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?"
The thing that concerns me is that Americans tout "freedom" and "liberties" on a daily basis as part of often over-exaggerated patriotism or often an excuse to conduct military missions (to "protect our freedom"). Americans will often even forgive infringements and attacks on our "freedom" and "liberty" by citing the supposed fact that we have so much of both and can apparently thereby afford to let a little of it slip away here and there for causes they deem worthy.
Yet for those who are aware of the world around them, it is easy to see great chunks of freedom, liberty and privacy being wrestled from our grasps on a daily basis. Usually without much defense on our part. We just hand it over. It's like being a passenger on an ocean liner and touting the safety and reliability of the vessel even as you wade across the submerged deck, up to your hips in salt water.
What it all really means, is "I can still buy a $5 latte and my favorite sit-com with the offensively stereo-typed ethnic characters is still on television and I can still follow my favorite commercial sports team, so I *must* have an ass-load of freedom!".
I do believe Malaysia was tied with Russia and China for worst (each getting a 1.3 total score) ... Must be some type of industrialized/sweat shop Zoolanderian Dystopia.
Or maybe you just made a groundless claim?
Live according to the Categorical Imperative. If the Categorical Imperative tells you not to live by it... ignore it
I will counter your "this data can't be accurate, because these nations have huge corporations in them which have privacy regulations to adhere to!" with "this data is entirely correct, precisely because they are home to huge corporations which sometimes have privacy regulations to adhere to, but often don't bother and are often not held responsible for it and at any rate have lobbiests in their employ to legislate for their advantage against the rights and privacy of the citizens of said country".
You're probably referencing the gride below the map. Where things such as Constitutional Protection, Privacy Enforcement, Visual Surveillance and Government access to data are graded. Those items are governmental policy. Granted, your point is valid and probably related as the lobbyists influence policy decisions. The point being that this is supposed to represent policies and their enforcement by the government. If the government buckles to lobby and erodes freedoms, the result is the same as if they had taken the initiative themselves.
*shrug*
I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
Note that the European Union seems to have protected its citizens (from terrorism) without abridging basic civil rights.
It wouldn't hurt if all of you sitting in front of your notebooks, computers, and cellular phones with integrated cameras turned off could be bothered to wave at us once in awhile.
It's not you. Sucks. It doesn't have to be that way, though. If all of us slashdot users stand up together as a melitia, I'm sure we can secure an area about the size of my back yard as a new sovereign country.
I cannot believe that this report does not include Japan's treatment legal "foreigners", including visitors, long term & permanent residents. Since late November, all of the these "foreigners" in Japan are now forced to be fingerprinted. Even worse, the corrupt Japanese government awarded the contract to collect the "foreigner" biometric data to the corrupt criminal organization Accenture (renamed Arthur Andersen) which did the falsified books for Enron and Worldcom. Accenture won the bid to collect the data for only (JPY)$100,000, approximately (USD)$900. You can bet that the Accenture paid the Japanese government a lot of money under the table in order to resell the biometric data to interested parties.
Maybe other countries should start fingerprinting Japanese visitors and residents, and then sell the biometric data to those Nigerian scammers.
This fingering of "foreigners" is even worse considering that Japan is the only first world nation not to have any anti-discrimination legislation, and legal "foreigners" in Japan are not even afforded even the mere basic of protection under the law. (Foreigners in Japan do have any Habeas Corpus and can be tortured in prison for up to 21 days. Testimony by foreigners in Japan has been ruled inadmissible in court, since there are not considered to be human by the Japanese ministry of Justice.)
they're all tagged 'endemic surveillance societies' - is the govt tapping phones without permission? watching your web traffic? got cameras all watching you in public? - that's all surveillance - seems right to me - I mean they have honking big machines in AT&T's backbones watching every packet and voice call that passes through
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."
No we couldn't, we would spend to much time pointing out ... to much time... or .... too much time ? ;)
His point (which seems to have escaped you) is that many Americans aren't capable of even perceiving the problem.
And that's a problem.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
They are a bit unfair to the U.S., however, in that they comment that other countries' judiciaries have recognized an implied limited right to privacy in their constitutions, but they don't mention that the U.S. Supremes have recognized one as well (it being the basis for Roe v. Wade, after all).
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
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.
Another point is that many Americans are capable of perceiving problems where there are not any problems.
And that too is a problem.
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.
The value of "freedom" as an american ideal was a great thing and shaped the very foundations of our government. That value is long since dead. Early Americans understood the value of personal freedom. They were very diverse and many of them were immigrants from oppressive cultures. Even the strict puritans espoused a policy of letting those outside their community make choices they disapproved of.
Here's an experiment. Go find a few normal people and have a conversation with them about a few political topics. Notice that no matter what their political affiliation, the vast majority of them think it is just and ethical for them to pass laws to take choices away from others, even when those choices do not affect anyone else. Be it hunting bans or gay marriage or prohibiting heroin, nearly everyone is in favor of passing at least one law to tell other people how to live their lives. Ask them if they value freedom and they'll tell you they do, but ask them specifics and you'll see they don't mean it. They want everyone to be free so long as they don't make choices they disapprove of.
Freedom is the right of others to make choices you think are wrong and supporting freedom means supporting the right of others to make those wrong choices. Unless that value becomes important to Americans, our civil rights will continue to erode from both ends of the political spectrum and both major political parties.
* 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.
No argument there, but that's not my point. Sorry if I didn't make my theory clear, but I meant that content would be classified in line with ACMA guidelines. We see something similar with the laws banning the importation of pornography. reference
When you get right down to it, access to externally published material over the net is an oddity; all content imported by any other means is either banned or subject to classification/censorship. I honestly don't believe that if we have this filtering system set up the government will be able to resist attempting to bring content published over the net in line with the rest of our censorship system. In short, while the federal ID card certainly had some issues (RFID) and arguments in favor and against, filtering provides nothing of value other than censorship. Once it's in place and demonstrated to be working at least somewhat, it's guaranteed to be extended to bring it in line with our other media classification/censorship. And from there it's most likely to be enforced by legislative and not technical means.
[clever sig]
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.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Unselfish actions pay back better
>What it all really means, is "I can still buy a $5 latte and my favorite sit-com with the offensively stereo-typed ethnic characters is still on television and I can still follow my favorite commercial sports team, so I *must* have an ass-load of freedom!".
Personally I find this offensively stereo-typing americans.
``What it all really means, is "I can still buy a $5 latte and my favorite sit-com with the offensively stereo-typed ethnic characters is still on television and I can still follow my favorite commercial sports team, ...''
Well, actually, if that's all you care about, isn't that all that matters? I mean, life can be good even without freedom and democracy.
I know, I know. Checks on the power of government are supposed to protect us against the government making our lives miserable. But how effective are they, really? If the government crosses the line, who is going to stop them? What if there is a coup? What if the country is at war? What if there is so much misinformation that almost nobody knows what is really happening? What if it's not the government making people's lives miserable, but other groups?
Do people actually tend to be happier in countries that have good privacy checks in place?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
How do you know? Maybe you're perceiving problems where there are not any problems too?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Yeah, right: Greece leads the EU on privacy, in a year that saw the board of the independent Privacy Authority resigning over rampant and unconstitutional CCTV use by the Justice Department. Incidentally, that happened just before the Greek PA was to investigate the 2005 wiretapping scandal that made international headlines. What kind of kool-aid are they taking over there in Privacy Int'l? The sad truth is that privacy took a nose dive this year across the whole of the EU, with the Prum, VIS, PNR and Swift data accords being ratified and there weren't any silver linings.
"We don't stop playing games because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing games.."
Though I am inclined to classify this research as bogus, it's quite funny and intriguing that the USA, Britain, Russia and China are in the same club.
Actually, speaking as someone from the UK, I think it's just sad... and entirely, objectively accurate. Our modern surveillance state/database society in the UK would make any dictator proud.
We are rapidly moving towards a state where the government monitors, inter alia,
The government is essentially compiling databases, to be kept near enough forever, of:
in addition to all the usual financial and employment records, of course.
The only difference between the UK and certain more infamous countries is that, at least until recently, the serious damage had been only incidental and affecting a few people, while certain other governments more routinely abuse the information they collect. Then again, see my current sig for how fast the UK government is trying to catch up — and remember that's just the biggest story recently, not the only one.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Wow, you're really kind to Facebook.
Have you also noticed that their entire modus operandi is basically to get friends to provide information about each other? And that if you've ever created an account there, even if you deactivate it, they still keep your personal information around indefinitely and allow people to continue doing things like tagging you in photos?
I don't know how anyone rational can view services like Facebook as not being a serious threat to privacy.
Of course, I'm about as likely to get sympathy for that view on Slashdot as I am when I say I think Google is the greatest threat to privacy in the history of humanity. That doesn't make either statement any less true, but there you go.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
Real-ID requires a minimum level of security on the ID,
How exactly would this be the case.
which IMPROVES PROTECTION AGAINST IDENTITY THEFT which would seem
Except that cetralised and overloaded identity document concepts make "identity theft" considerably easier.
Real-ID requires the sharing of databases between states. OK they are worried about the detriment of centralized databases, but show me where any other country gets attacked for requiring a centralized database for drivers licenses. They don't.
The problem isn't if such a database is national or not. The problem is that using said database for anything unrelated to driving on public roads is a stupid idea. Which includes using drivers licences as identity documents. The worst that should possibly be able to happen if someone steals yours is that you have to take a driving test before you are allowed to drive again.
Freedom is the right of others to make choices you think are wrong and supporting freedom means supporting the right of others to make those wrong choices
I'd add something like 'as long as no harm is done' to that. You know, just to avoid giving people the 'freedom' to kill others for example. The big question is where to draw the line. Does a same sex marriage harm anyone? Does the right to carry arms harm anyone? Does it harm anyone if the government isn't allowed to eavesdrop on your communications?
This is why it's vital to have a good constitution in any form of democracy, to ensure that a line is drawn that cannot be crossed by regular laws. Unfortunately, either a lot of constitutions aren't good enough, or a lot of governments are working around them.
You are right though about the value of freedom being dead. I'm from The Netherlands, and I remember that we used to be seen as a tolerant, freedom loving nation full of strange people. I feel we have a decent constitution, yet our governments have managed to put us firmly in the red category. Sure, we can still smoke weed, have abortions and euthanize ourselves, but that's only a part of freedom. Unfortunately, not many people seem to realize that. Give the people bread and games, and they'll be happy.
In Finland, being very much of European descent, but having the misfortune of carrying a passport from a North American country, I have to call it like it is: having to repeat the whole story of how I moved to Finland, at every fucking border crossing in or out, over a 10-year period and yet having a permanent resident permit in my passport - and a very Karelian accent thank you - is a situation that smells of idiocy, paranoia and Spanish inquisition. So yes, when border surveillance and immigration practices are that 'tard, it becomes: 1) discrimination 2) invasion of privacy (you wouldn't believe the questions border guards ask) and 3) irritates perfectly legal immigrants to the point of testing their patience beyond reasonable limits, which THEN becomes a national security issue. Sitä saa, mitä tilaa, joten älä tilaa ikävyyksiä ärsyttämällä maahanmuuttajia raja-asemalla koko ajan, kiitos.
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
Absolutely true, and the fingerprinting is only the beginning.
You would think that if such fingerprinting measures were taken at the border, any foreigner admitted to the country would be considered not to be a criminal, but in fact the Japanese government doesn't start trusting you even a bit.
All non-citizens -- even permanent residents -- are forced to carry Alien Registration Cards at all times. These cards alone contain enough information to offer any mugger the opportunity to become an identity thief: bearer's name and Japanese kanji/kana name, if there is one; date of birth; sex; place of birth; nationality; home municipality and state/province in home country; current address; name of householder at current address; passport number; date of issue of passport; date of first landing in Japan; visa type and expiration date; job title; employer's name and address, and finally, signature (if issued after early 2000s) or fingerprint (if issued earlier).
All of this is printed in plain text easily visible to the eye. This is an identity theft disaster waiting to happen, even if the data obtained forcibly by immigration inspectors hasn't been sold off to unknown organizations.
Ostensibly there are rules in place about when these cards can be demanded and who can see the data on them, but in practice police officers will ask to see them on the slightest pretext, and if you're not carrying yours, they can take you to the police station, make you sit in detention until the Ministry of Justice can verify your identity, and possibly impose a fine.
The report mentions CCTV cameras as a threat to privacy, but doesn't mention what Japan has: good old-fashioned live police officers on the streets arbitrarliy accosting people and demanding papers! I'd much rather walk past a CCTV camera than a Japanese "police box"!
The police also keep non-citizens under surveillance by using illegal "policy creep" such as getting hotels to demand these cards (and make copies!) for all foreigners staying with them, despite the law stating that only non-residents have to provice such information. Employers, real-estate agents, mobile phone companies, and even places like video stores will also demand copies of these cards as a condition of service. There are even rumors of adding chips such as RFID to these cards and setting up scanners in hotels, train stations, and other public facilities.
No one protests, because non-citizens can't vote and the average Japanese person is too busy and too apolitical to care. "Become a citizen" isn't good advice either, as it takes many years of residence to be eligible and your data doesn't get destroyed if you become Japanese (and police will hassle you on the street anyway, if you don't look Japanese).
I'm disgusted that Japan's rating was as high as it was. Japan takes only the most totalitarian parts from the US, Great Britain, and the EU, and counts on the voices of the "it's their country; they can do whatever they want" crowd to drown out civil-liberties advocates. Japan is fading into irrelevance on the world stage, I'm sad to say, and this creeping totalitarianism is one reason why.