Slashdot Mirror
Rights Groups Speak Out Against Phorm, UK Comm. Database
MJackson writes "The Open Rights Group (ORG) has issued a public letter to the Chief Privacy Officers (or the nearest equivalent) for seven of the world's largest website giants (including Microsoft and Google), asking them to boycott Phorm. The controversial Phorm system works with broadband ISPs to monitor what websites you visit for use in targeted advertising campaigns. Meanwhile, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has issued a new report slamming the UK government's plans for a Communications Database. This would be designed to intercept and log every UK ISP user's e-mail headers, website accesses and telephone history. The report warns that the public are often, 'neither served nor protected by the increasingly complex and intrusive holdings of personal information invading every aspect of our lives.'"
If, for instance, your mommy says you are special; but nobody else does, your specialness isn't "controversial" in any useful sense, it's just a settled matter with a contrarian outlier. In this case, the only people who think Phorm is even remotely a good idea are A)Phorm and B)ISPs who Phorm has promised gobs of money. That isn't "controversy", it is a handful of money-grubbing special interests attempting to screw everybody else. To dignify Phorm as "controversial" is far more than it deserves.
If you don't like what your ISP is planning to do then change it. Personally I will be trying this:- http://superawesomebroadband.com/ Does anyone have any experiance with them?
They fitted George Orwell's coffin with rollers so he could turn over more easily years ago.
The UK and France are slowly but surely turning into the totalitarian states that, prior to 1990, they despised. You can't carry a defensive weapon to protect yourself from a criminal attack. You can't walk down the street without a camera following you. You can't visit websites with nudity or other "harmful" material (censorship of the right to expression). You don't have a right to a trial by your peers (three strikes and you lose ISP access). Your biometric data is being recorded and tracked by the government, and soon I wouldn't be surprised if they make diets mandatory for people with BMI>25 (as has happened in Japan), or else get fined.
Yay. Freedom won. (cough). Or maybe not.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Links to the Rowntree report: executive summary, and the full report. (Both in PDF format). It's worth mentioning that their report doesn't particularly single out the communications database. They assessed 46 databases across all the major UK government departments. They found that at least one quarter "are almost certainly illegal under human rights or data protection law", and that these "should be scrapped or substantially redesigned", while over "half have significant problems with privacy or effectiveness and could fall foul of a legal challenge". Less than 15% were believed to be "effective, proportionate and necessary". They had some equally damning things to say about the cost of IT projects in the public sector, and the high failure rate of the projects (only 30% succeed).
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
I highly doubt that some of the largest website giants are going to provide active discourse to boycott all of this invasion of privacy of traffic logging and email snooping. Look at how these large internet conglomerates get their money: from ads specifically tracking where you click your mouse on their website.
But anyway. Gee, look at the time! 1984 all ready.
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. - Nietzche
Let me get back to you when my sides stop hurting from laughing.
I found this comment in TFA (I believe it's taken from the Roundtree Report) intriguing:
"One of them (the National DNA Database) has been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights, and both the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats have promised to scrap many of the others (emphasis mine)."
Is the an instance of the Tories saying simply "we're not Labour," or is this some new-found attachment to civil liberties by a party previously known for devotion to monarchy and deference to authority?
The Conservatives have never been very fond of Brussels either, so I'm guessing it's not a new-found devotion to the concept of EU-wide human rights that trump the authority of the member national governments.
What do guns have to do with my network connection? Should I camp out by my firewall and shoot dropped packets, the varmints?
[FUCK BETA]
It is interesting that the government seems to think that whilst the population should be monitored as closely as possible when it comes to their own activities they clearly take the exact opposite view and fight tooth and nail to keep their own details secret. They also appear to want to take this inbalance even further since according to a government minister defending the government from this report on the radio this morning...
They appear to think they can also completely ignore the law if it suits the interests of Wacky Jacky and the rest of them.
Personally I can see the benefit of centralising government databases, done correctly it should save money and allow the government to work more efficiently which can only be a good thing. However, and it is a big however, I would only support the creation of these central databases based on the following ground rules being enforced:
1. I want to be able see every single piece of data the government is holding on me myself and I want an audit log showing me who has accessed this data and a reason as to why they had done so.
2. In tandem with the above I would want a swift and effective system to impartially consider any complaints I might have that my data was not being accessed for a good reason and the ability to correct any incorrect data I came across and I would require the impartial authority to actually be impartial and have the power to block access and effectively punish those responsible if they agree people have abused their priviledge of access to my data.
3. I would want the ability to remove my data completely from government systems should I choose to do so and not suffer any discriminatory restrictions to my access of government facilities if I chose to do so. Obviously I'd accept things may take them a bit longer to process without access to the electronic data but I wouldn't want to, for example, lose my driving licence.
4. I would have to trust the government and believe that they held themselves to the rule of law and did not undertake nefarious and underhand schemes to abuse my data and to be honest about their intentions.
Sadly I don't think the circumstances will ever be met which would allow the above to happen, particulary points 3 and 4 and especially not under the current morally bankrupt bunch of incompetents.
you know it was 1903 when they outlawed firearms in the UK right?
Actually no, it wasn't until 1997 that they outlawed whole classes of firearms. My understanding is that the previous bits of legislation regulated them but did not outlaw them. In either case, how does that change my original point? When the populace meekly surrenders one right why should they then act surprised when the government seeks to curtail other rights? You set the precedent -- don't be surprised by the results.
I also can't help but notice how my original comment has been modded into oblivion. Gotta love people using the moderation system to downrate comments they don't agree with.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
In 1997 under 125K had firearm licenses
After 1997 around 125K have firearm licences. The difference is that they are now not allowed handguns.
1997 is not a significant date for this "rights" discussion. You had zero right to defend yourself with those firearms for a long time before that. The handgun ban was brought in to stop nuts shooting up schools. And it did.
The British public has no appetite for guns and hasn't had for many years and I sure as fuck don't want armed chavs roaming the streets.
I'm sorry, but your NRA talking point about 1997 is just plain wrong. I mean it. If you want to look at rights loss in the Uk there are hundreds of valid studies. If you even want to look at a link between loss of handguns and freedom, go ahead, but look further back.
I'm getting pretty tired of explaining this on the internet now, but I'll spell it out one last time -
In the discussion on citizens rights in the UK, 1997 gun legislation is completely, totally, utterly irrelevant.
Please take that back to your gun club speaker and make sure he get the message.
Spot on. I'd also be fine with CCTV if all streams were public and all access logs available.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
This, shows up in my news feeds, on the same day that the Tories declare that they are considering repealing the Human Rights Act if they come to power...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Well, a GE Minigun is a pretty efficient way to mass-uninstall Windows from a server farm. :)
The 'strong case' is the fact that you historically had the right and now you don't
Historically, land owners had the right to unilaterally increase their tennants' rent or throw them off without notice, now they don't.
Historically, men had the right to rape their wives, now they don't.
Historically, employers had the right to refuse to employ women, Jews, or black people, and shops had the right to refuse to serve people on the basis of their faith, creed, gender, or colour, now they don't.
Historically, fathers had the right to decide who their daughters married, now they don't.
Historically, rich men had the right to horsewhip peasants who were rude to them, now they don't.
We've given up all of these rights, but I don't see you many people claiming that society would be improved by getting them back. If you think the right to carry a gun around with you would be worth reintroducing you need to give a better argument than 'well, that's what it used to be, back before 1903 when society was basically rubbish for anyone below the upper middle class'.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News