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."
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.
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"?
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.
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. ... 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.
Unfortunately you are pretty damn right. But the list isnt that short
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.
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.
It seems odd that there is no mention of this in the FAQ, yet we have a 'YRO' section.
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...?
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?
Gets around a bit, does Allawi.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"...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.
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."
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.
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.
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
"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.
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>
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!
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.
e _Flag_Full_Page.pdf
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_th