says: "Come for me, come for me!"...

    36. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many dead people do you know that blow up trains?

    37. Re:U.S.-Visit? by hb253 · · Score: 1

      Er, references please? Also, I'm sure those who die are not being shot by soldiers in guard towers. Yes?
      From what I know, people die trying to cross into the US from Mexico becaue they are ill-prepared to survive in the severe desert heat.

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    38. Re:U.S.-Visit? by ajakk · · Score: 1

      Of course, the people dying on the Eastern German borders were trying to get out of the "bad orwellian Tyranny" while the people dying on the American-Mexican boarder or trying to get in the "bad orwellian Tyranny." I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to see what a difference that makes.

    39. Re:U.S.-Visit? by hb253 · · Score: 1

      Brazil SHOULD be fingerprinting everyone. I saw an interesting program on TV last year about a town in Brazil that is crawling with Arab terrorist sorts.

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    40. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Brazil, for having the guts to make a point. Sometimes a mirror is a wonderful thing.

    41. Re:U.S.-Visit? by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Let's bring his accomplices to justice. People who sold him explosives and detonators. But that not's the point, I still think that keeping everybody's fingerprints in a database is an infringement of privacy.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    42. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is how this is invasive: In Norway where I live, fingerprints are only taken and kept on record from convicted criminals. But under the US-VISIT programe everyone is subject to having their prints taken. These fingerprints are available for law enforcements use, which makes any visitor to the U.S. risk getting falsly matched as in the Brandon Mayfield case. ( U.S. resident falsly accused of taking part in the Madrid bombings on the basis of a poor fingerprint match ). Then there is the fact that this intrusive measure does nothing to enhance national security, as demonstarted by the participeants of the 911 acts. True it might do the work for the INS easier, but do a google for "defeat biometric fingerprint gelatine" and you will see that the US-VISIT technology is easy to defeat. Any criminal could doctor a gelatine based fingerprint, and thus gain access to the US. Now, if such a criminal would steal MY fingerprints for this, there exists no mechanism for me to get new fingerprints issued. This makes me even more reluctant to use my fingerprints as an identifier. In short this program does nothing good, and only serves alienate visitors to the U.S.

    43. Re:U.S.-Visit? by RWerp · · Score: 1

      This isn't true. Americans can visit Poland without a visa, while Polis people have to get a visa to get to the USA, and often get refused. But hey, we're your allies, so U.S. Immigration can treat our citizens like dirt.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    44. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you obviously aren't aware that at least 4 of the 9/11 hijackers are still alive and quite well thank you very much. How did they do that on their own passports? the answer? they used fake ones.

      Not only fake ones, but completely indestructible ones too - considering that one was "found" quite intact in the wreckage of the WTC.

      Pretty good really, considering the flight recorders were completely destroyed and most of the human victims had to be DNA screened for identification.

      the conclusions:

      1. they used fake passports
      2. they were framed.

      Considering the other evidence such as conviniently-placed copies of the koran in Atta's car, i'm leaning toward the latter.

      In any case, President Gump got the wars he wanted out of the event and got to trash the constitution, so everyone's a winner eh?

      PS - BOO!

    45. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're looking for terrorists look at the government running your country now, those are the people creating these terrorists.

      Including directly funding terrorists they happen to like at the moment.

      For example check Israel, how many suicide bombers succeeded after the country was completely bricked shut?

      Not the best of examples since Israel does not have formally declared borders and a fair portion of Israeli leaders are terrorists themselves.

    46. Re:U.S.-Visit? by mpe · · Score: 1

      My first reaction to this post was to disagree strongly with it. But when I lived in the states briefly, I had to be finger-printed to get a drivers license. And they are pretty universal, even to having a non-drivers drivers license.

      This being something of an oxymoron. Why should someone who dosn't drive need a document which states what catagory of vehicles someone can drive. Only if this document is being abused for other purposes...

    47. Re:U.S.-Visit? by mpe · · Score: 1

      True it might do the work for the INS easier,

      Assuming the problem is knowing where these people are. It took months for that poor Cuban boy to be returned home. Even though everyone, including CNN, knew exactly where he was.

    48. Re:U.S.-Visit? by T-Punkt · · Score: 1

      > isn't that a great paraphrased poem? afaik, it's from nazi germany.

      It sounds related to "the" (there are many versions of it) famous poem by Martin Niem"oller.

      see
      http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Politi cs/niem oller.shtml
      or use your favourite search engine

    49. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Trelane · · Score: 1
      Great, you're correct, but US-Visit does nothing of the sort. You do realise that none of the September 11th hijackers used false documents to enter the US, right? They all used their own passports issued in their own names.


      Not quite correct. There are multiple ways to render a foreign name into the native Latin character set, leading to a huge headache when verifying the identity of a person entering or exiting the country. This very much solves that problem, as their identity is something more straightforward--there is only one fingerprint "character set".

      Additionally, it goes a good ways to verifying the identity of the person entering/exiting the country. If they've ever been through before, they're on record with name, photo, and fingerprint. If they try to go through with any of these parameters changed (e.g. false name or new passport), they're gonna have to answer some questions. Not a panacaea certainly (since it wouldn't catch terrorists never having entered the system), but it'll help catch more ordinary criminals, and put a degree of pressure on the career terrorists.
      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
    50. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you obviously aren't aware that at least 4 of the 9/11 hijackers are still alive and quite well thank you very much.

      IIRC the original BBC report gave something more like 7.

      How did they do that on their own passports? the answer? they used fake ones.
      This means that all of the names produced by US authorities should be regarded as suspect until proven otherwise. It's never even been made clear where these names came from if the first place.

      Not only fake ones, but completely indestructible ones too - considering that one was "found" quite intact in the wreckage of the WTC.

      Maybe these IDs were Israeli issue. Considering that suicide bombers there tend to get identified quickly...

      Pretty good really, considering the flight recorders were completely destroyed and most of the human victims had to be DNA screened for identification.

      Did this include the alleged hijackers?

      the conclusions:
      1. they used fake passports
      2. they were framed.


      With it not even being clear who "they" were in the first place.

      Considering the other evidence such as conviniently-placed copies of the koran in Atta's car, i'm leaning toward the latter.

      There is also the recently released "security video" with no datestamp. Let alone the requisite metadata which would render it admissable as evidence in any court. The whole "911", including this being the 11th of September rather than the 9th of November, is very American.

    51. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "No, that's why you have passports and visa requirements."

      Which are done by other governments, and have been shown to be not trustworthy.

      "How will I...How can I...I can't."

      Yep. Same as any information I leave behind in another country. And?

      "They all used their own passports issued in their own names."
      Thereby invalidating your first rebuttal.

      "...the only difference...What use..."
      They didn't enter only once, bud.

    52. Re:U.S.-Visit? by TheDredd · · Score: 1

      Not the best of examples since Israel does not have formally declared borders and a fair portion of Israeli leaders are terrorists themselves.
      It is a good example, the point is the Israel controlled territory (whether is theirs or not is not important for this example) is almost completely sealed off for the palestinians, but somehow terrorists still manage to get thru.

    53. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "we can be tracked while in your country?"

      Please put away the tin foil hat. Unless you're fingerprinted and photographed (and those cross-referenced) everywhere you go, the only place you're tracked is at the border.

      "but i will not go to the states if i am going to be treated like a criminal before i even get there."

      I assume then, that you wouldn't apply for any job (like teaching) where photos and fingerprints are required either? Why?

    54. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing more terrifying than 9/11 itself is the endless stream of bullshit that has spouted from the mouths of the Bush administration as to who did it any why

      the whole thing smacks of disinformation. but the underlying theme is that somebody somewhere wants you to be VERY VERY SURE INDEED that "al-quaeda" and arabs were responsible for 9/11.

      9/11 was in fact so harrowing that WTC7 decided to professionally demolish itself in sympathy.

    55. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thereby invalidating your first rebuttal.

      Uh, no, it reinforced my point. US-Visit is totally inefective; it makes no difference. It is no more secure than the old passport & visa system. This is my whole point; US-Visit adds nothing but a false sense of security while at the same time being pretty damn invasive and demeaning.

      Yep. Same as any information I leave behind in another country. And?

      I don't recall ever leaving biometric data in a database tied to my identity in any other country, so it isn't the "Same as any information I leave behind in another country." at all.

      They didn't enter only once, bud..

      Yet they were allowed entry each time, they used their real travel documents and no alarms or flags were ever raised. How would US-Visit have changed that? It wouldn't; before 9am September 11th 2001 they were not suspected of attempting to hijack airliners. No one was looking for them.

    56. Re:U.S.-Visit? by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 1

      I'm a neighbour (Canadian) and I'm all for good U.S. border security.

      New Year's 2000 a U.S. border officer recognized a terrorist trying to enter the U.S. from Canada and apprehended him. She subsequently found a huge bomb in the trunk of his car.

      Believe you me Canadians were relieved she caught the guy and not at all impressed that someone would want to use our nation as a platform to attack a friend! (And we're not just kiss-ups , we can be quite vocal when there are areas where we disagree with American politics. But we also want to look out for our friends and allies.)

      I do not find the idea of finger-printing particularly invasive. If they wanted to insert tracking chips or force me to wear a large hat with the words "Danger: Foreigner!" on it, that would be different.

    57. Re:U.S.-Visit? by blugeoned · · Score: 1

      How will I know who will use the data in the US-Visit database?

      When you start receiving a hugh volume of US mail-order catalogs and other junk mail, then you will know. ;-)

    58. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "Hello!! Defense of borders is part of maintaining soverignty...since when is that "orwellian?""

      At the point when you decide you want to farm information. Of course, it would have been a different story, had the British done it to Irish nationals, eh Sinnfeiner?

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    59. Re:U.S.-Visit? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Why do you need to fingerprint, etc every visitor to the US? Because one out of millions of them might be a potential terrorist? Well why not fingerprint every US citizen too then? After all, the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh were both Americans who blew up other Americans, right?

      While you're at it, why not make gun ownership in the US illegal. After all, some people use them for evil purposes, so take them all away. Knives too. And cars: we don't want people running anyone over, do we? Oh yeah, don't forget to ban peanuts because they can kill some people too, and we can't be taking any chances. And stop kids from playing sports ASAP because someone somewhere is going to die this year playing American football, baseball, etc.

      This is why the dumb knee-jerk reaction is "big brother"ish. It punishes millions and acheives nothing: as others have pointed out, none of the September 11th hijackers would have been stopped from entering the US, because none of them had any red flags against them.

      I am not American. I have dozens of reasons to want to visit the US right now (watching Roger Clemens pitch for my Houston Astros is just one of them) but I have one strong reason not to: I will not visit any country that presumes to treat me like a criminal even before I officially set foot on its soil. Not even the Cold War Soviet Union was that draconian.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    60. Re:U.S.-Visit? by julesh · · Score: 1

      What exactly would you call this?
      http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/privstat.htm

      For purposes of this section--

      [...]
      (2) the term "individual" means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;


      A law that doesn't apply in the situation being discussed.

    61. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Keebler71 · · Score: 2, Informative
      You do realise that none of the September 11th hijackers used false documents to enter the US, right? They all used their own passports issued in their own names. They would have been allowed entry under US-Visit; the only difference is that their fingerprints and mugshots would have been in a database. What use would a fingerprint have been to the authorities at 9am, September 11th, 2001?

      Only partially true, try a google news search for "9-11 false passport". Their passports may have been in their names but they were still fraudulent. Try reading the complete 9-11 commission report. Specifically, page 563, note 32 claims that two of the hijackers had fraudulently manipulated their passports and that it is believed that up to 11 others did as well.

      Besides, at the time, the US was not actively looking for specific terrorists trying to enter the country. Today, the US is looking for specific known terrorists who might try to enter the country. I seriously doubt that any wanted, would-be terrorist would be brazen enough to use their real passport and try to enter at an official point of entry. Much more likely, they would sneak across a border like this woman, a suspected Al-qaeda member, recently did.... but why?

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    62. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not much. On the other hand, such information could potentially be very useful to the Spanish Government, in investigating the Barcelona bombings.

      Didn't stop the US Citizens from screaming bloody murder when asked to be photographed and fingerprinted in brazilian airports, did it?

    63. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Since the data will be kept in a database in a "foreign" country where the person whom the details refer to has no legal recourse to oversee the data. How will I know who will use the data in the US-Visit database? How can I stop them when I'm not in the US? I can't.

      Traveling to a foreign country is a voluntary action. If you do not like a country's policies regarding foreigners, don't visit.

      It is that simple.

    64. Re:U.S.-Visit? by bockman · · Score: 1
      Which are done by other governments, and have been shown to be not trustworthy.

      If you don't trust us, why should we trust you?

      Would you accept the same treatment when crossing another nation borders?

      --
      Ciao

      ----

      FB

    65. Re:U.S.-Visit? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Well, see, Brazil isn't violating my privacy at all. I'm not American. I have nothing against tit-for-tat laws (within reason). If the U.S feels that fingerprinting and mug-shooting me for the crime of legally entering their country is okay, maybe a little wake-up call for their wealthier citizens (not so many welfare, working poor, or even middle-class people will be going to Brazil that much) about how abhorrent the laws their country is passing really are.

      And it's also quite easy for the U.S. to get Brazil to stop fingerprinting U.S. citizens - stop doing the same to Brazilian citizens.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    66. Re:U.S.-Visit? by kmankmankman2001 · · Score: 1

      "What use would a fingerprint have been to the authorities at 9am, September 11th, 2001?"

      Well, if we found their fingers in the debris we could match them up with their mugshots. So THAT'S what those guys looked like, eh? Neat. Good thing we had these mugshots with the fingerprints!

      --
      "The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
    67. Re:U.S.-Visit? by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      Well, if the US-Visit database was made avalible to airline databases, and laws were passed requiring all passengers on a flight to get fingerprinted, then the fact that a foriegn visitor with no relatives in the US was flying from one coast to the other may have raised a red flag. Of course then you'd have to record the reason for visiting the US in the database as well, and collect documentation to prove that the visitor was giving a valid reason. Of course, with all the liberties that would have to be given up to even give that particular scenario a chance of working, I'm not sure it would even be worth it then.

    68. Re:U.S.-Visit? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      Well, if I ever go to Brazil, it's fine with me if they want my fingerprint and a photograph. I don't care and I don't see what the big deal is. Every time I get money out of the ATM, I'm photographed, after all.

      I'm still puzzled as to how identifying who is entering the country is "invasive".

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    69. Re:U.S.-Visit? by wcrowe · · Score: 1
      Great, you're correct, but US-Visit does nothing of the sort. You do realise that none of the September 11th hijackers used false documents to enter the US, right?


      If that is the criteria for determining what actions to take to prevent future terrorism, then I have a perfect solution: Don't allow anyone in the country that even remotely looks Arab. That should solve the problem.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    70. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice logical fallacy, dumbass. Thanks for the spectacular contribution to this discussion though.

    71. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just tell my US citizen wife that. I'm sure she'll understand.

      When you're married, nothing is volountary.

    72. Re:U.S.-Visit? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      No. What is a logical fallacy is trying to argue that we should not take certain actions now simply on the basis that it would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks. That's like saying that the U.S. should not have beefed up security at the country's seaports during WWII because it would not have prevented the Pearl Harbor attack.

      I answered that stupid argument with another equally stupid argument.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    73. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      yeah! thats the one!

      First they came for the Communists,
      and I didn't speak up,
      because I wasn't a Communist.
      Then they came for the Jews,
      and I didn't speak up,
      because I wasn't a Jew.
      Then they came for the Catholics,
      and I didn't speak up,
      because I was a Protestant.
      Then they came for me,
      and by that time there was no one
      left to speak up for me.

      by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    74. Re:U.S.-Visit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great. The vast majority of foreign visitors to the US would have no relatives there. There is no reason why I should be treated as a criminal for visiting and travelling in your country. My next North americal visit will not include the US.
      [posting anonymous coz I have forgotten my password and the stupid new password system doesn't support lynx]

    75. Re:U.S.-Visit? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      I personally don't like being treated in a manner that until recently was reserved for criminals. It gives the government, mine or theirs, information about me that I feel they have no need or right to, unless they think I'm a threat risk (in which case, why are they letting me into the country?). I don't think it serves the purpose it was put in place for, and I resent being lied to (or having to be inconvenienced with knee-jerk reactions)). And I feel that it will lead to the general populace becoming complacent about what the government chooses to subject them to. And those are the reasons I don't agree with being fingerprinted when entering a country.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  5. woah by ghettoboy22 · · Score: 0

    The Department for Transport won runner-up for its electronic vehicle-identification program, currently under development. Known as the Spy in the Dashboard, the program will embed microprocessor chips into cars. The chips would automatically report any instances of speeding, illegal parking and other grievous offenses to authorities, who would follow up with a summons.

    Boy would I be screwed.

    1. Re:woah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chips would automatically report any instances of speeding

      Big problem here - a car doesn't necessarily have a true idea of how fast it's going. Two easy cases that mess with cars computerised systems.

      1. changing the tires for ones of a different diameter. In most places, this is allowed within a certain range, but can put the speedometer out.

      2. slipping. Get stuck in mud near a 20MPH zone - better be careful not to accidentally put your foot down and hit 25MPH while trying to gain traction. Several times.

      etc

    2. Re:woah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So illegal parking is a "grievous offence"? Somebody needs a large glass of perspective and soda.

    3. Re:woah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a decade out of date. Most cars in the last 10 years, and every car I've seen since 2000 uses an accelerometer to detect speed. No matter what you do with tyres, no matter what you do with gearing, no matter what slippery surface you're on it'll register the correct speed calculated by the accelerometer and time.

    4. Re:woah by MrBoombasticfantasti · · Score: 1

      An accelerometer measures acceleration, not speed. Sure, you could integrate over time all the tiny, tiny changes in acceleration while you drive almost at a fixed speed on the freeway but it gets inaccurate real fast and you have no way to sync it to the outside world.

      --
      !ERR: Signature not found.
    5. Re:woah by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 1

      So would probably 90% of drivers if this was used on motorways. Nobody drives at 70 on motorways these days, even some of the big trucks go over the speed limit - last time I was on the M6 the average speed of the vehicles on there was probably 75, get rid of the trucks and pretty much every car was doing 80 or more. Except near the bridges with speed cameras and the roadworks near Lancaster of course.

      Bah.

    6. Re:woah by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Whack your car up on jacks, get in and spin the wheels up to 140km/h twenty times or so. Let the government spend money figuring out which "speeding violations" occurred on the road, and which in your garage on blocks.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:woah by mcb · · Score: 0

      i read it as sarcasm myself.

    8. Re:woah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no sympathy for speeding. You are endangering my life for your own pathetic ego, and you deserve to be taken off the road.

      That said, I totally don't agree with having computers issue citations. Certainly while computers are as inconsistant as they are these days. Do they make allowances for passing, or momentary distraction? What about people who modify their car? How do you prove what the computer says happened in a court? Consistant enforcement would be a good thing in many ways, but this is just too much. Big Brother, looking over your shoulder, all the time is a bad thing in the free world.

    9. Re:woah by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      Curse you GPS!

  6. Speed Cameras by fbrain · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Department for Transport won runner-up for its electronic vehicle-identification program, currently under development. Known as the Spy in the Dashboard, the program will embed microprocessor chips into cars. The chips would automatically report any instances of speeding, illegal parking and other grievous offenses to authorities, who would follow up with a summons.

    We already have cameras logging every vehicle that drives into London, cameras logging the time it take you vehicle to drive between two points and issuing a sumons, car tax cameras that issue a sumons when its out of date, GATSO camera that automaticly issue sumons, Digital GATSOs and so much more! Also in the area I live in (Bristol) the police equip old ladies with speed guns, and they take down your number plate if your speeding, you don't get a fine just a nasty letter.

    Are there any things like this in the states?

    BTW. Some guy got his fined nulled because they took a picture of him face on and he was in the car with his lover, this played on some european privacy law.

    --
    Avontech | Play dirty! They started it!
    1. Re:Speed Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also in the area I live in (Bristol) the police equip old ladies with speed guns, and they take down your number plate if your speeding, you don't get a fine just a nasty letter.

      Oh yeah, where was this happening then? Go on, be specific, I live in Bristol too so I know the area. You do realise that in order to be legal, RADAR and laser guns have to be properly maintained, calibrated and used? Those little old ladies would have needed a weeks worth of training before they could use a gun.

    2. Re:Speed Cameras by panurge · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yes, there are. Despite the Constitution, data protection is weaker in the US than in Europe. Although the UK does not have a Constitution, as a member of the EU it is required to subscribe to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which the last time I heard wasn't ratified by the US. (In fact, there is a real issue with EU law not allowing personal data to be sent to insecure countries, and I am amazed that UK corporations are allowed to outsource customer service to countries like India because of it.) IN the US, private corporations keep detailed records on you, and the US Govt. spends approx. $40 billion a year on various security agencies, though, as the Senate has recently reported, a lot of it is wasted.

      This isn't a troll, just statement of fact, and I can't resist adding another fact. Years ago in the 80s, I used to work with two Englishmen who had spent a roughly equal amount of time (months)working in the US and the Soviet Union, in the Detroit auto industry and at Akademgorodok. They both insisted that there was actually more individualism and freedom in the bit of the Soviet Union they had visited than in the US. A lot less material prosperity, perhaps, but more real freedom to be an individual. I know this is heresy, but I'm just reporting. I also wonder if the climate that far East was very different from Moscow.

      I found it difficult to argue with this point of view because the only country in the world where I have ever had a gun pointed at me is the US, and that by a security guard; and the only countries in the world where I have ever been fingerprinted and sniffed for drugs are the US and Mexico. (I won't get started on Mexico, except to say that every time I think of the place, the words "shit" and "hole" spring to mind.)

      --
      Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    3. Re:Speed Cameras by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      no no you misunderstand. Local communities hire the cameras and just fire of whining letters to drivers of cars that speed. They also use the figures as ammo with which to approach the police and get something done about all the awful evil drivers who ruin their nice pretty villages.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    4. Re:Speed Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've still not heard of this happening. Can you provide any specific examples? I'd be interested in knowing which paranoid freaks are pointing miscalibrated RADAR guns are my testes so I can avoid them.

      If I were a betting man, I'd suspect that some of them live near Blagdon or WSMud, but then they're all weird that side of the river.

    5. Re:Speed Cameras by fbrain · · Score: 1

      In plenty of areas here is some information from my local force.

      Your right the example on the page is in-between Blagdon and WsM.

      Glad I don't live too near there.

      --
      Avontech | Play dirty! They started it!
    6. Re:Speed Cameras by pklong · · Score: 1

      It happens, This link is the only I could find with a quick search (but its not Bristol)

      --

      Philip

      Signatures are broken

    7. Re:Speed Cameras by jimicus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also in the area I live in (Bristol)

      I live in Bristol as well. Note that they include "illegal parking" in the list of offences.

      As any Slashdot reader who's spent any length of time in Bristol (UK) will know, the local traffic wardens are vicious. I've seen people who weren't causing an obstruction towed away at 7:30AM on a Sunday. They've towed cars away while the owner was watching - even in cases where the owner was a woman with a young child. Once the wheels leave the ground, the car is towed - even if you show up to protest.

      Oh yes, and they don't always check that the vehicle is actually parked illegally. There are (anecdotal) cases of legally parked cars being towed away.

      And now cars will automatically report when they're illegally parked? Ouch.

    8. Re:Speed Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was once with a mate when we popped into Broadmead at a lunch time. He sqeezed his little three door car into a spot near (Damn, can't remember the name of the street. Goes under the Galleries and out the other side). Anyway, his back wheels were just touching the double-yellows. He was hardly an obstruction.

      When we came back not one hour later his car had gone. They had apparently managed to ticket and tow it in under one hour, because he was over the double yellows by an inch or so.

      I'll vouch for the wardens being viscious bastards, but they seem to have mellowed slightly. It's been ages since I've seen a car towed from around Broadmead for instance; it just doesn't seem to happen any more.

    9. Re:Speed Cameras by TwistedSquare · · Score: 1
      In fact, there is a real issue with EU law not allowing personal data to be sent to insecure countries, and I am amazed that UK corporations are allowed to outsource customer service to countries like India because of it

      I believe the clause states something along the lines of "either the country must have equal data protection laws in place, or the company must make a special effort to comply with UK data protection laws no matter where the data is". Without the latter part of the clause, they would not even be able to send the data to the US (as you say, they have little data protection).

    10. Re:Speed Cameras by jimicus · · Score: 1

      It's been ages since I've seen a car towed from around Broadmead for instance; it just doesn't seem to happen any more.

      I'll tell you why that is. They're going after the richer pickings in the districts on the edge of the town centre. Where there are plenty of yellow lines but people are perhaps less careful then than they are in the city centre.

      I live about 10 minutes walk away, I've seen the tow truck show up at 8:30PM and tow someone who was just on the double-yellows.

      Note for non-UK'ers - areas where it is illegal to park on the road are usually shown by yellow lines (single or double, depending on what time of day you may park IIRC) painted on the edge of the road.

    11. Re:Speed Cameras by drunkahol · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Basically - tough shit.

      If any part of your car touches the yellow lines, you are in breech of parking regulations.

      These are NOT hazy lines. It is a clear distinction between legal parking and illegal parking.

      Doesn't matter how long it was for, or how much obstruction was being caused, or how much of an infringement there was of the regulations.

      If you want to bitch at someone, bitch at the local council. THEY are the ones who approve the parking regulations.

      I look upon speeding similarly. 72mph on the motorway is SPEEDING. Under ANY circumstances. Until the law ALLOWS 72mph, 72mph is SPEEDING.

      THERE IS NO GREY AREA HERE PEOPLE.

      If you are caught, you are caught. Your only recourse is to drive slower and park in proper places.

    12. Re:Speed Cameras by AGMW · · Score: 2, Informative
      And the latest scam from the UK government? They are talking about charging drivers by the mile, with different rates depending on where you are and at what time of day - so more expensive in congested areas.

      The kicker is they are intending to use GPS in everyone's cars to see where you are. Nice little earner for the State! I wonder if they thought it'd be nice to know where everyone is first, then thought about charging for road use second!

      This really deserves a Big Brother award.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    13. Re:Speed Cameras by trout_fish · · Score: 1

      They don't need cameras to find out if your tax is out of date. The only place they need to look is Here.

    14. Re:Speed Cameras by pjt33 · · Score: 1
      It's not the UN Declaration on Human Rights that's relevant, but the Direction on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data.

      OTOH, the government which passed the corresponding legislation into English law was the current Labour government, yet I'm not convinced that Labour's Big Conversation website compiles, despite that fact that when I pointed this out to my (Labour) MP she replied that their legal advice is that it does comply. There doesn't appear to be a single legal opinion yet as to whether failure to mark an opt-out box on a form constitutes the explicit consent required for processing of sensitive personal data.

    15. Re:Speed Cameras by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I look upon speeding similarly. 72mph on the motorway is SPEEDING. Under ANY circumstances. Until the law ALLOWS 72mph, 72mph is SPEEDING.

      THERE IS NO GREY AREA HERE PEOPLE.

      I believe that's technically incorrect. If your speedometer shows 70 and you're going 76, it's still within the tolerance permitted by the MoT test, and I understand that you're not speeding. (Not that I condone speeding, lest I be misunderstood).
    16. Re:Speed Cameras by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1
      Are there any things like this in the states?
      Someone told me that they did try Gatso cameras in certain states, but it turned out they had some problems not encountered in Europe. It seems that these cameras make excellent targets to practice ones drive-by shootings on, for one. :p
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    17. Re:Speed Cameras by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Not sure if you're trolling or not but....

      There are circumstances in which it is an emergency, and it is necessary to break the law in order to save human life, or reduce the chance of an accident.

      This may involve parking illegally near a hospital or doctor's surgery or speeding to avoid causing an accident.

      A human police officer can use their discretion regarding prosecution. A speed camera cannot, but at least you've got some photographic evidence to show to a human judge.

      A chip embedded in the dashboard offers neither of these safeguards. THIS is the fear.

    18. Re:Speed Cameras by drunkahol · · Score: 1

      You will note that I did not mention your speedometer.

      If you are DRIVING at a certain speed (and let's call it 80mph for ease this time perhaps) that is over the speed limit, then you are liable to be penalised under the laws governing speed limits on UK roads. Full stop.

      Don't care if you are late for a meeting, late leaving work, no-one else on the road, think you are a rather better driver than other people on the road etc.

      If you are caught - you are caught.

      Personally I can't wait to have averaging speed cameras along the entire UK motorway and major roads network. If you stick within the speed limits, pay your road tax, and are NOT driving a stolen vehicle - then you have nothing to worry about.

      However - fall into any one of these three categories and I have no sympathy for you.

    19. Re:Speed Cameras by drunkahol · · Score: 1

      I think you will find that for every automatic ticket issued, there will be an appeals process.

      If you genuinely have acted to save a life in your excursion over the boundaries of our parking or speed laws, then you have the chance to present that as a reason for the incident.

      However, the overwhelming majority of speeding and parking tickets issued are due to people speeding illegally or parking illegally - without good reason.

      Driver: "I'm late for a concert officer, so I drove at 90mph all the way here and then parked on the zig-zag lines of this pedestrian crossing"

      Officer: "Well that's OK Sir, as long as you have a reason. Enjoy the concert Sir."

    20. Re:Speed Cameras by pla · · Score: 1

      You will note that I did not mention your speedometer.
      If you are DRIVING at a certain speed (and let's call it 80mph for ease this time perhaps) that is over the speed limit, then you are liable to be penalised


      So, by what magical means do you suggest a person know their current speed, since you do not appear to care about the tolerances allowed in existing speed measurement devices?


      Personally I can't wait to have averaging speed cameras along the entire UK motorway and major roads network.

      Why, so you can keep paying to replace them when pissed motorists trash them? Yeah, okay.

      Actually, as much as the world seem to consider the US concerned about privacy over almost everything else, I wish we had the same sense of civil disobedience you Brits have. From "Angle Grinder Man" to traffic cameras having an average lifetime of about three days... Here, we just quietly put up with crap like that. Pathetic.

    21. Re:Speed Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Someone told me that they did try Gatso cameras in certain states, but it turned out they had some problems not encountered in Europe. It seems that these cameras make excellent targets to practice ones drive-by shootings on, for one. :p

      I just have to believe that's urban legend...

      In CA, some lights have cameras that record people who run the lights, gets the license, and automatically sends them a hefty fine.

      In HI, they experimented with automatic speed detection & private companies doing speed detection, a couple years ago. The Hawaiian Supreme Court reversed all the tickets and ended the practice for privacy concerns, I forget the exact rational. HI was on the verge of armed revolt over the issue.

    22. Re:Speed Cameras by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      I look upon speeding similarly. 72mph on the motorway is SPEEDING. Under ANY circumstances. Until the law ALLOWS 72mph, 72mph is SPEEDING. THERE IS NO GREY AREA HERE PEOPLE.

      In Australia speedometers are only guaranteed to be accurate to within +/- 10%, so if your were flashed doing 109km/h in a 100km/h zone you can appeal the fine. while you may still get the fine for 109, most of the time the cops are sensible enough not to bother with 3 or 4 km/h over the limit. pretty decent grey area if you ask me, I'd be suprised if your speedometer is calliberated any differently.

      --
      TIAEAE!
    23. Re:Speed Cameras by thetroll123 · · Score: 1

      car tax cameras that issue a sumons when its out of date

      This one has nothing to do with cameras. There's now a requirement to inform the authorities if a car is kept on private land and as such not liable for road tax. Hence *any* car without a current SORN (annual notification that it's off the public roads), and which has not been scrapped must have a current tax disc.

      Fair enough, I'd say...

    24. Re:Speed Cameras by tomknight · · Score: 1
      That's utter bollocks!

      Sorry, you need to get your facts straight and not rely on urban legends for excuses about why you speed.

      Tom.

      --
      Oh arse
    25. Re:Speed Cameras by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

      What confuses me about the new dvla system is just that. Its new. Did they only just computerise the tax^H^H^HVehical Duty system or did it take them 20 years to develop the sql statement "SELECT * FROM CARS WHERE VED_PAID = 0"

      What still narks me about VED is i still have to pay it if my car was made in the UK.
      Maybe i'll take a day to Abertae and burn some buildings.

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
    26. Re:Speed Cameras by RWerp · · Score: 1

      They both insisted that there was actually more individualism and freedom in the bit of the Soviet Union they had visited than in the US. A lot less material prosperity, perhaps, but more real freedom to be an individual.

      These guys obviously didn't have a clue what they were talking about. In the USSR on each hotel floor (I mean hotels available for the ordinary Russians) sat a lady, who recorded everything that was going on on the floor. Hotel rooms were bugged (esp. those for foreigners). Do you know that even now, a Russian citizen cannot just like that move to Moscow? He has to get a permit to stay from the police, or else get arrested. When my sister, who studies archeology, went to Russia last year to dig some ground on the Crimea, she and her fellow students had also to register to the police and were told to what city nearby they can travel, and where not. And it's now, in the past it's been worse.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    27. Re:Speed Cameras by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      I believe that's technically incorrect. If your speedometer shows 70 and you're going 76, it's still within the tolerance permitted by the MoT test, and I understand that you're not speeding.

      AFAIK that's not the case - as I understand it there is a 10% tollerance on the MoT but no such tollerance on the actual law (so technically to be definately within the limit you should be cruising at 63mph, which is downright stupid). However, all the cars I've travelled in always have the speedo read over (according to the GPS) - when I'm doing 70mph my speedo is reading about 74mph, so cruising with the speedo reading 70mph is quite safe.

      I do, however, wish that they would raise the speed limit to 80mph on the motorways and then properly inforce it with SPECS cameras.

      They also keep putting in GATSO cameras despite plenty of evidence that they actually increase the number of fatalities (people cruise down the road and slam on the brakes when they see the camera... the guy who's tailgating behind them promptly slams into the back of them.) The answer is SPECS cameras, which do a good job (they average your speed over sections of road rather than just looking at your speed at one particular point, so if you accidentally creep over the limit for a second you don't get fined). Of course SPECS cameras actually effectively make people slow down so the police won't put them in since they can't issue as many fines.

      The very silly thing is there are a few stretches a road in the UK with so many cameras on them that if you speed down the stretch of road you can lose your licence within a couple of miles - there should be some laws stopping that situation, people with a clean driving licence shouldn't be able to get banned for driving just by going 10mph over the limit for 2 miles.

      An excellent example of why GATSOs shouldn't be used is Bournemouth - I go through it fairly frequently, I know exactly where the cameras are. The speed limit is 50mph, the road is reasonably straight, but if I wanted to (I don't) I could do 90mph down that stretch of road, just braking down to 50 for each camera.

    28. Re:Speed Cameras by mo^ · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall the local papers in south manchester reporting similar with speed cameras outside of schools, manned by civilians....

      but then they do it with kerb crawlers too...

      Americans have "mothers againts.." org..
      we have vigilante speed cameras...

      long live the west!

      --
      bah!*@%!
    29. Re:Speed Cameras by goodydot · · Score: 1

      Also, you miss one group of people to whom SPEEDING does not apply...police officers. Why is 72 mph against the law? What magical powers do cops yield that makes them immune from those reasons? So you are correct, except for the 'ANY circumstances' part, and the 'GREY AREA' part, of course.

    30. Re:Speed Cameras by trout_fish · · Score: 1

      I believe that's technically incorrect. If your speedometer shows 70 and you're going 76, it's still within the tolerance permitted by the MoT test, and I understand that you're not speeding. (Not that I condone speeding, lest I be misunderstood).

      This is incorrect. The indicated speed must not be less than the actual speed. It may be more (up to a tolerance) but must not be less.

    31. Re:Speed Cameras by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      I've seen several. A few days ago two women in yellow vests jumped out from behind a bush in Charfield in south gloucestershire to point a radar gun at my car. I've also heard about some in stroud and by a school in south yorkshire. In fact I think that one was on the local news at the time.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    32. Re:Speed Cameras by pjt33 · · Score: 1
      And you need to stop beating your wife.

      I don't speed. I haven't even driven in the past year.

    33. Re:Speed Cameras by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "I believe that's technically incorrect."

      Yup. There's a 10% boundary under the calibration rules for speedos; however after my MP (Dr Tony Wright) got nicked for speeding, he started looking into the process by which 'leeway' is awarded by super accurate cameras and found there's no regulation.

      Nice of my MP to get off his arse when he's gotten caught though.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    34. Re:Speed Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I beg your pardon, bad assumption made, retracted.

    35. Re:Speed Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or even assertion.
      Oops.

    36. Re:Speed Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Bristol. I'm slightly luckier now, but the last street I lived on near St Werburgh's was virtually impassible for the majority of the day due to cars illegally parked on the pavement.

      Car drivers in Bristol are worse than anywhere else I've had to cycle. During the few miles I cycle from home to work, virtually every day I get cut up by a car driver who is either not paying attention, going to fast, failing to indicate etc.

      Every year in the UK, thousands of people die in road accidents, and tens of thousands more are seriously injured. Speeding is a factor in many of these accidents, yet a majority of drivers steadfastly refuse to obey the law, and speeding continues to be socially acceptable.

      Limitation of peoples civil rights is bad, but no-one seems able to suggest any other way of convincing many car users to behave responsibly.

    37. Re:Speed Cameras by VdG · · Score: 1

      The French do a much better job of doing away with Gatsos etc, I believe. Some of them get taken out in the UK, but it's not terribly common where I live (Gloucestershire). Still: common enough that I do see damaged cameras a couple of times a year.

    38. Re:Speed Cameras by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Granted, with thanks for your courtesy in apologising.

    39. Re:Speed Cameras by danila · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that's what we actually need - protection without restrictions? That lady didn't prevent anyone doing anything, she didn't do cavity search to find drugs or what kind of books you were reading.

      As for the Moscow unfortunate situation today, this is the result of "reforms". It wasn't like that in Soviet Union (even though you had to register where you travel), the problem is that there are several times more policemen today in Moscow that there was in the USSR. The average number of registered incidents is actually less than 1 per policeman per year! They just extort money, plain and simple - an example of crime, not government oppression.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    40. Re:Speed Cameras by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's different in the UK, but here in the States, I've lost count of the number of times I've heard a judge say "Failure to keep your equipment working is no excuse for breaking the law."

    41. Re:Speed Cameras by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Sure, everybody knows that the Soviet Union was a bastion of freedom, except for those old crooks Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn, who kept remindinding us some stupid gulag stuff and the like...

      We're talking about a country that had censorship, no freedom of speech, no independent judiciary system whatsowever... Jesus Christ, in Moscow in the old times they transported homeless people 100km from the city center as not to spoil the view. What kind of propaganda were you fed on?

      If you think that there is no government oppression in Russia, go look up 'Chechenya' and 'Yukos'. Or, find and read the story about how recently Russian government cracked down on vets for using anaesthetics to operate on dogs (they locked them up for 'possession of large quantities of drugs'). Those bastards made vets operate on dogs without anaesthetics.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    42. Re:Speed Cameras by drunkahol · · Score: 1

      It is not acceptable to state that you did not know how fast you were travelling.

      It is also not acceptable to have a faulty speedometer in a car.

      The LAW states the speed limits.

      If you are driving outwith those limits you are driving ILLEGALLY. Regardless of whether you realised it.

      And the news on averaging speed cameras is that they will be mounted on motorway gantries. So pretty much no chance of "Angle Grinder Man" taking them out.

      The basics of the law are pretty straight - drive within the speed limits and the speed cameras cannot catch you. It's not bloody rocket science.

    43. Re:Speed Cameras by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      in Moscow in the old times they transported homeless people 100km from the city center as not to spoil the view.

      I was told they did that in California (moving them out of county boundaries).

    44. Re:Speed Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have swerved to hit her. Just remember to put her in the compost bin afterwards. They won't collect your green bin if it has a dead body in it.

    45. Re:Speed Cameras by pla · · Score: 1

      It is also not acceptable to have a faulty speedometer in a car.

      The law does, however, allow tolerances on both speedometers and radar guns, a point you seem determined not to accept as a possibility. Yet, either (or both, to a driver's combined detriment) can go near the limit of their allowed tolerance and not count as "faulty", yet show a speed different from the car's "real" speed.

      No one argued what the law says. Some may call it unfair or grounded only in profit, but we all know what a speed limit of 50MPH means. However, if you have overly zealous cops busting people for doing 2MPH over, when both the speedometer and radar guns have (as an example, don't happen to know the exact tolerances off the top of my head) a 5MPH tolerance, you have a situation where compliance with the law becomes a guessing game rather than a well-defined set of rules.

    46. Re:Speed Cameras by danila · · Score: 1

      Sure, everybody knows that the Soviet Union was a bastion of freedom, except for those old crooks Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn, who kept remindinding us some stupid gulag stuff and the like...
      Americans tend to associate human rights with political freedom. This is not necessarily natural for people in other cultures. Soviet people were free in many respects, even though political dissent was not tolerated.

      We're talking about a country that had censorship, no freedom of speech, no independent judiciary system whatsowever... Jesus Christ, in Moscow in the old times they transported homeless people 100km from the city center as not to spoil the view. What kind of propaganda were you fed on?
      Censorship? As in "Janet Jackson"? There was censorship in the USSR, there is censorship in the USA. Your TV is notorious for refusing to air controversial ads (anti-consumerism and stuff). Not to mention the fact that your media can be blinded by patriotism very easily. There was freedom of speech in the USSR. It had limits though, as political opposition was usually not permitted. But in the US you have freedom of speech, in specially designated Freedom speech zones, no less. The judiciary system in the Soviet Union was generally ok (not the best), it's just that the laws did not permit certain things, most notably political opposition. And homeless people were not transported anywhere, because generally there were no homeless people. Seriously. Living conditions weren't necessarily great for all 200 million people, but there were no slums and no people living in a cardboard box. I remember that prostitutes and criminals were moved out of Moscow during 1980 Olympic games, but how is that different from any other country (such as Greece)?

      If you think that there is no government oppression in Russia, go look up 'Chechenya' and 'Yukos'. Or, find and read the story about how recently Russian government cracked down on vets for using anaesthetics to operate on dogs (they locked them up for 'possession of large quantities of drugs'). Those bastards made vets operate on dogs without anaesthetics.
      Modern Russia is different from the Soviet Union (the example about Akademgorodok was from the Soviet times), in many (pretty much all, to tell the truth) respects it is much worse. Your second example is just random craziness, though, not government oppression. The government couldn't care less about drugs, or dogs, or people...

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    47. Re:Speed Cameras by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Americans tend to associate human rights with political freedom. This is not necessarily natural for people in other cultures.
      I live in Poland, not in the USA. We in Poland did not consider ourselves as free as Americans, before 1989. Don't sell me the bullshit that Polish culture is so drastically different than Russian.

      There was censorship in the USSR, there is censorship in the USA.
      There's no comparison. The fact you can bash the American government on a USA-hosted website is a proof that I'm right. USSR was cracking down not only on political opposition freedom of speech, it also punished people (severely, in some circumstances) for possessing or producing porn (yes, I believe that freedom of speech means that I can look at whatever I like, as long as nobody is hurt). The USSR also discriminated people with nationalities different than Russian.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    48. Re:Speed Cameras by danila · · Score: 1

      Well, Poland was occupied (as much as I hate the word and as much as it was expedient, you might have still not liked it)and you had a socialist government forced on you. That's different from the USSR, where there were less reasons to desire political freedom.

      There is comparision. Censorship in the US is as bad as it was in the Soviet Union, it's just different. And in practice censorship doesn't really matter as much as the access to media. Yeah, I can bash the American government, but... If I said on Slasdhot that I am thinking (not planning, just entertaining the possibilities) about killing President Bush, and if I lived in the US, I would be visited by the Secret Service in a few days (real story). OK, after a detailed interrogation and background check I would still be free (hopefully), but does the fact that there is "no censorship" compensates for more totalitarian control than ever in the USSR?

      And don't tell me the US didn't punish people for producing porn. And don't even start on the discrimination (at least the Soviets didn't lynch Negroes), because this is utter bullshit. Yes, there were cases (like with Chechens, or Turks) in Stalin's time when the state did the discrimination. But in the majority of the cases, especially in the 1960s-1980s, people of other nationalities had as many rights as Russians and as many opportunities to execute their rights. Not to mention that the whole Soviet culture was opposed to discrimination on the very basic level.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    49. Re:Speed Cameras by RWerp · · Score: 1
      That's different from the USSR, where there were less reasons to desire political freedom.
      Ah, I get the point. You argue not that there is the same amount of freedom in the USA and in former Soviet Union, only that there was the same amount of freedom in the Soviet Union relative to people's needs. I won't argue with that since I really don't know, but:
      1. this is a different issue,
      2. I always treat such arguments (about 'cultural differences with respect to freedom') with suspicion.

      at least the Soviets didn't lynch Negroes
      There is a saying in Poland, that whenever a communist is asked a hard question, he answers "... and they beat up Negroes in the USA!". People from Caucasus always had a hard time in the USSR, and the Soviet Union inherited after the Czar Empire tradition of antisemitism. I won't comment on how "Soviet culture was opposed to discrimination on the very basic level" because this is nonsense.
      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    50. Re:Speed Cameras by danila · · Score: 1

      The original point was that Akademgorodok felt more free than Detroit. My take on this is that although political freedom was apparently lacking in the USSR, people were quite free in other aspects.

      As for the Negroes, well, they were lynched in the states, not beaten up, but lynched by the mob. This happened in the 1960s too. And even though there definitely was some negative sentiment among Russians towards Jews and people from Caucasus, this was against the principles of internationalism. Don't forget that Stalin was from Georgia, that Soviet Union supported and developed all republics and that normal people never discriminated on the basis of race/nationality. Personally, I didn't even knew that Jews were "supposed to be somehow bad" until I was about 18 years old and when I finally learned that theory, it appeared completely and utterly ridiculous to me. Don't forget that the word WASP doesn't come from Russian language. And the University of the Friendship of Nations is not in the USA, it's in Moscow.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    51. Re:Speed Cameras by RWerp · · Score: 1

      I know perfectly well that the Negroes were lynched in the USA. Just as I know perfectly about 'pogroms' in Tzarist Russia. The USSR didn't encourage pogroms, only because it wanted to have a monopoly on violence. Remember the outburst of antisemitism in 1953, the case of 'Kremlin doctors'? Stalin used antisemitism as a tool in the internal politics, while using 'internationalism' and 'friendship of nations' as catchphrases to lure Western leftwingers into believing he was OK. The term WASP? What's wrong with calling somebody White Anglo-Saxon Protestand when he is White Anglo-Saxon Protestant? It is a sociological term by now.

      You say that the USSR developed all republics. Especially these Siberian one, by sending there people against their will, even whole nations. If you say that it did not discriminate whole nations, than let me remind you about Crimean Tatars, who were exiled from Crimea and were forbidden to return.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  7. Eh? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "British Gas was cited as the Most Invasive Company, after it declared that U.K. privacy rules prevented it from helping an elderly couple who were found dead of hypothermia in their home last winter, weeks after their gas service was cut off due to nonpayment of a 140-pound ($255) bill."

    How is this invasive? It sounds like the exact opposite. I'll admit it's a bit obsessive, but behavior like this is exactly what privacy is all about.

    Turn it around - would it be better if British Gas had notified all the welfare groups when the bill didn't arrive? "Hello, welfare groups! These people might be poor! Sic 'em!" Isn't this just a step away from notifying alcoholics-anonymous and drug rehab clinics whenever they see evidence of beer or pot?

    I have to admit, I really don't see what British Gas could have done here better, aside from keep providing gas despite these people not paying.

    Now, "most unfeeling", sure, I'll buy that. But this is about as far from invasive as it gets.

    --
    Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    1. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a Britain I think the award is very just. Ironic, yes, but abusing a privacy law to the extent that British Gas did can only make privacy laws negative in the views of the public.

    2. Re:Eh? by rokzy · · Score: 1

      don't worry, the guys in charge of the awards are probably just fucktards. they probably haven't even read 1984 and just like to use it to prop up their dumb-fuckery.

    3. Re:Eh? by L-s-L69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The case in question was a little more complex. The couple where not poor, they where in fact quite wealthy. They where however elderly and obviously confused. British gas was negligent in not helping them and used the data protection excuse to try to remove responsibility. Also to aid the removal of data protection laws that limit what they would like to do with our information.

    4. Re:Eh? by lxdbxr · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "British Gas was cited as the Most Invasive Company, after it declared that U.K. privacy rules prevented it from helping an elderly couple who were found dead of hypothermia in their home last winter, weeks after their gas service was cut off due to nonpayment of a 140-pound ($255) bill." How is this invasive? It sounds like the exact opposite. I'll admit it's a bit obsessive, but behavior like this is exactly what privacy is all about.

      As I understand it the reason they got the award was not for killing those old people, or invading privacy as such, but rather because in an attempt to shift blame they tried to say that the Data Protection Act meant they could not inform Social Services that they had cut off the gas in the depths of winter. This was a bullshit excuse as the Information Commissioner pointed out, and was one of several cases (see the Soham murders) where various incompetents found it convenient to blame their stupidity on the Act.

      In my opinion the DPA is one of the best pieces of legislation to have been created in the UK in the past 20 years. Unfortunately the current UK government, together with the EU Commission and us.gov is working to essentially destroy the act by having the USA declared a "Safe Harbour" for data transfers - ridiculous as there are almost no personal data protections in the USA at all (especially for non-US citizens).

      --
      -- Nothing unusual happened today
    5. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

      If I told you that I can call up British Gas and get all your personal and financial details claiming that it was "for welfare purposes" you'd be incredibly irate.

      If I told you that your gas bill was to increase by a fiver a year to cover an extensive IT project to allow local and national government organisations to securely access the data for "public welfare reasons", once again you'd explode with conspiracy theories.

      But as usual, someone dies and it's suddenly all thought out the window, someone must pay the price for this outrage, etc...

      ---

      The police files have the same issue. If PC Plod thinks it's a good idea to have a list of names, addresses etc in a file called pedo.xls on the shared computer so that the force can see who might be diddling kids that sounds fine, right..? Even if it doesn't meet the standards of evidence needed for an ongoing investigation, and even if no complaint or arrest has ever been made, again right?

      So now the trouble is that PC Plod doesn't like you very much, and he thinks you look at him a little oddly. And now your name is in the file. Either the Data Protection Act gives you the ability to read it (in which case Plod's commanding officer will order him to erase it because it could get them in a lot of trouble) or it doesn't (in which case Plod is free to make secret accusations about you which wreck your life under the cover of his "job").

      Yes it sucks that our police aren't granted unlimited powers to hunt down criminals. But on the other hand it rules that jackbooted thugs in uniforms aren't allowed to abuse ordinary law-abiding citizens.

    6. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem stems from having critical infrastructure such as the gas supply in the hands of private firms. If it was a Government responsibility (like it still is in many countries), then the Government could take adequate steps to ensure that the welfare concerns are met before the supply is cut off.

      In general I am pro-privatisation... I see no need for the Government to own factories, car companies, or the like. However, I have seen no good outcomes from privatising infrastructure.

    7. Re:Eh? by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1, Interesting
      But this company must deal with thousands, if not tens of thousands of delinquint accounts. People don't pay, they get warned, they don't pay, they get cut off. They can't do a psychological or social analysis on every customer to see if they need to be especially compassionate. That's up to the family, friends, caretakers, or whatever of the people. They can't, as a policy, share cutoff information with social services, either, due to the privacy act.

      So when they were asked why they cut off this customer's power without notifying social services, the answer was obvious. I think this is media sensationalism at its worst. (Well, okay, not it's worst, but it's still sensationalism.)

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    8. Re:Eh? by goldspider · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That may all be true, but it still doesn't explain the "invasive" charge.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    9. Re:Eh? by humuhumunukunukuapu' · · Score: 1

      oh please. why should the company have to notify anyone if they cut off their service?

      if they were living on their own, they should be capable of using the phone to call someone to tell them their gas was turned off.

      i mean, sure, it is a sad story, but companies sell products - they are not agents of social welfare.

      where were these people's family, friends, social workers, etc??? that is the real question

      --
      i saw the baby, and the baby looked at me
  8. Haha by SynKKnyS · · Score: 1

    The funny thing is the article submitter's URL links to a site with porn made for mobile phones. The article mentions how Vodaphone blocks porn websites from being displayed on mobile phones unless the user has the block removed.

  9. I Am not listed ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I watch 24/7 webcams from dorm girls...

    That's what big brother is about, isn't it.

    1. Re:I Am not listed ??? by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      Big brother... watching nubile young sist^H^H^H^Hwomen...

      There's a joke in there somewhere ;)

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
  10. How does the US program work? by jd0g85 · · Score: 1

    If you're going to be scanning peoples fingers and taking their photos to "verify their identity", don't you have to have a file to compare it to?

    --
    There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death.-Asimov
    1. Re:How does the US program work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't verify against any identity other than the one established by the first visit. And any other identity they have in the database (but fingerprints are really poor for that kind of matching).

    2. Re:How does the US program work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says they dont have files? It wouldent surprise me if the ministers in the European Union, would give away their domestic crime records and whatever to the US. Under the banner of "terror prevention".

      The day western countries, remove any of their civil liberties, for a sense of safety, the terrorists won.

      Im sad to declare the war on terrorism lost.

    3. Re:How does the US program work? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      It's better than that. AFAIK, there is no long-term study regarding the uniqueness of fingerprints when you happen to be using a database containing millions of records.

      The fingerprints of a known criminal in the system don't need to be identical to yours, they just need to be close enough to fool a machine and a human. And both machines and human fingerprint experts have been known to make mistakes, giving both false-positive and false-negative matches.

      When you have millions of fingerprints to choose from? More likely to be one that matches.....

    4. Re:How does the US program work? by jd0g85 · · Score: 1

      Im sad to declare the war on terrorism lost.

      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin

      --
      There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death.-Asimov
    5. Re:How does the US program work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Case in point: Brandon Mayfield of Oregon, implicated in the Madrid, Spain train bombings because his fingerprint somehow supposedly matched one found on related bomb-making materials. For that, he got a couple of weeks in jail before the misidentification was admitted by the FBI and he was released.

      See also this link from which you can read this scary part:

      "According to court documents, FBI agents began their surveillance of Mayfield two weeks after the attacks in the Spanish capital. Under a provision of the U.S. Patriot Act, they entered his home without his knowledge -- but aroused the family's suspicion by bolting the wrong lock on their way out and leaving a footprint on the rug that didn't match any family members."

      Yup, the Patriot Act. And if you read the rest of the article, it only gets worse (e.g., the FBI denies that he among 15 possible matches was targetted because he happened to be Muslim).

      Cases like this make me loath to turn over my fingerprint to any organization to put into some huge database where false positives are a known possibility. Law officials should have no right to that kind of information until and unless they have some reason to specifically classify someone as a suspect. Without that, fingerprints should only be a voluntary way to expidite identification (like the iris prints that are offered at some airports). Fingerprinting every entry is stupid. I leave fingerprints everywhere I go in a day. If some object later turns out to be involved in some incidental way with a crime (e.g., maybe I leaned against a car in a street that later was involved in a robbery, or maybe I used the same public phone as a criminal), am I going to get some late-night visit from the police because my name turned up in a big database? What's next? Turn over a DNA sample so they can identify every bit of skin or hair I or someone else might have sloughed off during the day?

  11. Photo ID or Face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hmm... in skimming over the linked article, I came to the part:
    Runner-up in this category [Most Invasive Company] was banking firm Lloyds TSB, which has been demanding that customers present themselves at their local branch office with proper photo ID or face having their bank accounts frozen.
    For some reason, my personal parser glitched, and I read as a single clause: "with proper photo ID or face". Huh? Who's going to show up without their proper face?!?
    1. Re:Photo ID or Face by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 4, Funny

      Runner-up in this category [Most Invasive Company] was banking firm Lloyds TSB, which has been demanding that customers present themselves at their local branch office with proper photo ID or face having their bank accounts frozen

      No, this is a cunning new form of phishing. The address given for their local branch is actually a crude cardboard replica of that branch and when they present their photoID it is run through a scanner and copied so that the picture can be altered and it can be used to access your real account. :-)

      Boy, some people are so stupid :-)

    2. Re:Photo ID or Face by wraith0x29a · · Score: 1

      Does Michael Jackson have one of his overdrafts there?

      --
      ~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
    3. Re:Photo ID or Face by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 1
      when they present their photoID it is run through a scanner and copied so that the picture can be altered and it can be used to access your real account.

      ... to be known as Phish Face

      --
      Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
  12. they are all winners by slothman32 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't worry. In my eyes they are all winners. It's like the person playing with his gun and accidently shoots himself. But he misses and survives so can't be a "Darwin Award" recipient. You either make it closed to 1984 or you don't.

    --
    Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
  13. Suck this by t_allardyce · · Score: 3, Funny

    Normally this award is reserved for the British

    Yeah, well atleast we can still swear on TV, drink at 18, protest without being pepper sprayed and burn our (and your) flags ;)

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Suck this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      He's talking about the UK, where the legal drinking age is 18 everywhere, where we can indeed burn any flag we like without threat of being arrested for it, and we really can protest peacefully without being pepper sprayed or hosed down with high pressure water cannons. All things which I believe have happened within the last few years in the US.

    2. Re:Suck this by zors · · Score: 1

      uhhh, as far as i know, flag burning is legal, but frowned upon by many.

    3. Re:Suck this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well O.K, you've got me there, but there was a serious move by a Senator to introduce a Bill which would have made flag burning illegal. I believe (I hope I'm right here) that it was shot down quite quickly, although it's still worrying that a politician would seriously try to make something like that illegal.

    4. Re:Suck this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's talking about the UK, where the legal drinking age is 18 everywhere, where we can indeed burn any flag we like without threat of being arrested for it, and we really can protest peacefully without being pepper sprayed or hosed down with high pressure water cannons.

      As well as protesting about a small West Asian country which the US Government will virtually always back up... Could you imagine a US president saying "Israel made its own bed and we should stop bailing it out with US taxpayers' money."

    5. Re:Suck this by zors · · Score: 1

      so if other people don't like what you're doing, you're not free to do it, no matter what the law is?

      Take that civil rights movements everywhere!

    6. Re:Suck this by wraith0x29a · · Score: 1

      "He's talking about the UK, where the legal drinking age is 18 everywhere"

      UK drinking laws are not quite that clear cut;
      It's legal to buy and drink beer or cider in a pub or restaurant at 16 so long as you have it with a meal. Also, as far as I can tell, kids over 5 can get as pissed as they like in the comfort of their own home.

      http://www.talktofrank.com/azofdrugs/A/Alcohol.a sp x

      --
      ~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
    7. Re:Suck this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I know but lets not confuse things with a detailed description of the UK licensing laws. When most people talk about the legal drinking age they're usually refering to drinking in pubs.

    8. Re:Suck this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "protest without being pepper sprayed"

      Yeah, in the UK they use the slightly less painful CS spray instead.

    9. Re:Suck this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like anything you do

      Hence, you are not free to do anything

      You'd better go die now.

    10. Re:Suck this by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Thats to tame the hard-nuts who go smashing up stuff after football, and those guys can take it (ROFL at Rugby vs American Football).

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    11. Re:Suck this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love UK self righteousness - it's true that due to British libel laws the press basically has no political function except as as yes-man to the government and to report on the romantic travails of its royalty. That books of international import will not be released in the UK, or will arrive in a highly modified and ambiguous re-write, because publishers are so wary of British printing restrictions. Still UK citizens claim more superiority based on a drinking age of 21 instead of 18 (as long as you're done drinking by 10:30).

    12. Re:Suck this by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Yes its true the press have restrictions, but they certainly arnt bitches to the government. Just look at the BBC, by your logic they should be the worst of all - they would probably have to start each news program with "Good evening and God save the Queen, tonight: Is Tony Blair the most loved man in Britain? find out why the public says 'yes!', Still absolutely no-one killed in Iraq, certainly no US or British soldiers, and absolutely totally 100% no Iraqi kids, and find out why you shouldnt be reading any of Michael Moores evil books"
      Instead I look at CNN and Fox and see them sucking up to Bush like they were.. i dunno.. run by his best friends? US soldiers' coffins? no-way, Michael Moore - i remember one news woman on CNN say something like "I dunno why we wasted a whole [news] block on that" about his film. Stupid White Men wasn't even released because the publisher said "We don't need books like that right now" i guess they dont need best sellers eh?
      Actually a page from that was censored from the UK version which pissed me off, luckely he just stuck it on his website.
      George Michael got in trouble in the US for his cartoon-style music video, over here thats a regular show (some great sketches on Bush
      "Sir, its time for your briefing"
      "duhhhhh?"
      (General takes out pink disney clock and holds it up)
      "Sir, what time is it?"
      "Errm.. Its mousy time!!"
      ROFL

      Royal family go around doing their own thing, they only get reported on if theres a juicy scandel,

      Not sure what the times/laws are but the closing time for serving alcohol varies depending on what license your place has so most bars/clubs are open into the morning.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    13. Re:Suck this by displaced80 · · Score: 1

      How many UK papers do you read?

      Or are you just repeating what you've heard?

      The Guardian, The Independent, heck, even the Telegraph are excellent papers with incredibly thorough journalism. Even the BBC (a corporation under the *Crown* NOT the Government - major difference) is a constant bane to pretty much every post-war government. I think your real point might be that there's an increasing imbalance of power between the executive, legislature and judiciary, with the executive having undue influence over the others. The co-operation and effectiveness of the three government branches have for centuries relied upon a sort of 'gentleman's code' or set of conventions. Sadly, the current government seems hell-bent upon trampling these and making the other branches (Parliament in particular) ineffective. This has been a very hot topic in the press (serious papers, not the rags you seem to think are representative).

      As for your other point on publishing, you're correct. I know this because our newspapers report on it. So I shop at Amazon.com/fr/de on occasion.

      Still. Thanks for saying 'UK citizens' instead of 'subjects'. Technically, the latter may be more correct, but the current situation has no resemblance to the traditional use of the term.

      Regarding drinking, of which I'm an old-hand, most pubs will stop serving at 11pm (Mon-Sat) and 10.30pm (Sun ... blimmin' Christians ;)...) By law, there's another 20mins 'drinking up' time. There's usually at least one late pub in each town. Licence terms may extend to 12am, 2am or 4am. Whatever, the licencing laws are due to be relaxed imminently in order to alleviate the policing problems caused by pubs emptying their plastered inhabitants at the same time the nation over.

      Hope you're feelin' a bit more informed. If you're ever over here, I'd be glad to buy you a pint and a copy of the Guardian.

      --
      What's the frequency, Kenneth?
    14. Re:Suck this by EvanED · · Score: 1

      There have been pushes to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit (or allow the prohibition of, I don't know which) flag burning. It didn't come close to making it...

    15. Re:Suck this by kmankmankman2001 · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, well atleast we can still swear on TV, drink at 18, protest without being pepper sprayed and burn our (and your) flags ;)"

      Sounds like a pretty full day, but don't the flags start getting expensive?

      --
      "The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
    16. Re:Suck this by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      bloody right! plus you dont want to burn those big flags you get from tourist stands - they're all made of nylon? so they melt and make bad smells.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    17. Re:Suck this by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      The senate can't make it illegal, this would be struck down by the Supreme Court. What was (and still is) being discussed is amending the Constitution to make flag-burning illegal, something that I think has little chance of making it all the way.

  14. Invasive? by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree that British Gas was in the wrong, but how is failure to act "invasive"? Or is "Most Invasive Company" a misnomer for "Worst Company"?

    1. Re:Invasive? by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1
      It is a bit of a misnomer, but it was using the privacy laws in a way opposed to their spirit - as an excuse for doing nothing to help an elderly couple who were obviously in some difficulty.

      I know a few people here are saying 'why didn't they do something themselves - its not British Gas's fault', and there is a degree of validity to that. But on the other hand these people were almost 90 years old, had money, but didn't pay their bill - should that not set some alarm bells ringing? Even if you accept their pathetic excuse that they couldn't pass on any info because of the DPA, could they not have sent someone round to speak to them before cutting them off? A bill collector? Engineer? Anyone?

      I guess all you libertarian, free-market Americans will disagree, but to me and many Brits cutting off someones critical utilities (it gets cold here) without any form of physical check (or any form of check beyond a couple of threatening letters) is an absolute abuse of your position as a utility supplier. Especially given that for the first 70+ years of these peoples lives British Gas was not a private company, but a public body.

    2. Re:Invasive? by rgbrenner · · Score: 1
      Even if you accept their pathetic excuse that they couldn't pass on any info because of the DPA, could they not have sent someone round to speak to them before cutting them off? A bill collector? Engineer? Anyone?

      Are you sure they didnt send someone to thier house.. from this article:

      Eventually, on Aug 1, British Gas sent an official to their house in Tooting, south-west London. He turned off the gas after no one came to the door.
    3. Re:Invasive? by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      You're right. I missed that bit. That makes it worse in my opinion. Surely for any sane person that should have rung some alarm bells? Here in the UK the government regularly runs adverts encouraging people to watch out for their 'age challenged' neighbours, especially during winter. You would think that counts double for critical utility companies. To cut off anyone's gas without any sort of contact (just ringing the door bell or sending a letter is not contact) is a fucking disgrace, to put it bluntly.
      However, mistakes do happen and they should simply have accepted some reasonable responsibility (along with neighbours, social services, family, etc) rather than throwing out a pathetic and obviously false excuse which just happens to help their agenda in discrediting the Data Protection Act (the act is a burden for companies, especially those holding customer details).

    4. Re:Invasive? by Keebler71 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Exactly... it sounds to me that British Gas behaved exactly as any privacy group would -hope- they would. They didn't divuldge customer payment info to a third party. Obviously, when under scrutiny, British Gas claimed that they were simply upholding privacy law. The only rationale I can see for awarding them a negative award is out of pure spite because the company correctly actually cited a specific example of a negative consequence to privacy laws.

      Makes you wonder about this organizations credibility in the other awards...

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  15. Stupidest IMHO by mirko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Department for Transport won runner-up for its electronic vehicle-identification program, currently under development. Known as the Spy in the Dashboard, the program will embed microprocessor chips into cars. The chips would automatically report any instances of speeding, illegal parking and other grievous offenses to authorities, who would follow up with a summons.

    Most cars have electronic injection, instead of sneakily lurking on them until they commit a money-costing fault, it'd be much more intelligent AND educative to use the already embarked electronics to slow the vehicle down.

    The day my car works as suggested by the Dept of Transport, I'll sell my driving license on the black market and willingly refuse to drive again.

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:Stupidest IMHO by CdBee · · Score: 1

      ..yet another good reason to buy a Turbo-diesel car. No ignition system!

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    2. Re:Stupidest IMHO by mirko · · Score: 1

      This is what I have but I ride my bicycle most of the time : no plate, no snitching :)

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
  16. Automated tickets by centipetalforce · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "The chips would automatically report any instances of speeding, illegal parking and other grievous offenses to authorities, who would follow up with a summons."
    Grievous offences? Like what, smoking reefer? Talking on the cell phone? Operating an unlicensed ham radio? Talking to yourself? Picking your nose? Of all things Ive read in the article, this is the most disturbing. Not just because it presumes guilt before innocence, but also because the sole purpose of it is to generate revenue. They really don't give a fsck about whether you're driving fast and safe or slow and dangerous... it's all about pumping money from your pocket into their hands. What really makes me sick is it's not about safety at all, its all about the green.
    1. Re:Automated tickets by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      I think the "grievous offences" bit was added by the big brother guys as an oh-so-witty sarcastic aside.

      "...don't give a fsck about whether you're driving fast and safe or slow and dangerous"

      This is the idiotic argument that the Clarkson brigade bring up all the time in the UK over speed cameras. It basically boils down to "I'm a good driver, I should be allowed to speed". Breaking the speed limit is illegal and dangerous - why should anyone be able to decide they're good enough to not obey the law.

    2. Re:Automated tickets by centipetalforce · · Score: 1

      It's not about being able to break the law. It's about being monitored everywhere you go. Today it's cameras in stoplights. Tommorow it's chips in your car. The decade after that it's chips in you
      About speed- Germany's autobahn has a far lower death rate than America's highways. Not because it's legal to speed, but because it's extremely illegal to drive drunk (as it should be)
      Speed |= Dangerous
      Idiots = Dangerous
      "Innocent before proven guilty" Remember??

    3. Re:Automated tickets by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      I agree that the speed limit on motorways really isn't important - but aren't most speed cameras in residential areas or known accident blackspots anyway?
      The slippery slope argument is flawed in that it presupposes its conclusion - why should chips in the dangerous lumps of metal we use for transportation that kill and injure tens of thousands of people a year lead to chips in people?

    4. Re:Automated tickets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..its all about the green.

      This is the UK, so it's actually all about the copper, silver, gold, green, orange, blue and red.

    5. Re:Automated tickets by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      aren't most speed cameras in residential areas or known accident blackspots anyway?

      Some of them are. But most of them are placed so they can generate maximum revenue, just as the regular speed traps are.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    6. Re:Automated tickets by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      That's nothing, a friend was asked to sign a 'government' housing contract that said he could be evicted for:

      Using the house for imorral perpouses( I read this as praying to the wrong god, or at the wrong time of day).

      Taking any flamable substance into the house (I read this as, the house must be flodded with freon gas, and he must not let any air in, god help anyone who spontaionlasly combusts, or frats).

      Being known to the police, or something to that effect, basicly, if you talk to the police, without doing anything wrond, let alone having a convistion.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    7. Re:Automated tickets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking idiot and so is your friend then. Christ, the tin foil must be on so tights it's restricing the bloodflow to the three brain cells rattling around up there. Let me help you out:

      Using the house for imorral perpouses (sic)

      Running a brothel. "Imoral purposes" is legalesse for "Whoring".

      Taking any flamable substance into the house

      The clause is almost certainly not phrased that way, but this is intended to stop you from storing gallon drums of petrol in your living room. Don't say people won't do it because they bloody well did during the fuel blockades a few years back.

      Being known to the police

      "Being known" means "Having a criminal record". They're only talking about offical knowlege. Knowing the local copper so you can say hello on a Sunday is not "being known" becauase officially, they have no record of you on the PNC. The provision is there so that LHAs can evict problem tenants E.g. it is common to evict drug dealers from their property. Good fucking job, too.

      Now with such a blatent and public display of idiocy, how did you ever pass your GCSE's is what I want to know.

    8. Re:Automated tickets by lendude · · Score: 1
      Don't know about other countries but in Western Australia the large majority of roadside speed cameras are anywhere but in residential areas or black spots. Many are placed on large inter or intra suburban arterial roads, altho' it's claimed these are 'residential areas' as they traverse suburbs. As for black spots - forget it.

      As a salve to the increasing public belief that they are implemented chiefly as revenue raisers, the controlling 'marketers' of road safety started 'public information' broadcasts and press media placements which informed of camera locations (road names and suburbs) for any given day. Fine until you realised that their 'location' information generally referred to a road that was 5-10km long and on which the camera could be located at any point.

      Similarly, when the issue of infrequent use of cameras at 'black spots' drew criticism, their answer was to place a small cross next to publicised camera locations to indicate the camera was at a black spot - well, at least the black spot was on the same 5-10km road the camera was!

      The use of speed cameras as life saving devices is a huge phoney - simple fact is Governments get hooked on the revenue streams. The FUD that goes along with their use is a pointer to this.

      --
      "Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
    9. Re:Automated tickets by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      If you're stupid enough to break the speed limit, you should pay for it. If the camera wasn't there, would it be any less illegal to speed?

    10. Re:Automated tickets by drunkahol · · Score: 1

      That's just plain old bollocks.

      There is currently an investigation underway to remove cameras from places that have not proven to be blackspots.

      A camera can ONLY be errected if a certain level of accidents occurs on that stretch. There are regulations covering where cameras are allowed to be errected.

      Recently, a copper was forced to resign as he had been found to be flouting these regs.

      Your statement that MOST cameras are placed to generate maximum revenue is both baseless and a flagrant lie. Get some facts behind you first.

      Oh - and stop speeding. That way you'll not get fucking caught!!!

      And although speed does not necessarily mean accidents, speed is the major contributing factor to the seriousness of ALL accidents on the UK road network.

      In other words:

      Lower Speed = Fewer accidents and fewer deaths

      A side benefit of fewer accidents is a lower cost to our overstretched emergency services who have to jump to your fucking rescue every time you wrap your car round a tree because you were driving too fast.

    11. Re:Automated tickets by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      1. There's no such investigation underway in my country. (Hint: I'm not in the UK, check my mail address country code for a clue)
      2. I don't get caught when I speed simply because the cameras only shoot pictures from the front and my bike's license plate is at the rear. :-P
      3. The correct spelling is "erected". You need to stop basing your spelling on reading Spam.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    12. Re:Automated tickets by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      You are the fool, the clauses are phrased that way.
      The intent may be to stop you running a brothel, but there's no reason they couldn't be applied to anything that the housing association wanted to.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    13. Re:Automated tickets by mpe · · Score: 1

      There is currently an investigation underway to remove cameras from places that have not proven to be blackspots.

      Assuming the camera isn't the cause of the problems. Speed cameras can have the effect of drivers slowing down and speeding up to try and ensure that they are below the speed limit when they pass the camera...

    14. Re:Automated tickets by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 0

      Green? Is the Tony's latest plan? he wants us to pay in US dollars?

      I believe that the speeding fine is £80 at the moment. So, a £50 note is red, a £20 is purpley & a £10 note is orange.
      Er, does anyone know what you get when you mix those colours? (Red) + (Red + Blue) + (Red + yellow) = Very red with a dash of green?

      ok, so it's partly about the green, but mostly about the red.

      --
      FGD 135
    15. Re:Automated tickets by mpe · · Score: 1

      That's nothing, a friend was asked to sign a 'government' housing contract that said he could be evicted for:

      Using the house for imorral perpouses( I read this as praying to the wrong god, or at the wrong time of day).


      Probably means something to do with prostitution. That's the problem of with using jargon, it may have a completly different actual meaning.

    16. Re:Automated tickets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the fool, the clauses are phrased that way.
      The intent may be to stop you running a brothel, but there's no reason they couldn't be applied to anything that the housing association wanted to.


      No they couldn't. The phrases used in the contract have a direct and very specific meaning under law. They only mean exactly one thing. They cannot be interpreted by anyone outside of a Court of Law or Parliment. You and your friend are paranoid freaks, and you're wrong.

    17. Re:Automated tickets by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      It depends; there's a road near my place that is marked as a 60k zone; it's three lanes wide and is the major road that runs through my suburb. Everybody speeds along it because it is zoned so inappropriately. It's a case of people losing respect for the law, because the law is untenable. Is it still illegal? Yes. Should it be illegal? No.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    18. Re:Automated tickets by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      So the contract is invalid, since they didn't make sure that I knew what I was signing (or not signing).

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    19. Re:Automated tickets by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Breaking the speed limit is illegal and dangerous

      It is trivial to demonstrate that the above is incorrect. While breaking the speed limit is illegal, it is not necessarily any more dangerous. As an example, Auraria Parkway into downtown Denver is used as part of a race track every Labour Day--and yet during the rest of the year it is marked as a 35. Yes, race car drivers are trained: knock a few mph off for that.

      Additionally, it can be very dangerous to be doing the limit when everyone else is not. If everyone else is doing 85 and you are the only one doing 55, they are not the problem: you are.

      There's no magical effect which takes place when one transitions from a mile below to a mile over. Speed limits often bear very little relationship to safe speed (here in the US, the 55 mph limit was solely to save petrol, and served mostly to enrich the motel and roadside food industries, since trips took a third again as long as they should have.

      Mindless obedience to regulations is hardly a sign of a functioning intellect.

    20. Re:Automated tickets by BenjyD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So trained race drivers on a day with no other traffic and (presumably) all feed roads and junctions closed can go fast reasonably safely. What a bad example. If you're doing 40 in a 30 zone and a pedestrian steps out in front of you, you're far more likely to hit him.

      The problem is not the speed itself - the problem is stopping when someone pulls out in front of you.

      Yes, the 55 limit in the US is overly slow, and this encourages speeding. But as I said, motorway (highway?) traffic is not the problem.

      There's no magical effect which takes place when one transitions from a mile below to a mile over.

      That's a stupid argument. The limit has to be put somewhere - there's no magic transition for an extra 0.5mg of alcohol in a blood sample, but if it puts you over the limit, you'll be arrested all the same.

      The point is: how do you judge what a safe speed is, if not by the speed limits posted? Do we just trust every driver to know his own reaction times exactly, to know the location of every children's playground near a road? Or do we post limits based on research in each area based on average drivers and enforce them?

    21. Re:Automated tickets by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Informative

      The national 55 MPH speed limit was repealed ages ago. Now the speed limit is up to the individual states. Montana, which has many hundred-mile-long perfectly flat and straight freeways, has 'autobahns' in some parts of the state. Washington State has a max of 70 (60 in urban areas.) Etc.

    22. Re:Automated tickets by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      The point is: how do you judge what a safe speed is, if not by the speed limits posted?

      Which is why I support making them advisories, and issuing stiffer penalties when a driver causes an accident having exceeded the advisory.

    23. Re:Automated tickets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just stop digging a hole for yourself. A contract just has to be valid. It is each parties own resonposibility to ensure that they fully understand the terms and conditions of the contract. If you were having trouble with the big words you can ask a third party to help explain it to you; if you can't afford a solicitor, Citizens Advice can help. The other party of a contract is certainly under no obligation to ensure that you understand what you're signing.

    24. Re:Automated tickets by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Actually that's BS a contract is not a piece of paper it is an agreement between two or more parties and as such it must be clear to all parties what they are agreeing to.

      Courts when asked to enforce contracts will look to try and find what the parties thought they were agreeing to.

  17. and at petrol stations. by RMH101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    you may have noticed the increase in "Please allow for the short delay in dispensing petrol whilst we record your car registration number" signs at petrol stations in the UK. what you might not realise is that if you're in Birmingham, they're hooked up to the automatic licence plate id scheme, and ALL car regs are sent to the Birmingham Metropolitain Police - 3000 per hour. You don't have to have been doing anything wrong, they just get a free intelligence feed allowing them to further track your progress around the country.

  18. I'm confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    privacy rules prevented [British Gas] from helping an elderly couple who were found dead of hypothermia in their home last winter, weeks after their gas service was cut off due to nonpayment of a £140 ($255) bill.

    I thought this competition was for breaches of privacy? It seems the whole problem with the British Gas situation was that they obeyed the privacy laws. As negligent as it may be, they shouldn't have gotten this particular "honor".

    1. Re:I'm confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought this competition was for breaches of privacy? It seems the whole problem with the British Gas situation was that they obeyed the privacy laws. As negligent as it may be, they shouldn't have gotten this particular "honor".

      Hint: the post you are replying to is not the article. If you read that, it says that they got the award for blaming the Data Protection Act - that is, for using a good law as an excuse for their own negligence.

      Big companies don't like the Data Protection Act, because it limits what they can do with our private information. Big companies do things like using the tragic deaths of an elderly couple - due to that big company's penny-pinching and negligence - as a way of trying to get the Data Protection Act changed, to help them violate our privacy more.

      Doesn't that deserve a Big Brother award, perhaps?

  19. Vaguely on topic by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    So when is Slashdot going to post a comprehensive privacy policy, with questions answered like, "How anonymous is Anonymous Coward?", "When does Slashdot sell/give/release my info to third parties?", "Under what circumstances are posts edited, removed or otherwise tampered with?"

    It seems odd that there is no mention of this in the FAQ, yet we have a 'YRO' section.

    1. Re:Vaguely on topic by Scrab · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there some comment which supposedly had breached MS copyright, and /. refused to remove it.

      That speaks volumes to me about the circumstances under which posts are removed/tampered with...

      --
      RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
    2. Re:Vaguely on topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      posts are removed/tampered with...

      Try making posts critical about VA Research....

    3. Re:Vaguely on topic by NamShubCMX · · Score: 1
      You can always sign all the message you post and post the signature/key somewhere.

      Although it's more of a joke, it would be nice if it was possible to encrypt/sign messages sent to various forums on the internet.

      Implemented as a plugin in browsers? Possible at all?

      --
      We've always been at war with Eurasia.
    4. Re:Vaguely on topic by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      /. doesn't collect info anyway, why a policy to govern data that does not exist?

      --
      Not a sentence!
  20. Oh the irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm posting anonymously because I don't want to be tracked by slashdot.

    On the wired news page talking about big brother, I see ads from the Internet's greatest threat to privacy: google. Google is targeting ads to IPs based on the searches they make and the content they view.

    The days where we had privacy on the Internet are long gone.

  21. More info by jolajolajola · · Score: 0

    There's a debate on this sort of thing over here, including An interesting read.

    --

    --
    The trouble with pedants is that they're always right.
  22. Now where near... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Tony for wanting to track every car in the country by satalite (that's know where every driver is all the time).

    Pop round someones house, they get arrested for something bad a few weeks later, you get a knock on the door, you car's been seen going to and from that area on regular occasions.

    In summary, he wants to replace car tax by spending a few million pounds on tracking, cameras, and people to watch you. When all he had to do was put up petrol by 8-10p, which could have been done tomorow and cost next to nothing. the only privacy issue would be that your insurance would need to be automaticly checked against the MID(Motor insurers database) every time you pulled up in a petrol station, but then they check your number plate every time anyway to make sure your not a known driveoff thief.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  23. Its about money, not safety. by centipetalforce · · Score: 1

    Because lawyers and senators use precedent to pass new laws. They use stepping stones to further their goal. Is that really a chance we want to take? The line needs to be drawn somewhere. Saving lives is not about what that chip does, it's about automating the fine process and putting more money into pockets of corporations. Its about money.

  24. Medical records database? by Pahalial · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most Appalling Project was awarded to Britain's National Health Service electronic medical records program, which aims to computerize patient records in a way that some have protested is insecure and will compromise patient privacy.

    How is this most appalling project? Sounds to me like a perfectly legitimate move from paper filing to electronic filing. I understand that people are paranoid about hackers, but there are several ways to do this right that would be at least as secure as paper trails. It doesn't help that the site gives no link where we can learn specifics.

    --
    Stuff.
    1. Re:Medical records database? by VdG · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone is saying that electronic patient records are inherently a bad thing. But this particular project has made no efforts to show how the new systems will improve matters: it's just "Oh, it'll all be computerised so that must be good".

      There's also been very little attention paid to the very real risks of security. We're not talking about skilled crackers getting in from outside, but people inside having far too much access to information they don't need, and being able to pass that on to other people without any checks.

      Just to make matters worse, the UK health services have an especially poor record when it comes to large IS projects. This one looks like costing an enormous amount of money, to provide something which isn't actually any better for the medical staff than the existing system and removes any trace of patient confidentiality.

    2. Re:Medical records database? by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1

      The problem occurs when you have a situation like Switzerland did a few years back; the results of AIDS tests were mistakenly made available to health insurance companies without the consent of the individuals involved. I don't remember the exact specifics of the case, and am open to corrections, so caveat emptor.

      Health insurance is mandatory here, meaning that nobody can refuse you basic coverage, and paid by the private individual, with the cost dependent on your age, sex, where you live, and your health status when signing up. Extended coverage, which includes a lot of specialized treatments, can be refused for a whole number of reasons. I don't know about you, but I can certainly see how this might cause a bit of an, er, teensy weensy little problem.

      You're right, electronic records are not, by their nature, bad. Electronic records in countries with such miserable privacy records as the US (yes, I'm American) and the UK are a very questionable practice. We've seen in number of other areas (airline passenger data, anyone?) the high potential of information leaks to those you wouldn't necessarily want to have access to parts of your personal data.

      To be perfectly honest, yes, there are some situation where I don't _want_ law enforcement to have easy access to my info. I want them to have to jump through hoops to find out things about me, even if I haven't even thought of committing a crime (beyond considering brutally murdering certain spammers.) The cops can always get my information from a health insurance, hospital, department of motor vehicles, credit card company, whatever. But I want them to really have to want it bad before going to the trouble of sorting through scads of paper.

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    3. Re:Medical records database? by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "How is this most appalling project?"

      It's mostly the way they want to implement it, meaning a flat structure across the NHS that allows anyone in the structure to see my records.

      Bear in mind that to see my own records I have to actually take the time and go see the GP, and we didn't even get that right until around a decade ago.

      Even more amusing is that my private Doctor couldn't get my complete notes from my NHS Doctor and instead had a partial collection

      I was surprised that a number of gov.uk technology initiatives weren't mentioned; EDS has entered a bitch-slapping war over several of the projects it's mishandled with ministers.

      "I understand that people are paranoid about hackers, but there are several ways to do this right that would be at least as secure as paper trails."

      Hey, you should like, post that on a geek board, because I'm sure noone here knows that it's possible.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
  25. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is old news. If you are going to /. something, please make it from today, not yesterday or the day before.

  26. Harsh by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1
    Runner-up in this category was mobile-phone company Vodafone, which blocks customers from logging onto adult websites through their phone handsets in order, the company says, to protect mobile-phone-toting, porn-seeking children.

    This is a tad harse when you consider that the government has basically told all mobile phone service providers in the UK that they should block adult content to all minors "voluntarily" or face laws that force them to do so.

    All the other providers are, unsurprisingly, geering up to do the very same thing.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  27. Brave new world... by stavrosfil · · Score: 1

    A bit of topic, but when ever I read about 1984 book my mind goes to a smiliar, much better book. The "Brave new world" by Aldous Huxley, which is actually written before 1984.

    1. Re:Brave new world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1984 was written in 1948

    2. Re:Brave new world... by stavrosfil · · Score: 1

      I meant before the book "1984" was written. :)

    3. Re:Brave new world... by iworm · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but 1984 was written before 1984 as well. Oh, wait a minute...

    4. Re:Brave new world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A bit of topic, but when ever I read about 1984 book my mind goes to a smiliar, much better book. The "Brave new world" by Aldous Huxley, which is actually written before 1984.

      Neither book is remembered for their literary merits, but as pieces of propoganda - and 1984 is certainly a lot more inconic that Brave New World.

      I also prefer Brave New World to 1984 - in much the same way I believe Burger King is a superior restaurant to McDonald's.

    5. Re:Brave new world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a fellow AC, I concur on both counts.

  28. I see nothing wrong with any of these "offenses" by waldorf+statler · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Privacy is a lot like network security. It can only be fully gained by complete isolation. A computer accessible only by sneaker-net is the most likely to be categorized as private and secure.

    Privacy had a different definition 50 years ago because the duality of information sharing had not been realized. When we are able to type a few keystrokes and expect that megabytes of information be returned to us in milliseconds from someone else's hold on data, why shouldn't we expect to sacrifice our hold on data to a proportionate degree? Privacy, as we know it, is not possible now. It is not possible because our growing need as individuals for information and knowledge absolutely and completely overrides what we have known as privacy.

    Privacy advocates mean well, and it's good to have a voice saying "No cameras in my bathroom, please" and "No, my social security number should not be tattooed on my forehead" but the line between utility and futility for these arguments is constantly shifting toward futility. As technology progresses there will be more arguments that need to be made, but many traditional arguments will continue to suffer loss of relevance.

    Government agencies can know whatever they want about me. I don't care. If I had something to hide from them, then those agencies have the duty (What was it called? Oh yeah, a law) to know and act on that knowledge.

    Yes, I use the discount cards at the grocery store. I don't understand why SafeWay needs to know how many bars of soap and frozen pizzas I buy, but I don't care.

    If privacy really is such a big necessity, then one must realize that it's a two-way street and that expectations of knowledge-sharing on the part of others needs to be curbed.

  29. The road to hell is lead by good intentiions. by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When people have a problem with something they go to their government (usually the highest one) and say "Hey Fix it, this is bad!" so after the government hears a lot of people say it is a problem so they find a way to fix it. In many of these cases it requires us to loose rights and privacy. It is not really the governments fault they try to listen to the people and react to their needs.
    Lets use an example in America. Americans are going "We Need better education!" And they will wright to their congress person and to president. (While education is primarily controlled by the state and local governments). So these people are hearing a lot of people complaining about different things because in each state and counties there are different issues. Hearing that Education is important to the US Voters and hear that a lot of people want federal control of education. So the federal government makes a set of generic rules, that no one really likes because it mixes a lot of different needs and many are contradictory into one law (No Child left behind act.). This brings up the question on why are all these concerned people not going to their state and local government trying to bring there concerns to them where there is a better chance of getting a better solution, deals with the concerns of the area, which is cheaper, and is enacted a lot quicker.

    If people stopped dumping all there problems on big government and start solving it for themselves and if there is really nothing they alone can do about it then go to the local government and work up. Yes it is more work but there is a better chance of finding a solution to the problem that may not be evil.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:The road to hell is lead by good intentiions. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Americans are going "We Need better education!" And they will wright...

      Repeat after me:
      And they will write

    2. Re:The road to hell is lead by good intentiions. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Americans are going "We Need better education!"

      And they will wright to their congress person and to president.
      ...it requires us to loose rights and privacy

      If people stopped dumping all there problems on...

      Yes, it appears we do need better education. I agree with your points, though.

    3. Re:The road to hell is lead by good intentiions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um that would be "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

  30. where is David Blunkett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would anyone like to sponsor a "Fucking Idiot With A Point To Prove Of the Year" award, so he can at least get some recognition?

    1. Re:where is David Blunkett by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1
      Blunkett was apparently nominated repeatedly, but hthey decided he'd won too many times already, and renamed the lifetime menace award the "David Blunkett Lifetime Menace Award" in his hounour. And last year:
      Each year the judges consider a nomination that is so odious and contemptible that they are reluctant to agree to spending scarce money on an expensive gold award for the villain. These occasions deserve an appropriate award, and so this year we give the first "Dog Poo On A Stick" prize. It goes to David Blunkett.
      (http://www.privacyinternational.org/bigbrother/uk 2003/ (google cache, since PI's site is currently being slashdotted))
    2. Re:where is David Blunkett by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

      Damm glad to hear this, I can think on no one more representative of the mind set of oppresion.

      --
      If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
      Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  31. From TFA by pipingguy · · Score: 3, Interesting


    "...We are seeing a race to the bottom..."

    Sounds familiar...

    Every time I read the buggy whip analogy from someone that has a good-paying job I am reminded of Boston and tea for some reason. I'm one of those guys that realizes that a large part of the "white collar" workforce is pretty much daycare for adults.

    Face it, high-paying jobs that are not manual labour-related are being eliminated by software (if not yours yet, just wait a bit) because 11 or 13 of the best thinkers sat down and figured out everything about your job and the best way to do it. Then they put all that stuff into software. Push buttons much?

    Replacing manual labour is one thing; replacing your thought processes is another (after all, software designed by geniuses in your field can do a better job than you could ever do).

    The sooner we come to terms with this the better. It's easier to ostritch though and assume that the displaced will all become rock stars or move onto the mythical future world where people can devote their energies towards inventing stuff and getting creative and get everyone else to make the stuff they imagineer.

    I still don't know where I fit in in this new economy. Am I replaceable by a simple shell script as the T-shirt says, and if so, why am I working? To fulfill some antiquated. puritan-inspired notion of work ethic and keep my nose to the grindstone so that I please my masters?

    Someone please enlighten me without referencing "want fries with that?" or saying that I (and millions of others) will just "move on to the idea economy". Everyone knows that there can only be so many idea people.

    Bah, maybe I'm just being too pessimistic and should lighten-up.

    = =
    No sig, Pepsi.

  32. I have issues with the tracking by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

    The only thing that bothers me about that is the tracking. Frankly, I'm increasingly feeling that on the roads there is a need for better enforcement of the rules. (Note: I'm a cyclist. Getting almost killed by f**ing idiots every day tends to make me a bit of a road nazi).

    So long as the device is not and CAN NOT be used for tracking (either real time, at pre-placed points, or after the fact if no offense is recorded) and it does not bypass the right to contest the penalty, then yeah - I can deal with such a thing. It's VERY IMPORTANT though that it should only record enough info to perform its stated purpose, and should discard it immediately if it is not required.

    <grumble>
    If only there was a way to add "turning without indicating," "yapping on a mobile phone in traffic," (illegal here in Western Australia, but often ignored) and "driving an SUV so big it's impossible to see around or through." (increasingle common).
    </grumble>

    As for the revenue grab aspect - perhaps so. I'd say it's about 50/50 personally, as I do think there are valid uses for speed cameras etc. On the other hand, placing them just beside signs for speed change zones is pretty dodgy - the only real purpose to that IS money.

    As far as I'm concerned, driving is a privelege. If you're a dangerous fucking idiot, then you don't deserve it - and existing methods to spot said morons aren't working. Nothing ever will properly, but I'm inclined to favour things that do - so long as they're carefully thought out to avoid abuse.

  33. Slashdot is officially frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We just passed the 800k mark a couple of days back, and now we're already up to 801k?

    You people are freaks. FREAKS, I tell you!

    1. Re:Slashdot is officially frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At a human mortality rate of about 800 per 100,000, that means about 6400 /.ers die per year. That means that there are about 15,000 /. IDs held by dead people with pretty much no way to know. Interesting, hunh?

  34. Keeping people out by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Agreed.

    It's not just keeping tourists and individuals visiting family out either. It's pushing conferences and conventions away.

    My father and his (Belgian) wife visited the US during the recent "Freedom Fries" period. My stepmother was delayed at EACH DOMESTIC AIRPORT for a full luggage and personal search. She got funny looks at cafes when she spoke. It was apparently really creepy.

    It wasn't just that either, though. Even when not with my stepmother, my (Australian) father mentioned that he was often made to feel very uncomfortable and "foreign," especially when at hotels, airports, etc.

    They left the country three days into their planned three week trip, cancelling attendance at a conference and several workshops. Not that long after they got back (having continued travelling around Europe), the news of the VISIT stuff came out.

    Neither they, nor I (who visited in a saner time), intend to visit the USA again. My god, what if Australia does something policically unpopular while I'm there!

    My father, before he left, was in the early processes of planning a conference on group psychology and outdoor education, with a tentative venue of Three Springs in the US. They are now seeking a European venue.

    This isn't even computer / IT / security related stuff. They're not moving because they're afraid their delegates might be refused entry or arrested and held without charge. Nope, they're moving because they're not willing to go back - and NEITHER ARE MANY OF THE POTENTIAL SPEAKERS.

    So yeah, I think this will cause serious, long term harm. I don't think it can harm good will and trust for the USA - that's all gone anyway - but it can help isolate its professional communities more, force Americans to travel overseas more to visit conferences and professional events, and harm tourism severely.

    What gets me is that it doesn't even help security. It's like a statement that "we believe that our citizens will feel more secure if we treat all foreigners like criminals."

    1. Re:Keeping people out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just you. *Everyone* feels really uncomfortable and foreign at the airport.

    2. Re:Keeping people out by kmankmankman2001 · · Score: 1

      "My father and his (Belgian) wife visited the US during the recent "Freedom Fries" period. My stepmother was delayed at EACH DOMESTIC AIRPORT for a full luggage and personal search. She got funny looks at cafes when she spoke. It was apparently really creepy."

      People were just probably wierded out when they saw her dip her freedom fries in mayo. In America, you must put ketchup on _everything_! I think that's a provision of the next iteration of the Patriot Act.

      --
      "The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
    3. Re:Keeping people out by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      My god, what if Australia does something policically unpopular while I'm there!

      Don't worry, the election's coming soon.

    4. Re:Keeping people out by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

      Heh. The way things are working out over here, I wouldn't be surprised if electing someone other than Howard was considered "politically inappropriate" by the US Gov't ;-)

      Not really, but the presure from US diplomats to keep the evil bastard in power is strong. *grumble* Democracy for the world, but only on our terms... *grumble*

  35. Don't worry about US Visit by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1

    They awarded the contract to Accenture, whose core competency is turning documents into cash. They won't pull anything worth anything together in decades.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:Don't worry about US Visit by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      They awarded the contract to Accenture, whose core competency is turning documents into cash. They won't pull anything worth anything together in decades.

      You might want to consider the fact that single companies rarely win contracts as large at this. In fact, here's a snippet from http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/18_22/dat astream/22849-1.html

      The Accenture team, called the Smart Border Alliance, includes AT&T Corp., Datatrac Information Services Inc. of Richardson, Texas, a DHS contractor; Dell Inc.; Deloitte Consulting Global Technology Management Inc.; Raytheon Co.; Sandler and Travis Trade Advisory Services Inc. of Washington, a contractor on DHS' Automated Commercial Environment customs modernization program; Sprint Communications Co. LP; SRA International Inc.; and Titan Corp.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  36. Factual nit by kubrick · · Score: 1

    The PRC has never claimed to be a democracy.

    --
    deus does not exist but if he does
    1. Re:Factual nit by boy_afraid · · Score: 0

      And, actually, they aren't Communist, they are Socialist, technically if you want to nit-pick. And while we are on the nit-pick path, USA is not a democracy, but a representative republic. Hopefully, in the future when technology is more pervasive in the home, people themselves will be able to vote in real-time on issues. But, that's just my pipe dream.

    2. Re:Factual nit by kubrick · · Score: 1

      I don't hold out great hopes for direct democracy; people tend to vote themselves bread and circuses, and I think that the representative republic is providing enough of those already. Most political systems seem to work best (i.e. greatest good for the greatest number) on a small scale, but power naturally aggregates to a small core of a much greater mass.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  37. Not so difficult. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It is true that this world is run by those who wish to see you enslaved, and who have devised a system where if you play by the rules, you lose.

    But that doesn't mean you have to play by them.

    There are lots of ways out. If you have locked yourself into a certain set of parameters which you feel are impossible to break, then you are probably chumped. But if you have a working brain, a back, two legs and a set of hands, then you can pretty much do whatever you want. I'm an example, and I know of many others who have worked out the puzzle and live their light comfortably and without fear. --Little known secret; the economy is so big and complex that long ago it became a matter of belief; the health of the economy is based entirely on what people believe. This is true whether everybody agrees or not.

    Anyway, just ask yourself, "What do you want to do?" Pick the creative endeavor which fascinates you and takes the least effort; (and by effort, I'm not talking about elbow grease, which you'll need; I'm talking about the get-up-and-go factor. That which you are supposed to be doing in this life will drive you and not the other way around. Once you find it, everything will run smoothly.)

    Once you settle down and figure out which way your internal loadstone is pointing, go out and follow it. Couldn't be simpler.

    The universe will provide you with the means. I see it work like this every day. You have to have faith, and you have to recognize that opportunity isn't just knocking, it's pounding at the door. Don Juan called it the, 'cubic centimeter of opportunity'. True; being able to jump at the moment is important, but Don Juan was always a little too morbid for me; it's also true that there are lots of cubic centimeters flying around all the time. And slow-moving cubic meters, too. The trick is believing that you are worthy, which the instant you move to get involved in your path, you are.

    Intent and Faith are two of the most powerful and misunderstood tools humanity has ever had access to. Part of the control system has been to fool all the nerds into believing that such things don't exist. Once that was achieved, people instantly became cattle.

    Are you a man or a burger? Make up your mind, because whether you want to hear it or not, somebody is going to want fries with that. And they'll get them too if you don't wake up and get the heck off the grill.

    Oh, and the clue you have that I'm not full of shit is that I'm not asking for $29.95

    I'd wish you good luck, but you don't need it.


    -FL

    1. Re:Not so difficult. . . by Catharsis · · Score: 1

      The big secret of society is that we are still strong and powerful, capable of living the lives we want, and doing whatever we want within the limits of kindness and benevolence.

      I'm tired of hearing sad-sap arguments otherwise.

      http://unamerican.com

      --

      "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -- David Hume

  38. Re:The Award by Jesrad · · Score: 1

    You forgot to reference the Illuminati and tin foil hats.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  39. BIG BROTHER IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS by zensmile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It sometimes amazes me the bullshit that I read on a daily basis. Lately, there has been this odd reoccurrence in the media that has left me a bit aghast. It seems that the old fear of Orwell's (in the book 1984) was that jack-booted government thugs would come down and "re-educate" the masses who did not go along with their ideology. It was a common theme that has been analyzed repeatedly over the past 20 years.

    But what is really amazing to me is the group responsible for the actual indoctrination and re-education of the masses. Twenty years ago, it was the government and some vast right-wing organization who were painted as the evil ones. But in reality it is the lefties and their hydra-like organizations. Just look at two instances of political correctness and the big-brother speak that flourishes:

    CSULB students angered by flyer - In this instance, the students are to under go cultural sensitivity indoctrination. "...mandatory attendance for all organizations at the Cultural Awareness Fair."

    Mascot Mishap - This is a similar instance of a politically correct "no-no". The people involved wiil be re-educated and shown the true meaning of happiness through being politically correct. "Members of the foundation agreed to...attend a sensitivity training session to learn about diversity."

    It seems that if you don't think and act like the hive mind on the left...you are doomed to "re-education" and indoctrination of some sort. For those that do not follow these PC rules...you will be branded a harbinger of hate and a bigot.

    Here is another example...

    "At the conference, students in the college learned the importance of firm handshakes and direct eye contact when meeting with potential employers. When a student of color raised concerns that her culture does not encourage such interactions, a comment by Springfield school district's Director of Human Resources Roger Jordan was perceived to be culturally insensitive. Jordan said he had explained what he calls "the blemish effect," which is something that might distract a potential employer during the interviewing process, such as cultural differences. He said the meaning was misconstrued and that he did not intend to propose that the student's culture was a blemish."

    I really don't get it. They are being taught how to conduct themselves in an interview and possibly land a job here in the States. They don't like the fact that what they are being taught does not jibe with their culture in their own country, so they take offense and are probably hyper-sensitive about the entire situation. Of course, the school will use the following tactics to "right any wrong" that was committed:

    * The creation of a 5-year plan to address the issues;
    * standardized and enforced procedures for handling complaints;
    * and diversity training for staff and faculty.

    I think that my biggest problem with the whole situation is that the school actually has a "Bias Response Team". Political correctness run amok. Common sense is missing in this whole situation and the diversity police (or the Bias Response Team, in this case) come to the rescue and mandate forced re-education. Lovely.

    1. Re:BIG BROTHER IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS by zensmile · · Score: 1
    2. Re:BIG BROTHER IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh but you see there are conservative democrats also, it is "evil" conservatives (facists?). They have just infiltrated both parties. The Republicans in this country have obfuscated the difference between left and right to a degree that everyone seems to have forgotten that there are left leaning Rebublicans and right leaning Democrates (the extent to which they can lean can be very dramatic). And everyone seems to have forgotten that happiness is found somewhere in the middle.

    3. Re:BIG BROTHER IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      But what is really amazing to me is the group responsible for the actual indoctrination and re-education of the masses.

      People of every viewpoint try and sometimes succeed to indoctrinate and reeducate the masses. That's how cultures change.

      It seems that if you don't think and act like the hive mind on the left

      The "hive mind"? Give me a break. There are thousands of groups on the left, each with a different agenda and beliefs. One could equally paint the Moral Majority and friends as a hive mind.

      For those that do not follow these PC rules...you will be branded a harbinger of hate and a bigot.

      And if you believe that people should follow these PC rules and not the rules of the right wing, you're considered Big Brother.

    4. Re:BIG BROTHER IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS by Coulson · · Score: 1

      The hoopla over political correctness is amusing. I'm constantly suprised by the knee-jerk negative reaction it garners. I can sum up the complex philosophical and moral principles behind political correctness in rule:

      Don't be an asshole.

      That's it. It's very simple! You could also say, "Try not to hurt other people's feelings." Or, "Think first, talk later." Or, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

      All being PC means is empathizing with your audience. Consider how your words will effect them.

      If, after doing that, you think "this wouldn't be insulting to them," or, "this may be insulting to them but it's still important to say; I will say it anyway, but not because I want to insult them", then go ahead. If they're still insulted, that's their problem! It true that many people are thin-skinned these days. But if you thought about their feelings first and acted accordingly, you fulfilled your duty to be nice to them.

      That said, Bias Response Teams and such are ridiculous. The rule above doesn't read "walk on eggshells" or "censor your thoughts". That's all crap, and obviously so, and I'm glad you're treating it as such. Just don't go too far the other way and forget the original rule: don't be an asshole.

    5. Re:BIG BROTHER IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS by Coulson · · Score: 1

      Or, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

      In fact, even that is a little too strong. It implies self-censorship, and might prevent you from saying something that needs to be said just because it's not nice.

      A better analogy would be the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

      Don't be an ass if you don't like people being asses to you.

    6. Re:BIG BROTHER IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      I've always been partial to the saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, come sit by me."

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  40. How bad must privacy protection have become... by greppling · · Score: 1

    ...if this "Spy in the Dashboard" can not even win the award in its category.

  41. What a joke. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    The British have bombs going off in subways, several thousand police cameras installed on lamp posts, people's televisions really are on constantly, and it's the gas company which takes the prize?

    Heck, the Brits have a psychopath for a Prime Minister, and their lads are shooting civilians over in the land of Oceana's "Enemy" because of a bunch of paper-thin lies the populace was too brain-dead to recognize.

    Please. Big Brother was installed a long time ago. It's just that now the rent is coming due.

    If people were really free, then why does everybody live like a bunch of slaves?

    Interestingly, one can choose to do something other than be a slave at any time. Misery is a choice which nearly everybody embraces with abandon. Why?


    -FL

    1. Re:What a joke. by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      because of a bunch of paper-thin lies the populace was too brain-dead to recognize.

      Over a million people marched through the streets of London to protest against the invasion of Iraq, a couple of months before the offensive began. The population did recognize that they were being lied to, and took massive action based on that recognition. Which is more than you can say for the USA and its 'free speech' zones.

      What did you do to stop the war?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  42. Free iPod! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.freeipods.com/default.aspx?referer=7413 787
    Think free ipod is a scam? See http://www.freeipodguide.com . Check it out! Nothing to lose!

  43. Read 1984 online - in Australia. by stienman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Our australian friends can read Orwell's 1984 at Project Gutenberg of Australia.

    Us poor sods in the USA have to wait, what, another 70 years or so? Who knows anymore. It's safer and easier to assume we can't do something than it is to assume that we can...

    -Adam

  44. what? by minus_273 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    no china, north korea? cuba? vietnam? belarus? this is a joke right?

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
  45. Go Schlumberger!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Schlumberger gotta be between the top ten:

    They use:

    car driving monitoring.

    Smart Cards for network access and logging.

    Telephone call logging.

    And cell phone triangulation tracking

    A real paradise for the cubicle dweller.

  46. US-VISIT and Privacy International by ExportGuru · · Score: 1

    Give it a rest, Davies! The British invented the present system of passports, visas, and all that back when Brittania Rule(d) the Waves. You are reaping what you sowed.

  47. Whatever... by gordgekko · · Score: 1
    But Privacy International opted to make an exception this year by including in the U.K. awards a U.S. initiative, US-Visit. This security program requires that most foreign visitors traveling to the United States on a visa have their index fingers digitally scanned and a digital photograph taken, so that immigration officers can verify their identity before the visitors are allowed entry into the United States.

    Waaaaa! Waaaaaa! Foreigners are subject to an entry requirement that proves who they are! Waaaa!

    Whatever. The US and UK may be old chums but the laters' relatively friendly home to people who like to fly airplanes into buildings makes this positively necessary. Don't like it? Stay in Old Blightly and enjoy your boiled beef.

    --
    You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
    1. Re:Whatever... by Stone+Pony · · Score: 1
      To be honest, I don't care what system you want to install on your frontier. It's your country, after all. Do what you like with it.

      What fucks me off is that we don't do it right back to you. Nothing personal (I like Americans - in my experience they're very friendly and have a tremendous generosity of spirit), but if I'm going to be treated like a criminal in your country, I'd like to see my government adopting the same measures with you, rather than bending down to check if the USA's got any last few remaining cling-ons that need licking out from its collective arse crack. Of course, the failing there lies not with the US government, but with our own.

    2. Re:Whatever... by gordgekko · · Score: 1

      For the record I'm a Canadian and I wish we had the same system here.

      I'm trying to figure this out: Why is a system which merely documents your identity to prove who you are, when you are not a citizen of this country, something bad? Does the U.S. (or any other country) owe you unfettered access? Are your rights being violated?

      I'm a libertarian but after 9/11 I'm a little more circumspect about immigration policy. Come if you like, but be prepared to prove who you are before you come.

      --
      You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
    3. Re:Whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you travelled to a foreign country and provided your fingerprint would that verify your identity to them? Is your fingerprint already on file with them or with the U.S. government? Will your government share your fingerprint with them to verify your identification?

      People are happy to confirm their identification to U.S. officials upon entry. It is a reasonable requirement and is what a passport is for. What is perplexing to most people is how fingerprints are supposed to accomplish that task any time soon or significantly more effectively. For example, as far as I know, my government does not have my fingerprint. Therefore, nobody can use it to verify my identity. It is a big NULL entry in a database beside my name.

      If I provide it to the U.S. upon my entry, how will that help, when they have never seen it before either? Maybe my passport is forged, and they'll have a fingerprint and invalid passport in their database. Maybe, if my passport carries a fingerprint encoded digitally or printed on it, supposedly verified by my home country, that has been forged to correspond with the one on my finger, through corruption or counterfeiting or whatever. Or maybe I lied to my home government about who I was, and gave them a fingerprint to correspond to a stolen identity when I first got my government-issued but bogus passport. Or maybe I'm exactly who I say I am, fingerprint, passport and all, and I'm still going to do something terrible the first and only time I ever visit the U.S.?

      Honestly, I can't see how this is going to improve security much. It makes things slightly more difficult for someone to get in that has already travelled to the U.S. and has a print on file, but U.S. citizens get through without those checks (and if you think there is no threat from within, you are fooling yourself), and anyone who has never travelled to the U.S. before and has a suitably forged passport will still get in until such time as all potential home countries deliver infallible passports.

      There are going to be *thousands* of false positives and false negatives to sort through. The whole expensive effort might pay off with better security in 10 or 20 years if you are lucky. You can expect that the new standard for all international travel will be to provide fingerprints, and they will probably get back to your home country somehow (e.g., during the verification process). So, I hope you like sharing your fingerprint with any other country you travel to and with your own eventually, because that's where it is obviously heading, with the U.S. leading the way. You may as well stay home too in a few years, because reciprocation, whether through political policy or the necessities of the database verification process, is virtually inevitable. Your government will be handling your fingerprint, whether to issue you a passport to travel elsewhere, or to verify that the one you provided elsewhere is valid.

      Look a little further ahead. There is more to this than foreigners complaining about U.S. entry requirements. By intent or in effect, this is laying the groundwork for a big, international fingerprint database in the sky. Personally, I have nothing immediate to fear from that because I am not a criminal, but I'm concerned about what other uses it might be put to some day, and how many innocent people might be mistakenly implicated just because their fingerprint resembles someone else's.

  48. bzzzt wrong by ewe2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since when did the sharing of information guarantee that the use of it would be for the good of all? Someone knew and did nothing, how would sharing make a difference?

    There have been well-publicised instances where knowledge of a potentially fatal situation was shared by government departments and their contracted private counterparts, and the only difference was that each party blamed the other instead of claiming they had no information. One example of this fresh in many Australian minds is the story of a nursing-home where complaints by staff were ignored at both private and government levels until an incident forced its closure. Then we had the usual committees and assurances, etc. etc. The government claimed the reporting was slipshod. The company claimed cuts in government subsidies. Yet they clearly shared information.

    Now that's what I call having your cake and eating it.

    --
    insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
  49. "seeking a European venue"--WRONG by nusratt · · Score: 1

    "My father was planning a conference in the US. They are now seeking a European venue."
    WRONG.
    The EU is now handing *THEIR* travel records to the US.
    He won't get the suspicious treatment, but his privacy is still raped.

    Your father has a golden opportunity to do something about this:
    -- investigate, and pick a venue wherein travel data is guaranteed not to be shared with the US.
    -- compute the total financial benefit to the venue community
    -- write a letter to that city's Chamber Of Commerce and that country's National Tourism board, explaining why they were selected and how much they benefited
    -- write the reverse letter to Chambers and Tourism boards which were rejected, INCLUDING his home country
    -- copy one of each type of letter to the "Letters" editor of every professional association in which he (your father) partakes
    -- and if he's an academic, copy likewise to the corresponding academic department of every university where he has associates, and ask them to post it publicly
    -- likewise copy the attendees of the conference

    PLEASE -- we in the US need all the help we can get in fighting this trend!

    1. Re:"seeking a European venue"--WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


      Of course, you realize that in some database somewhere in the U.S., they might get some nebulous and undefensible check mark in the "troublemaker" or "person of interest" column, and be hassled even more upon entry?
      </hyperbole>

      The entry requirements in the U.S. are getting irrational. The rules are fine, if extreme and potentially ineffective in reality, but add a lack of common sense in their application, and it is completely counterproductive.

      On the news recently there was the story of a Canadian citizen on a business trip like many previous. He was barred entry at a ground crossing because he failed to declare he had a criminal record in Canada. Now, he is barred from future entry unless he gets a waiver from the U.S., because he has committed a second crime: lied to border officials. There was no consideration of the fact that this guy's crime was breaking a window when he was a young and foolish 19 (he's now over 50!), and his punishment at the time was merely a fine. He had simply forgotten about it, decades later. No, he has a criminal record and did not tell them about it. Such silliness is enabled because the U.S. has access to the Canadian government's criminal record database -- on the face of it, a good idea -- but you would think there would be some consideration for something so flagrantly an innocent, if stupid, mistake; or maybe they could put some kind of sane limitation on the access, like 20 or 30 years, or only certain classes of crimes get put on there indefinitely.

      <hyperbole>
      So, make sure you pay off those overdue parking tickets at home before you visit the U.S., or at least declare to U.S. officials that you haven't done so.
      </hyperbole>

    2. Re:"seeking a European venue"--WRONG by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that sort of thing (minor crimes decades ago) is wiped out by law in the UK, so that saying you had no criminal record would become true. Maybe Canada needs to think harder about that.

    3. Re:"seeking a European venue"--WRONG by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      investigate, and pick a venue wherein travel data is guaranteed not to be shared with the US.

      To my knowledge, when you rule out US and EU, you have ruled out much of the English-speaking world. Some places in Asia may be ok, but I've never been there without a lot of jet lag, so I can't really remember.

  50. "seeking a European venue"--THINK AGAIN by nusratt · · Score: 1

    "My father was planning a conference in the US. They are now seeking a European venue."
    WRONG.
    He won't get the suspicious treatment, but his privacy is still raped.
    The EU is now handing *THEIR* travel records to the US.

    Your father has a golden opportunity to do something about this:
    -- investigate, and pick a venue wherein travel data is guaranteed not to be shared with the US.
    -- compute the total financial benefit to the venue community
    -- write a letter to that city's Chamber Of Commerce and that country's National Tourism board, explaining why they were selected and how much they benefited
    -- write the reverse letter to Chambers and Tourism boards which were rejected, INCLUDING his home country
    -- copy one of each type of letter to the "Letters" editor of every professional association in which he (your father) partakes
    -- likewise copy the attendees of the conference
    -- and if he's an academic, copy likewise to the corresponding academic department of every university where he has associates, and ask them to post it publicly

    PLEASE -- we in the US need all the help we can get in fighting this trend!

    1. Re:"seeking a European venue"--THINK AGAIN by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

      Your father has a golden opportunity to do something about this:
      -- investigate, and pick a venue wherein travel data is guaranteed not to be shared with the US.
      -- compute the total financial benefit to the venue community
      -- write a letter to that city's Chamber Of Commerce and that country's National Tourism board, explaining why they were selected and how much they benefited
      -- write the reverse letter to Chambers and Tourism boards which were rejected, INCLUDING his home country
      -- copy one of each type of letter to the "Letters" editor of every professional association in which he (your father) partakes
      -- likewise copy the attendees of the conference
      -- and if he's an academic, copy likewise to the corresponding academic department of every university where he has associates, and ask them to post it publicly

      PLEASE -- we in the US need all the help we can get in fighting this trend!

      Uh, in other words, Send me your name and a list of all the other people and organizations that disagree with us the way you do?

      Geez, looks like a great time to invest in tinfoil headgear!

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
  51. You make some good points by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

    I can see what you're saying there, but the choices of action are limited.

    In this case, the decision on a European nation is being made not so much because of data interchange and privacy as because delegates are unwilling to physically go to the USA. As most of the speakers and delegates are American and European, it would be impractical to hold it anywhere but one of the two regions.

    I don't think anybody is pretending that the EU is all roses and flowers, but you currently have less reason to fear simply going there, and you're not likely to be treated like a criminal just because you're from another country.

    When it comes to information, the previous candidate venue (and its city council) has been informed of why the plans were dropped. I don't know how, or if, they responded.

    1. Re:You make some good points by nusratt · · Score: 1

      "delegates are unwilling to physically go to the USA"

      no matter. You did originally say that your father ruled out the US because of his experiences there. The letters would still be truthful & useful. Hell, even if the US were never originally considered, it would still be truthful to say that privacy ruled it out.

      "[in the EU] you're not likely to be treated like a criminal just because you're from another country"
      "it would be impractical to hold it anywhere else"

      I wasn't suggesting other wise. I'm suggesting other locations in Europe (e.g. Norway), or at least prioritization of EU locales based on which are the most privacy/liberty-friendly (thus ruling out UK, Netherlands, Spain ...).

    2. Re:You make some good points by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I don't think anybody is pretending that the EU is all roses and flowers, but you currently have less reason to fear simply going there, and you're not likely to be treated like a criminal just because you're from another country.

      Lets be fair now. The US doesn't treat people like criminals because they're from another country. They treat everyone like criminals.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:You make some good points by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      Look, you should just come clean and admit the truth that you simply hate the U.S. You're just using the VISIT program as an excuse. I'm not buying any of this.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    4. Re:You make some good points by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

      That's a bit less than half true ;-)

      I totally distrust and strongly dislike (hate is NOT accurate, thanks) the behaviour of the current US government. I'm concerned about where it's going, and what that means for the rest of the world, given the political force being put into "harmonizing" policies with the EU, etc.

      I'm very unhappy about the fact that Australia now gets all the bad American laws a little while after the US does - and often drafted even worse. That, however, is our problem - the US applies a lot of pressure, but if we bend to it it's our fault. The recent "Free" trade agreement is a good example.

      I'm deeply concerned that collectively, the US population is letting its government get away with this stuff, if not encouraging it.

      On the other hand, it's entirely wrong to say I hate the US. I really like what the US used to be, for one thing, and what many of its people want it to be again. I like some of its ideals and its stated (as opposed to demonstrated in action) goals. I like a lot of aspects of its legal and political systems, some of which I'd love to see here. I like a lot of Americans I know.

      I'd love to be able to visit again, as I really enjoyed seeing Washington DC - but right now, I wouldn't feel comfortable or safe doing so.

      I just wish the country would stop forcing its self on the rest of the world, calm down a bit, and let everybody get on with life ;-)

      Also, it's true the VISIT program is far from a core issue here. All it is is another demonstration of the general attitude that's developing in the US, at least as it's presented to the outside world. It happens to be a particularly blatant and offensive one that's caught a lot of people's attention, but still it's by its self not that big a deal.

      So ... while you can choose to write off my comments and opinion (that is all it is, after all) because of some assumptions about my motivation if you like, it might be better to recognise it as a perfectly valid opinion - just one you disagree with. I happen to disagree with your assumptions about my motivation ;-)

    5. Re:You make some good points by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      I'd love to be able to visit again, as I really enjoyed seeing Washington DC - but right now, I wouldn't feel comfortable or safe doing so.

      The reason I am writing off your opinion is because you sound paranoid. There is no reason why you should not visit the U.S. right now. You're probably much safer here today than you would have been 30 years ago (c.f. crime). I don't buy the argument that you (or was it your parents) "felt foreign" while here. I can drive 300 miles in any direction in this country and feel "foreign". Every time I've been overseas in my adult life, I've felt "foreign". One of the reasons I like travelling overseas is because I DO feel foreign; because it's NOT like here.

      And don't talk to me about our "bad" laws travelling to Australia. I can still take one of my semi-automatic rifles out for target practice, or one of my semi-automatic shotguns out for a round of sporting clays anytime I want -- something you can no longer do in Australia.

      The U.S. is not a police state, and is not becoming a police state. Your statements are either purely politically motivated, or you are paranoid.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    6. Re:You make some good points by nusratt · · Score: 1

      "you simply hate the U.S. You're just using the VISIT program as an excuse"

      are you serious? Even if you're really that xenophobic, how then do you account for the US-ers who feel the same?
      (And please, omit the "love it or leave it" and "tin-foil hat" glib responses.)

    7. Re:You make some good points by nusratt · · Score: 1

      "you sound paranoid. There is no reason why you should not visit the U.S. right now. You're probably much safer here today than you would have been 30 years ago (c.f. crime)."

      Wcrowe, I don't think that craig was necessarily speaking of crime (although you & I need to make a conscious effort to understand the feelings of people from countries without handguns).

      And I don't necessarily think that he's talking about fear of political or police persecution -- although I wouldn't blame him, in view of our recent jailing & expulsion of **accredited** **establishment** Commonwealth journalists whose only transgression was to enter with a normal tourist visa instead of a special journalist visa.

      If you re-read craig's original post, I think you'll see that he was expressing discomfort, not about *their* paranoia but about *ours*, as evidenced by our treatment of non-USers.

      And I'm quite aware of his concerns about "bad laws", and I can tell you that he's NOT referring to guns (btw, I'm as much of a 2nd-Amendment supporter as you, although probably for different reasons).
      Craig IS talking about things like the way that other countries are being coerced to conform to OUR GOVERNMENT'S desires regarding things like
      -- DRM/RIAA/MPAA prosecutions
      -- having their own citizens' privacy legislation violated, against their citizenries' wishes, in giving Ashcroft unlimited access to ALL of their travel records, EVEN WHEN NOT GOING TO OR FROM THE U.S.
      -- being pressured to repeal their food-labeling laws, so that their citizens can no longer make an informed choice about genetically-modified foods.

      Admit it, wouldn't we be howling if the UN or EU were making these kinds of demands on *us*?

      "The U.S. is not a police state, and is not becoming a police state."

      I'm not particularly liberal -- in fact, I originally welcomed Bush -- and I can tell you that there are many conservatives who are concerned about the Constitution being weakened.
      I'm surprised that you express absolutely no concern about things like secret Patriot Act searches of library records, WITHOUT warrants or court oversight.

      Just how far would it have to go before you felt differently about "not becoming a police state"?
      In fact, let's make the question easier:
      how far must it go before you merely start to become uncomfortable about the trend?

    8. Re:You make some good points by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      are you serious? Even if you're really that xenophobic, how then do you account for the US-ers who feel the same?

      I can't account for the opinions of the mis-informed. I have no idea why NASCAR is so popular either. I think the same people who are against the VISIT program right now, would have been all for it if Bill Clinton were still in office. The whole thing boils down to politics.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    9. Re:You make some good points by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      Just how far would it have to go before you felt differently about "not becoming a police state"?

      There are two kinds of people who are upset about the Patriot Act and the VISIT program:

      1) People who hate George Bush and would think these programs were just fine if Al Gore were in office.

      2) Paranoics.

      As soon as someone is arrested simply because they checked a book out at the library (and for no other reason), then let me know and I might change my mind.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    10. Re:You make some good points by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 1

      Yep, I think you clarified things nicely.

      I also wish to note that at no point did I mention "police state". I don't know enough about the US to make that call, after all - though I'm free to have my own opinions of how it looks from the outside.

      As you note, it's not feeling foreign that's the problem - it's being made to feel like you're untrustworthy or potentially dangerous BECAUSE you're foreign.

      Also, despite the insinuation of the parent to your post, it was in fact my father and his wife who visisted most recently. My visit to the US some time ago was quite pleasant - but it was also before the 2004-09-11 attacks, PATRIOT, and all that.

  52. Re: "If you are caught, you are caught" by nusratt · · Score: 1

    "tough shit. If any part of your car touches the yellow lines, you are in breech. These are NOT hazy lines. Doesn't matter how long it was for, or how much of an infringement there was of the regulations. I look upon speeding similarly. THERE IS NO GREY AREA HERE PEOPLE."

    The issue isn't "is it an infraction?".
    The issue is, do you want to live in a world of such pervasive monitoring?

    If you don't mind that, then perhaps you'd be happiEST living in Singapore, where it's the NORM to be charged for chewing gum in public (because someone MIGHT not dispose of it properly).

  53. Broken Home(land)page by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Is anyone else disturbed by the broken webserver that serves the Department of Homeland Security homepage? As this Big Brother story shows, their actual DHS homepage is up and running. But the other one, as a .gov domain, is under their administration, and is much more likely to be hit by an untrained citizen, especially in an emergency.

    Misconfigured webservers that can't even produce a homepage are a sign of bad security practice, and bad management policy. These are the people protecting our homeland. Shudder.

    This new department is claiming all kinds of unconstitutional powers. Lately, they're talking about cancelling or postponing the 2004 election, without any legal basis for jurisdiction, let alone any sense to the actual policy. With the Patriot Act and a swarm of other legal contrivances, they're sacrificing our liberty (and security) in the name of security. But they can't even run their webserver! No wonder the antiterror czar, Richard Clarke, when demoted to cybersecurity chief, finally quit in disgust. What can we do about this insane clown posse?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Broken Home(land)page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect. You have the White House and GWB blowing sunshine up your ass telling you that America is safer ( I think he used that line 30 time in his last speech), while the DOJ, DHS, FBI etc.. are constantly fear mongering about terrorist threats on the homeland.

      So which is it? Fuck the partisanism and try get a straight answer - are you safer today or not? How is fingerprinting some old grandma from the UK going to prevent Ali Bin Dirtbag from blowing himself up in a truck in the middle of the Hudson Tunnel.

      In my opinion, the entire globe has been playing pussy to terrorism for over 30 years - drop the gloves, go in and wollop the shit out of them - make them afraid to EVER mess with anybody again.

    2. Re:Broken Home(land)page by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You're right about all that crap. Except the "solution" of making terrorists afraid to mess with anybody. The collateral damage that would take would increase the terror of the masses, in every country. These people are not mere saboteurs, they are master media manipulators. Their goal of fear spread through all media, including word of mouth, is furthered by meeting their force with force. That's why they fight these "asymmetric" conflicts with much larger, more powerful militaries. Because every bomb scores one for their side, no matter which direction its fired from or at. Not because of some pussy moral argument about "sinking to their level". But because spreading fear undermines our civilization, and puts whatever rationalizations their "ideological" leaders are pumping out into more minds, polarizing and perpetuating the violence on which they depend. The conversion of "bystanders" into recruits spreads faster than they can be killed, or even replacements be born.

      The really brave strength requires legitimate governments to stop subsidizing debilitating resource extraction, illiteracy, and tyrannies that keep billions of people from taking part in their local economies, cut off the corporate welfare. And police the ghettoes to break up the local organizations filling the legitimate vacuum, while providing more legitimate society structures, from schools to investment to opportunites to govern. And, yes, to kill probably thousands of people for whom it's too late to return to roles acceptable to the rest of humanity. Now. Before it's too late for too many, and therefore too late for all of us.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  54. BG excuse strictly untrue by midgley · · Score: 1

    The Data Protection Act required no such thing.

    There was quite a long gap between the gas being cut off and winter though.

  55. Re:I see nothing wrong with any of these "offenses by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

    This is a perfectly good stance to take, and in a world where the government was an omniscent and unerring entity, it would be acceptable. But, say I disagree with the government about what is acceptable or not? Or, to turn it around, say the government changes its mind?

    That all still assumes that the government is its own entity. It's not. In order for your government to carry out 'its duty' to know and act on that knowledge, that knowledge has to pass through many weak, fleshy links in the chain. Say you manage to piss off your local chief of police by having consentual sex with his daughter? Ooops, the press was leaked a picture of you doing embarrasing things in your house. The problem with giving the government permission to know every detail about your life is that means any number of people also have that power, and you blindly trust them not to abuse that knowledge.

    Even if you never fall victim to that information being abused, there's always the chance that someone goes home from work every day and talks to his family over dinner about what this jackass he had to monitor at work was doing all day long.

  56. Solution= Don't Visit the USA !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, if you don't like being fingerprinted and having your photo taken, DON'T COME TO THE USA!

    I won't miss you.

    We have been lax in protecting our borders for far too long. We should clamp down even harder on who visits this country, and we should track down all those people who are here on expired Visas and boot them back to where they came from.

    9/11 would have never happened if we better protected our borders, clamped down on Visa abuse, and had some half decent airline security.

    It is time for people to WAKE UP that the world has changed.

    I am tired of people want to take advantage of all that the USA has to offer and then bad mouthing us.

    Stay home ! I certainly have no plans to come visit your lousy country.

  57. Re: "If you are caught, you are caught" by drunkahol · · Score: 1

    I'm not supporting the councils decisions as to what parts of roads have what types of parking restrictions (or none at all).

    I'm merely stating basic fact. Park on a double yellow line and you are parked illegally. Finished. Over. Done. Nicked.

    You MAY well be able to appeal any charge that is brought - but you cannot cry foul when the letter of the law is applied to you.

  58. Big deal... by waldorf+statler · · Score: 1
    Even if you never fall victim to that information being abused, there's always the chance that someone goes home from work every day and talks to his family over dinner about what this jackass he had to monitor at work was doing all day long.

    I call that guy my boss.

  59. Yes it's true by SteamyMobile · · Score: 1
    We are very very happy if carriers do things to block minors from accessing our content. Minors have no business being on our site and we don't want them on it.

    However, we are not happy that carriers like Vodafone are blocking all porn, or carriers like Verizon are blocking all images from everyone. Those things are upsetting.

  60. No, it's not by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

    The award is not about privacy, it is about Big Brother, go read 1984. There is nothing colder (sorry) than watching another die and doing nothing about it though you have the means. They cut off thier heat, they died. They knew that if they cut off the gas some people would be harmed, to me it's damn near criminal. Then again, they are only proles, not Party members.

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    1. Re:No, it's not by The+Dark+P · · Score: 1

      Actually, if i remember the media feeding frenzy at the time, it emerged that British Gas only do this as a last resort. They had sent them various warning letters that they weren't paying their bills, and it was only after four house visits, during which the couple refused to answer or pay, that they turned off the gas.

      It then later emerged that the elderly couple were not broke at all, and had just refused to pay.

    2. Re:No, it's not by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      did they *watch* them die, stay in the room and see the temperature and body temperature dropping and didn't carry them to somewhere warm? probably not, anyone would have expected them to have some means of survival if they knowingly refused to pay something they could have paid(or else they should have been institutionalised because being unable to live alone without supervision, like some people with severe mental damage).

      it's stupid also to make the remark that they should keep giving them gas infinitely even if they *refused* knowingly to pay up. how about if they just refused to pay for the pizza man, free pizzas? the system just doesn't work that way(or it eventually comes crashing down). it's very anti-bigbrother to let you do stupid things if you insist on doing them, they weren't out of options on what to do to survive even if the gas was cut off. maybe they thought they didn't need the heating as much as saving money up for some trip or something(they weren't homeless so logic dictates they had some money or assets they could have turned into money and even those failing they could have seeked help).

      in retrospect evidently they weren't fit to take care of themselfs(they ended up dead in a situation where normally capable and sane person wouldn't have) and should have needed an appointed guardian to take care of bills & etc(or be institutionalised).

      look, cutting off the gas didn't kill anyone. staying *unprepared* in a house that wasn't heated did.

      would the milkman have been accused of starving them to death if he had cut off giving them milk after they refused to pay? hardly.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  61. Turing test for Big Brother. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Lame retorts, heavy on the bitter revenge. That's what makes me notice.

    The truth will set you free? You can't handle the truth!
  62. UK weather by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
    Despite climate change, you may find that August is not the depths of winter in the UK. They had three months to, for example, get an electric heater or a blanket, or be noticed by neighbours etc., or of course pay the gas bill with the cash in the house (more than enough).

    I am trying to remember if the gas contract requires you to put in your date of birth... I guess it does since most banks seem to think a gas bill is a form of ID. Should basic utilities (gas, electricity, water) tell social services if something happens? I guess that is what the debate is about. Seeing as last year I got rang up every week by someone asking me to switch gas provider or electricity provider I am not sure I would have wanted the authorities to kick offif I had agreed. But no doubt that will come (along with TV license and car tax now putting the burden on the customer rather than the govt.) - it does seem to be the general direction Blunkett wants us to progress in.

  63. Sorry. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    Over a million people marched through the streets of London to protest against the invasion of Iraq, a couple of months before the offensive began. The population did recognize that they were being lied to, and took massive action based on that recognition. Which is more than you can say for the USA and its 'free speech' zones.

    What did you do to stop the war?


    Please forgive me. This was one of those instances where I hit, the send button and an instant later thought, "Hmm. I could have worded that differently."

    -FL

  64. Boycott Sexist Awards!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dare they use the term 'big brother' to imply all privacy intruders are male?! THAT'S BLATANT SEXISM!!!

  65. Ghost of Tom Ridge by Tom+in+Boston · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Following one of the Homeland Security links, and searching for the particular kind of duct tape that I should run out and buy, I found this (PDF!) page that has a spooky image of Tom Ridge. If you don't see it when the page is loading, then drag the scroll bar up and down.

    Leftover artifact from composing the document, or high-tech method of watching us at our desks? You decide! I think I saw his eyes move!

    http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Flown_the _Flag_Full_Page.pdf

  66. Big Brother stopped them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard that the US one won't happen because the gov't found out about the awards by tapping the phones of the participants. It then placed them under police surveillance, put a video of them making love with their significant others on the internet, and released a profile of their DNA (flagged with possible defects) to their health insurance company.

  67. Timothy al-Veigh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly, not all terrorist attacks in the US are from Arabs, or even foreigners.

    The best way to stop people from attacking you is to stop them from hating you. Until the US stops being an international bully (which, to be fair, pretty much every world power throughout history has done), we'll still have a problem.

    1. Re:Timothy al-Veigh? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      The best way to stop people from attacking you is to stop them from hating you.

      How are we supposed to stop people from hating us? Why is it that WE must do all the work? Why is it neccessary for US to do all the "understanding". Why is it that the U.S. is ALWAYS wrong (no matter what we do) and everyone else is ALWAYS right?

      It does not matter whether we get involved in world affairs or not; it does not matter how much good American agencies do worldwide; we're going to be hated regardless.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
  68. "We Need better education! by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

    And they will wright to their congress person and to president.

    You are right,Americans do need to Write the language better.

    --
    Wanted : A Signature.
  69. Re: "If you are caught, you are caught" by nusratt · · Score: 1

    As i already said, 'The issue isn't "is it an infraction?".'
    Read on from there.

    Allow me to apply it more personally.
    You wrote:
    "Finished. Over. Done. Nicked."

    Do you want to live in a world where some a**ho*e CONSTANTLY, DOGGEDLY follows you around, nagging you about each time you pen a one-word grammatically incomplete sentence?

    Or try this. Let's say that you're a recovering smoker married to a militant non-smoker. Even knowing that you're making a good-faith best-effort, I'll appoint myself to stalk you and report each transient stumble of discipline to her.

    And please skip the reply of, "Well, THOSE aren't LAWS", which would be disingenuously oblivious to my point.