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."
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 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.
It seems odd that there is no mention of this in the FAQ, yet we have a 'YRO' section.
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.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.
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.
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."
"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.