Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Privacy International Releases 2007 Report

Posted by timothy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:03 PM
from the state-with-a-big-essssss dept.
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?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by aldheorte (162967) on Monday December 31 2007, @10:47PM (#21872038)
    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.
  • by ad454 (325846) on Monday December 31 2007, @11:03PM (#21872108)
    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.)
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe they don't include it because they wrote about it earlier:
      http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-558619 [privacyinternational.org]

      "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 forei
    • by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @01:27AM (#21872604)
      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.
    • I cannot believe that this report does not include Japan's treatment legal "foreigners", including visitors, long term & permanent residents.
      Isn't this included in the summary?

      "Only second country to implement vast biometric collection at borders."
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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 th

  • B.S. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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 [privacyinternational.org]

    Regardless of what you think of Facebook's controversial features... even YEARS ago, Facebook has offered super granular acc
    • 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 t

  • by RotateLeftByte (797477) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @04:13AM (#21873022)
    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.

    • Re:I see the US (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Seumas (6865) on Monday December 31 2007, @10:15PM (#21871872)
      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!".
      • Re:I see the US (Score:4, Insightful)

        by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @02:43AM (#21872840)

        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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        >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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        ``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,
        • Re:I see the US (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ScrewMaster (602015) on Monday December 31 2007, @11:54PM (#21872270)
          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.
          • Re:I see the US (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 01 2008, @01:14AM (#21872558)

            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.

            Another point is that many Americans are capable of perceiving problems where there are not any problems.

            And that too is a problem.
    • by reporter (666905) on Monday December 31 2007, @10:35PM (#21871990) Homepage
      The map [privacyinternational.org] indicates that the USA, China, and Russia are "endemic surveillance societies" in 2007. Did the current ruler in Washington contribute to achieving this dubious distinction? Does anyone have information on how the USA scored in 2000 (before the current ruler took control of the executive branch)?

      Note that the European Union seems to have protected its citizens (from terrorism) without abridging basic civil rights.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Actually, no. Privacy in Europe is deteriorating as well, especially in Germany and France over the last 2 years. It is just not as fast as in other countries because there are stronger oppositions and not everybody is as ready to jump into the 'Terror-thread' boat, mainly because we've been living with terror-threads for almost 40 years now.

        But the changes to privacy-law's done alone in the past year in Germany is an outrage. And did you know that the police can track _any_ vehicle on highways and most lar
      • by infonography (566403) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @12:47AM (#21872460) Homepage

        The map [privacyinternational.org] indicates that the USA, China, and Russia are "endemic surveillance societies" in 2007. Did the current ruler in Washington contribute to achieving this dubious distinction? Does anyone have information on how the USA scored in 2000 (before the current ruler took control of the executive branch)?

        9/11 was triple christmas for Bush-Cheney. Those who would disagree I have one word, ASHCROFT.


        Note that the European Union seems to have protected its citizens (from terrorism) without abridging basic civil rights.

        A lot of the former slave states from the USSR seem to have gone out of their way to be pro-Privacy. 7 ranked higher then the US and 3 for the top five were former soviet.

      • by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @06:31AM (#21873372) Homepage Journal
        ``Note that the European Union seems to have protected its citizens (from terrorism) without abridging basic civil rights.''

        Seems, perhaps, but hasn't. We (I live in the EU) weren't very much of a target until we went along with the USA invading Afghanistan and Iraq. But we did go along, and we got train bombings in Madrid. Perhaps the bombings in London are related, too. So I wouldn't really say the EU has protected its citizens (but it's good to note here that the EU had little to do with anything; everything I'm talking about in this post was actually decided by individual member states).

        As for privacy, take into account that in many European countries, there wasn't much of that to begin with. I believe the Netherlands (where I live) is the country that spies on its citizens most, worldwide. This is not widely perceived as a problem, however. People here are far more trusting of the government than people in the USA. The government knows where I live. My Internet traffic is logged. Phones may be tracked and tapped; I don't think there is any need to get a warrant for that. Police can stop me and require me to show ID whenever they want to. There are cameras everywhere. Speeding on the highway? Picture taken; ticket is in the mail. Soon, they'll track cars to make us pay taxes depending on where we drove at what time.

        Privacy? What's that? Oh, you mean these laws that companies have to adhere to, where they have to make sure data doesn't fall into other company's hands...but they have to keep it around in case the government needs it. Yeah, those laws might be enforced. There certainly seem to be fewer problems with identity fraud here than in the USA.

        Don't get me wrong. Life in the EU is good. I am happy to live in the Netherlands. But let's not point and laugh at the USA before taking a look at ourselves.
        • You are kidding, right? Draw a controversial cartoon in most of the EU and see what happens. Start a web page about Nazi's and see what happens. Start a new church and see what happens.

          How are any of the above privacy issues; the subject being discussed?

    • 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?
    • Re:bogus research (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Seumas (6865) on Monday December 31 2007, @10:25PM (#21871928)
      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".
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          * 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 determinati
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      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 h

    • Let's see what Austrailia has been up to this week:

      "The Australian government is mandating the creation of 'clean' internet feeds", but you also "scrapped the proposed Australian universal ID 'Access Card'."

      So far, that's a draw.

      • the free internet filtering is NOT MANDATORY. you have to ask for it when you sign up with your ISP.

        compared to a federal id card with biometeric data on it i'd say we are more then better off this week. i suggest you learn to read more then the slpashy headlines.

          • Um never, because the ACMA only applies to things published in australia as you just said yourself.

            yes i agree this filtering is a retarded expensive waste of time, typical of everything you can expect from a labor government, but it is NOT anywhere near as bad as a federal ID card with your life on it.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              the ACMA only applies to things published in australia

              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 [qld.gov.au]
              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

      • 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 practic
    • 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.
        • No we couldn't, we would spend to much time pointing out ... to much time... or .... too much time ? ;)
    • No, Real-ID is not dead in the water, much against the attempts by some enlightened states. If things don't drastically change, the citizens of those states will have to have passports to fly, since their state issued Drivers license will not meet the needs of federal identification at airports.
      • REAL-ID is pretty much dead in the water.

        Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington and Maine have passed legislation opposing it.

        Similar bills are pending in Alaska, Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, D.C., Wyoming and Vermont.

        Tha
    • Huh? I thought REAL-ID was dead in the water.

      Just because a handful of states have passed legislation say they won't implement real-id because it is an unfunded mandate does not mean it is anywhere near dead. Especially when there are another set of states that have passed legislation embracing it.

      More people cross the southern borders of the USA every year undetected than *live* in some of these countries.

      However, everyone who does cross the borders LEGALLY is subjected to all kinds of privacy invasions like fingerprinting. Even just those who transit through the country - without ever leaving the international terminals at the airports - are recorded. T

    • # World leading in border surveillance, mandating trans-border data flows

      I call FUD on that. Prove that we have more per capita surveillance of border crossings than, say, Switzerland, Singapore, Norway or Israel.

      Well, I haven't been to Norway or Israel, but in a lifetime of constant travel, the US is the only country that I know of that requires my photo and finger prints in order to enter it, or even to transit through it.

      ... Which, incidentally, is why I will no longer visit the US.

    • Specifically "rings of Steel" are narrowed roads around "The City Of London" (referring to the Old City wich is about ONE square mile of likely terrorist targets), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LondonCity.png [wikipedia.org] (see red bit) I think the police eyeball for vehicles carrying unusually heavy loads (suspension?) + a bit of security theatre. We have Freeways (Motorways (70mph), & dual Carriage Ways) over here in and around London too. They just dont extend into the central square mile (The old city). I
    • All errors taken into account, the study has at least the following merit. It applies a consistent measure to various countries in various years, and that measure can plausibly be said to be a rough estimate (however biased and inflated) of privacy violations. We have, therefore, a useful measure for determining when respect for privacy is getting worse, if nothing else. Thus, the conclusion that privacy is decreasing worldwide is plausibly respectable.

      I challenge you to produce a better measure of
    • I don't get their hard-on against REAL-ID anyway, even if it was passed. They call for national data retention policies, and REAL-ID provides national data retention policies. Real-ID requires a minimum level of security on the ID, which IMPROVES PROTECTION AGAINST IDENTITY THEFT which would seem, indirectly, to enhance your privacy. 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 fo
      • 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'
    • by taniwha (70410) on Monday December 31 2007, @11:08PM (#21872124) Homepage Journal
      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
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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).
    • 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,

      • more CCTV cameras per capita of the population than any other country on the planet,
      • ANPR cameras on all our major roads, and
      • all Internet use.

      The government is essentially compiling databases, to be kept near enough forever, of:

      • Why statues of liberty? Why not a more universal symbol of freedom, as opposed to an entirely American one?
    • Okay, so there are about five minicity proponents who troll here.

      Yet there isn't even a direct payoff. What happens if someone turns around and puts monetary incentives on these things?