Slashdot Mirror
Privacy International Releases 2007 Report
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Privacy International has released their report on privacy for 2007, which includes a color-coded world map that highlights the countries with the best privacy laws, the privacy-hostile countries being in black. While many of the overall rankings may come as no surprise, it does highlight some of the more obscure abuses. For example, Venezuela requires your fingerprints just to get a phone and South Korea requires a government registration number linked to your identity before you can post on message boards. Makes you wonder who is Number One?"
Maybe they don't include it because they wrote about it earlier:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-558619
"PI leads coalition of organisations against Japanese Government plans for fingerprinting at border
19/11/2007
Today, in a coalition with 18 Japanese rights groups, Privacy International delivered a letter to the Japanese Minister of Justice to protest against the implementation of a fingerprinting system and face-scanning system at its borders. All visitors and many foreign residents to Japan will be fingerprinted under this plan. Our letter to the Minister is endorsed by 68 organisations from 30 countries."
This pisses me off as I see friends and family continue to throw their personal information into the shithole that is MySpace when there are better alternatives available. This privacy group spouts loads of uninformed and ignorant crap. This was clear when they placed Facebook lower than MySpace in their "rankings".
http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf
Regardless of what you think of Facebook's controversial features... even YEARS ago, Facebook has offered super granular access control to view different parts of a profile. Non-friends by default have never had access to see a profile unless they were in the same network (which has been optional, too)
To an extent (flame on) - Facebook is to linux as MySpace as to Windows. Facebook usees access controls enabled for privacy out of the box. On the other hand, MySpace is a default privacy trash can. If you want to use a social network (you don't have to) then use one that respects your need to adjust privacy.
You'll also notice that MySpace's privacy controls is a single checkbox, which denies randoms from seeing your stuff. That's all you get for privacy.
Facebook allows you to narrow it down further into limited profiles, or even further with temporary access to a shorter profile through the poke feature. This has been around for YEARS at Facebook. Now tell me, why didn't Privacy International notice the drastic, overwhelming privacy features (though underused) Facebook offers it's users? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T LOOK. It makes you ask, WHO ARE THESE GUYS? I would have LOVED to use these rankings as anti-MySpace ammo... and look what they give me.
Who can we trust to watch the watchmen? One that isn't sponsored by Fox news, please.
corrupt criminal organization Accenture (renamed Arthur Andersen)
Nope. Accenture was formerly named Andersen Consulting
which did the falsified books for Enron and Worldcom.
Nope. That was Arthur Andersen. Two different companies.
* No right to privacy in federal constitution, though one territory now includes the right to privacy within its bill of rights
So the ACT is the only place with an explicit right to privacy.
* Comprehensive privacy laws at federal level and others within some states and territories, but there are broad exemptions that have precluded action by the privacy commissioner against small businesses and political parties; and does not meet international standards
* Power of commissioner diminished because determinations are not legally binding
We have good privacy laws and a commissioner, but there are many ways around these laws and the commissioner has no legal authority.
* Numerous reports of data breaches, including at the taxation office, child support agency, and even amongst the police
Typical of many contries, these seem the most serious breaches of our privacy, but are trumped by the next items.
* High level of interception activity; no notification requirement to innocent participants to communications
* Expanded surveillance powers in 2004
Bet you didn't know about that one. Our new 'anti-terror' laws are full of little gems like this. Big Brother is watching you.
* Movement towards electronic medical records but no opt-in protections as yet
* De-identified medical data has been approved by the privacy commissioner for sale to pharmaceutical companies, despite protests
Not a huge issue, obviously the data was made anonymous but still medical records are a very personal thing. I wouldn't want mine released to anyone but a doctor treating me no matter what anonymity was given.
* Expanded financial surveillance and secret reporting
* DNA collection only for serious crimes at the moment
These seem like legitamate police controls, but it's still a clear privacy violation.
* Made preliminary steps to secure passports in 2006
* New government promised to abandon ID card plans; the office of access card has been closed but senior staff have moved to other department hinting at possible proposals to emerge
Well that is a stretch, of course public servants get shuffled around when their department is abolished. It was damn close to being implemented though, and if it was I'm sure we would achieve the highest score on this chart.
* Document verification service for use by public and private sector is being implemented despite lack of privacy considerations
* Abusive case of visa revocation of individual related to suspects in UK anti-terrorism case
It was a sorry day when we treated a relative of a suspect as a criminal. If my cousin in another country does something stupid, I don't want to be the one to pay the price.
None of the above is bullshit, it is all very real. Just count ourselves lucky that the national ID card didn't come in this year or we would be rated black.
The UK does not have ID Cards.
Ok, the Government wants to introduce them but AFAIK, the bill to introduce them has not been passed by Parliament and received Royal Ascent( The Queen's Signature )
There are several Political Parties which are totally opposed to the introduction of ID Cards.
Finally, given the fiasco that normally accompanies government IT Projects, I don't expect to see them introduced before 2020 anyway.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
Unselfish actions pay back better
The UK does not have ID Cards. Ok, the Government wants to introduce them but AFAIK, the bill to introduce them has not been passed by Parliament and received Royal Ascent( The Queen's Signature )
Unfortunately, you are mistaken. The Identity Cards Act received royal assent, becoming law, on 30 March 2006.
The first legal battle has already been lost. Now it's down to either electing someone to repeal the law before it really takes hold, or sufficient civil disobedience to undermine the law. Fortunately, both of those events are quite likely.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.