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."

36 of 438 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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"?

    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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
    9. 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
    10. 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!
  2. 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 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.

    3. 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'

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  3. 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 Veridium · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
    2. 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?

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  4. 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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: 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?

  8. 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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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
  13. 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