Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

2003 Big Brother Awards 189

Posted by timothy from the good-year-for-the-war-buffs dept.
MacRonin writes "Privacy International today announced the winners of the 2003 Big Brother Awards. One of the judges, estimable Dr Ian Brown of the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR), writes: "It was alternatively amusing and depressing to be one of the judges for these awards. RIP and data retention played a large part in our deliberations..." ... Read more at The Register (UK) - 2003 Big Brother Awards: The Winners. and Political News from Wired News - Blair Tagged as Privacy Threat."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2003 Big Brother Awards More

2003 Big Brother Awards

Comments Filter:

  • Contrary to popular belief... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gortbusters.org ( 637314 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @12:50PM (#5591732) Homepage Journal
    The most invasive company was Capita, a data management business that develops the software used in many of the government's data-mining schemes.

    Try again next year MS!

  • Privacy Now More Than Ever (Score:4, Interesting)

    by John Leeming ( 160817 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @12:50PM (#5591737)
    Given the upcoming Patriot Act II and current laws, it's good to know that there are those still willing to say the Emperor has no clothes.
    • The sad thing is that there's fewer and fewer people willing to SAY that the Emperor has no clothes these days. Education is a big factor I'm sure, as John Q. Public doesn't have a clue as to what's going on with all the disgusting new laws and acts *cough* Patriot II *cough* that are being (or about to be) passed right under his nose.

      And honestly, why would he? The average person (at least here in the US) doesn't think about their personal freedom and liberties like the average /.'er does. Honestly, I did

      • >The average person (at least here in the US) doesn't think about their personal freedom and liberties like the average /.'er does.

        It's not like Germany ever threatened the liberties of the average racially pure German who kept their mouth shut (the majority of Germans, in other words). </GODWIN VIOLATION>
        • It's not like Germany ever threatened the liberties of the average racially pure German who kept their mouth shut (the majority of Germans, in other words).

          Yep.. and its not like I have lost a right under Ashcroft/Bush. Course, I'm a law abiding citizen..
          so I guess maybe I'm less concerned with rights regarding, say, how I get out of having drugs in my car once I am hauled into jail for it.

          Personally, i think I lost a lot more rights under (during) the Clinton administration than I have under B/A. The a
          • What, you want grenade launchers too? How about a nice cozy Abrahms tank? Or a SCUD launcher? Or why not a nuke? I mean, you have a right to bear arms (although several courts are getting rather fed up by the fact that the ignorant public thinbk that the second amendment grants them the right to bear arms...it doesn't, as the supreme court has had to explain in exasperation many times over: google for it), so why not have a nuke? Or some anthrax? I mean, your government has that, so why shouldn't you?
            • What, you want grenade launchers too? How about a nice cozy Abrahms tank? Or a SCUD launcher? Or why not a nuke? I mean, you have a right to bear arms (although several courts are getting rather fed up by the fact that the ignorant public thinbk that the second amendment grants them the right to bear arms...it doesn't, as the supreme court has had to explain in exasperation many times over: google for it), so why not have a nuke? Or some anthrax? I mean, your government has that, so why shouldn't you?

              Uh.
              • No, I'm not confused...second result of a quick google search gives a pretty close description of what the american courts think, and have thought, for at least a hundred years:

                http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt24 . ht ml

                Look for the second paragraph. And check out court records.

                And as a side note, the militias were of no consequence; Americans got their independance only due to the fact that the French sent in troops. Many, many sources mention the fact that the armed militias did more harm th
          • The right to privacy comes to mind. But since your a law abiding citizen, I guess you don't really need privacy do you?
          • Personally, i think I lost a lot more rights under (during) the Clinton administration than I have under B/A. The assault weapons ban/crime bill, specifically.

            Right, your preferred freedom is gun ownership, while many others enjoy being safe against unlawful search and seizure (the 'unlawful' in that amendment isn't that useful, because as we're beginning to see congress can just pass a law to make any search and seizure lawful).

            To a large extent, having all the other rights, especially privacy, reinfo
          • ...I guess maybe I'm less concerned with rights regarding, say, how I get out of having drugs in my car once I am hauled into jail for it.

            The naive believe that police would never, ever plant drugs on someone just to set them up. Setting up political dissidents on drug charges did in fact occur many times at one point about 30 years ago. Then it was opposition to US government foreign policy. Perhaps now being too vocal about owning deadly weapons and demanding the right to do so.

            This is one reason c

            • The naive believe that police would never, ever plant drugs on someone just to set them up. Setting up political dissidents on drug charges did in fact occur many times at one point about 30 years ago. Then it was opposition to US government foreign policy. Perhaps now being too vocal about owning deadly weapons and demanding the right to do so.

              Yeah.. but that has been going on for as long as there were police! Nothing has changed in the last three years! And being too vocal about owning weapons? Ruby Rid
      • The sad thing is that there's fewer and fewer people willing to SAY that the Emperor has no clothes these days. Education is a big factor I'm sure, as John Q. Public doesn't have a clue as to what's going on with all the disgusting new laws and acts *cough* Patriot II *cough* that are being (or about to be) passed right under his nose.

        You sound like an informed rabble rouser.. Care to tell me a right you have lost? or one you stand to lose? (Not a flame.. an honest question)

        Maeryk
        • A few Examples, pulled from http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/john-ashcrof t/ [rotten.com]

          The right to freely monitor the activities political and religious groups without a criminal pretext.

          New restrictions on open hearings and the public's right to receive information through the Freedom of Information Act.

          The ability to stamp down on the dangerous menace of librarians who tip off the media to federal subpoenas of borrowing records.

          Permission to monitor conversations between lawyers and suspects, on those inc

          • Again, tell me a right you have lost. You listed a number of things the Government changed, but you have yet to mention a right you have lost.

            In what way have these laws restricted your ability to do what you did before they were enacted?

            Now.. as far as this one:

            Restricting access to information about corporate pollution and environmental crimes. This would, incidentally, not only prevent private citizens from researching toxins in their backyards but would even restrict the ability of local governments
            • Again, tell me a right you have lost. You listed a number of things the Government changed, but you have yet to mention a right you have lost.

              What were you expecting? Lost your right to take walks after 10:00 PM, or use Linux as an operating system?

              The right to privacy and due process is not so much about the freedom to do things, it's mostly about protecting the public from corrupt government officials who abuse thier powers.

              Traditionally, wisely, and conservatively, power has been balanced wit
              • What were you expecting? Lost your right to take walks after 10:00 PM, or use Linux as an operating system?

                Yeah.. thats what I'm expecting. I keep hearing people crying a river about losing rights, and I have yet to see one that has been lost. If we are becoming increasingly right wing and fascist in this country, why arent the people parading around with pictures of Bush ne' hitler in protests being arrested, harassed?

                What rights are going away? My right to threaten and harass someone in email? My right
                • I think there's a little miscommunication going on here. Apparently, when someone mentions "rights" to you, your definition isn't inclusive enough that it includes protection from the government. You seem to be equating rights (n. 6a-6b) [reference.com] with freedom [reference.com] .

                  In this case: We're talking about legal rights (Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature) AS protections which were designed to protect citizens corrupt government officials wielding their power unjustly.
          • The FBI has ruled that unverified infomration may now be included in the National Crime Information Center [go.com]. This database is restricted to law enforcement use only - citizens are not allowed to view their own records. Background checks for employement in many cases rely on this database. Formerly, only information known to be accurate was to be included. This requirement has been lifted because "it is administratively impossible to ensure compliance." (e.g. too damn hard for us..)

            Expect now all sorts

            • I hope you do not mind a couple of nits being picked. First, it was the Justice Department, not the FBI, who "lifted a requirement Monday that the FBI ensure the accuracy and timeliness of information about criminals and crime victims before adding it to the country's most comprehensive law enforcement database." (From your cited article) I'm sure this is just the Telephone Game at play.

              Without a more detailed look into what the new criteria are, exactly, it may be presumptuous to state that any old 'rumor
          • Now, see, you list a lot of things the law states. However, these laws do not deprive a resident of the United States of a right, only a Constitutional amendment repealing a right (similar to the 22d that repealled Prohibition) can deprive one of said right.

            It is practically a matter of course that various rights organizations, to include the ACLU, will find suitable pretext to elevate these laws to the attention of the Supreme Court. Regardless of how one may feel about the Court personally, or politicall

        • Care to tell me a right you have lost? or one you stand to lose?

          Well, if you're a member of an unpopular political party (like the Greens), you lose the ability to use the airport. Good luck getting elected.

          • Care to tell me a right you have lost? or one you stand to lose?

            Well, if you're a member of an unpopular political party (like the Greens), you lose the ability to use the airport. Good luck getting elected.

            Would you care to explain what in the hell you are talking about?
        • Not a flame.. an honest question

          My response isn't just to you, but to others who don't think losing freedoms aren't that big a deal.

          Imagine one day you were arrested for being a terrorist (I know the idea is silly, but bear with me) planning on performing a terrorist act.

          Given the current state of affairs, President Shrub could label you, an American Citizen, an "enemy combatant" and throw you into military detention indefinitely without the right to talk to an attorney to plead your case.

  • It's a shame.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @12:56PM (#5591785) Journal
    It's a shame that the awards are for the UK only. Then again, it would be boring to see an awards show where every award either went to John Ashcroft or the MPAA / RIAA.

    • Re:It's a shame.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @01:03PM (#5591845) Homepage Journal
      Oh come on, the credit-reporting industry has got to be a major contender here. They have a huge impact on the financial lives of American consumers, but their data is notoriously unreliable (at added cost to consumers) and its use is clouded in obfuscation (i.e. credit score calculation). Add to that the increasingly broad use of that information (like insurance rates), and you've got an odds-on perennial favorite...
      • Hm, I wonder if that's why the article indentifed Experian as a major contender for first place...
        • Exactly - that's why I responded to the parent that focused soley on Ashcroft and RIAA. The credit companies should be up for a group award, in my consideration (especially since I'm looking at a refinance right now)...
      • I really couldn't agree with you more. I don't know.. *I* never gave Experian/etc ANY right to my financial information. Why should they have it? Why can't I say "remove any information you have regarding my SSN xxx-xxx-xxxx, now!" and have them do it?
        Annoying.
        • > *I* never gave Experian/etc ANY right to my financial information. Why should they have it?

          RTFFP. Read the Fuc^H^Hine Fine Print.

          Everything you sign at a bank, whether it be to open a checking account, apply for a loan, or apply for a credit card, has fine print.

          Usually that fine print will say "We may also share customer information to credit bureaus and similar organizations" somewhere in it. In order for you to get the loan, they need to know your creditworthiness. As a condition of gett

    • Re:It's a shame.... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Quoting directly from the linked article:
      The 2003 US BBAs will be held on 3 April 2003 at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference in New York City.

      It's only in the second paragraph. C'mon, surely even Slashdotters can read that far.

    • Re:It's a shame.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Highwayman ( 68808 )
      If you want an international perspective try the main page Big Brother Awards [bigbrotherawards.org] homepage. They have links to a couple more countries. This is an interesting award, but I am sure it doesn't really compare to the the much less public tactics that you would find here [amnesty.org]. The big brother awards thing is a little skewed towards the west. The lack of places such as North Korea and Turkmenistan may just attest to the efficiency of such countries' big brother tactics. Hard to compete with such things like the old E

  • Amateurs, all amateurs (Score:5, Funny)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06 AT email DOT com> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @12:57PM (#5591788)
    A.G. John Ashcroft and crew: "Stop having thought crimes and we won't have to arrest you."
    • >> A.G. John Ashcroft and crew: "Stop having thought crimes and we won't have to arrest you."

      Given Dubya's recent rhetoric on Iraq, shouldn't that be "...we won't be forced to arrest you" ?

  • Across-the-Pond Comparison (Score:5, Interesting)

    by onthefenceman ( 640213 ) <szoepf@nOspAM.hotmail.com> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @12:57PM (#5591796)
    I'd be interested to see a comparison of civil liberties between the UK and the US. Video surveillance of public parks and streets is astoundingly common in England, as are photo-radar traffic cameras. However, based on what I've read I think the US has the upper hand in communications surveillance of net traffic and phone lines.

    • Re:Across-the-Pond Comparison (Score:4, Funny)

      by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @01:03PM (#5591846) Homepage Journal
      Well, for starters, American children are implanted with ID tags, which broadcast things like name, address, and favorite foods.

      In the name of homeland security, of course.

    • Re:Across-the-Pond Comparison (Score:4, Interesting)

      by oliverthered ( 187439 ) <oliverthered.hotmail@com> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @01:05PM (#5591864) Journal
      Umm... your at War and the propaganda machine is running at full speed.

      The UK government was proposing that all ISP's retain data for 3 years. etc......

      Maybe you run more wire taps in the US, but in the UK they just keep the data, no wire taps required.
      • Maybe you run more wire taps in the US, but in the UK they just keep the data, no wire taps required.

        Actually, and not that I agree with even this, the data to be retained was simply the logs. ie where you are visiting, who you are mailing, who you were phoning and for how long. They would not have been required (or even allowed) to keep the actual data of any transmission (ie what was said).

        Since there are so many ways to avoid being caught in ISPs logs (running your own mail server, using a foreign pro

        • Re:Across-the-Pond Comparison (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          You'd be amazed how much they can get from phone and credit card records, shopping patterns etc... (buy everything in cash).

          Phone conversations are regually lisened into (It's all digital, not 'wire tap' required), just to check everythings 'ok'

        • Re:Across-the-Pond Comparison (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The black market will always operate outside of the government, no tax, no law etc... It's the reqular people that get caught by the invasion of privacy.
          • Quite.

            These surveillance laws are really there to monitor the general public. Any terrorist or competent evil-doer, will evade the survillance and go about doing their thing, without any increased chance of being noticed (because of these laws.)

            This is what makes me think these laws really are a breach of out human rights: that they are unrealistic in their claims to be about monitoring for terrorist activity.

            They impinge upon our right to free association (the chilling effect upon that,) and our right t

      • "We're at war" is the justification for what's going on in the US? Yeah, the infringement on our liberties just started last week...

        Besides, I thought the UK was in on this too.
    • Apparently we have more CCTV cameras here in the UK than anywhere else in the world....

      From the CCTV Surveilance regulation campaign [spy.org.uk]: The United Kingdom leads the world in the deployment of Closed Circuit Tele Vision camera technology. However, we seem to have no coherent, legally enforceable rules or regulations which ensure that Public CCTV schemes are run properly. This website aims to open up a debate about the extent to which powerful technologies such as linked CCTV camera systems, neural network

    • seek and ye shall find....

      Privacy and Human Rights 2002 [privacyinternational.org]

      You'll be wanting part 3, link right at the bottom.

  • Stand recognised (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jim the Bad ( 192095 ) <JimTheBadNO@SPAMNtlWorld.com> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @12:58PM (#5591805) Homepage
    Glad to see Stand [stand.org.uk] got a 'Winston'. Long overdue.

  • Thank goodness (Score:5, Funny)

    by Linux-based-robots ( 660980 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @12:59PM (#5591814) Journal
    Thank goodness I live in the States where we don't have to worry about privacy issues! :P

  • Worst public servant (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Neophytus ( 642863 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @01:00PM (#5591826)
    Worst Public Servant: London Mayor Ken Livingstone, whose traffic-reduction plan relies on a network of 700 surveillance cameras posted around the capital that photograph car license plates to enforce a new fee for driving during rush hour.

    I would disagree. Livingstone's system visibly cut traffic (certainly on the first day, since then the pictures havn't been plastered all over TV) and anyone can note down your registration plate anyway. In central London you cann't have ten lane wide payment barriers, nor can you widen roads or build flyovers. Something needed done, and this seemed drastic but as far a I can see it was one of the only viable options.

  • Security vs. Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Webmoth ( 75878 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @01:00PM (#5591830) Homepage
    Security and Freedom are mutually exclusive. When the Guvmint proclaims "we need to do this in the name of security," you can bet your freedoms will be trampled in the process.
    • Security == Job secrity for those in charge.
      (If I had a gun I may have shot Tony Blare by now)

      Freedom == The people you employee (the government) won't stop you from doing somthing(well today anyhow).

      Just think, in 10 years time the Nazi's will be inpower, it's a good job were keeping records of all the Gypsies, Native Americans, Arabs, Jews, Blacks, Sick and UnEmployeed are now.

      • Re:Security vs. Freedom (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Hopefully, they'll be Grammar Nazis, so I don't have to read idiotic, poorly worded and mispelled posts like this on Slashdot anymore! Good thing Slashdot is keeping records of all the atrocities carried out against the English language!
      • If I had a gun I may have shot Tony Blare by now

        Well, I hope Big Brother didn't read that. I'm not sure what the law is in the UK, but in the US it's rather serious to threaten to harm/kill the President. Of course, you actually threatened someone named Tony Blare, who likely has no special laws protecting him.
        • It's not a threat.
          1: I don't have a gun
          2: I may have.

          It's ok to say things like that.

          Give me a Gun and I'll shoot Tony Blare.
          now that's a threat.

          Tony Blare isn't the Queen so It's not high treason either.

    • Re:Security vs. Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aero6dof ( 415422 ) <aero6dof@yahoo.com> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @01:15PM (#5591929) Homepage
      I would argue that Security and Freedom are not exclusive at all. Furthermore, in the long run, freedom is the best guarantee of security.
      • What you would or would not argue makes no difference. What type of examples, proof, or ideas would you use in your arguement? Just saying I will argue against you, is not constructive.
      • You would be wrong, but you may certainly argue that way.

        Freedom == capability. Security == ensuring that unauthorized capability does not exist.

        Therefore, security implies both the notion of authorization (and some restrictive authority) and the explicit placing of restrictions upon freedom. Merely arrogating to oneself the role of restrictive authority, as libertarians and fascists advocate, does not change this truth, nor does the communist or democratic vestiture of this role in some selected group
      • It's a daft way of looking at the issue, IMO.

        What is really at stake is: Security from whom?

        Terrorists or Government?

        Freedom from what?

        Terrorist bombing and crime, or Government fascism and control?

        We want freedom and security from both. But the government is effectvely taking away the threat of terrorists et al. (or at lest making the claim that they are) while ramping up the threat from themselves.

        Personally, I'm not sure there's that much difference between a terorist blowing you up, or suffocating

    • Not really. Sometimes security provides freedom. I.e. I'm free to vote, and security prevents people from taking that away. People can't (shouldn't be able to) vote for me, I can't be physically detained from voting etc etc..

      In truth, security can have any varying affect on security.
      • Not really. Sometimes security provides freedom. I.e. I'm free to vote, and security prevents people from taking that away. People can't (shouldn't be able to) vote for me, I can't be physically detained from voting etc etc..

        Depends what you mean by security. People here seem to be taking it as meaning physical security: not getting blown up, robbed etc. Personally, I'd define security as "keeping rights [i.e. freedoms] secure". Obviously, it's difficult to exercise any given freedom while dead, but there

    • Re:Security vs. Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fatcat1111 ( 158945 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @01:44PM (#5592174)

      While this is in practice generally true, this is actually false. Some good reads on the subject: Simson Garfinkel's [simson.net] Database Nation [amazon.com], and The Transparent Society [davidbrin.com] by David Brin.

      From the former:
      Many people today say that in order to enjoy the benefits of modern society, we must necessarily relinquish some degree of privacy. If we want the convenience of paying for a meal by credit card, or paying for a toll with an electronic tag mounted on our rear view mirror, then we must accept the routine collection of our purchases and driving habits in a large database over which we have no control. It's a simple bargain, albeit a Faustian one.

      I think this tradeoff is both unnecessary and wrong. It reminds me of another crisis our society faced in the 1950s and 1960s -- the environmental crisis. Then, advocates of big business said that the poisoned rivers and lakes were the necessary costs of economic development, jobs, and an improved standard of living. Poison was progress: anybody who argued otherwise simply didn't understand the facts. Today we know better.

  • In Soviet Russia (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Big brother is watched by YOU!

  • Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Peterus7 ( 607982 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @01:19PM (#5591957) Homepage Journal
    What about Australia?

  • traffic laws enforced by cameras (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pmineiro ( 556272 ) <paul@@@mineiro...com> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @01:24PM (#5591993) Homepage
    Worst Public Servant: London Mayor Ken Livingstone, whose traffic-reduction plan relies on a network of 700 surveillance cameras posted around the capital that photograph car license plates to enforce a new fee for driving during rush hour.

    I'm going to argue in favor of this strategy of enforcing traffic laws (speeding, stop signs, etc.) by video.

    First, I think it's a fairer approach. As we all know, being pulled over for traffic offenses is biased. Minorities and those driving tricked-out racer cars are more likely to get pulled over. The videocamera is totally unbiased. Of course, we must be careful to guard against bias in determining where these video units are deployed.

    In addition, I can't count the number of times attractive female (just) friends of mine have cried/clevaged their way out of various traffic tickets. Doing that in front of the camera might make them popular on the internet, but won't get them out of the ticket.

    It's also very easy to beat a traffic ticket by pleading not-guilty, moving the court date several times, and counting on the cop not to show, thus winning the case for lack of evidence. This latter strategy both shifts court costs to the public (no court fees collected when not guilty) and favors those who have enough time or a flexible enough job to handle the requisite scheduling. This strategy would be stopped dead by the permanent and available nature of video as evidence.

    Cops *have* died during traffic stops, either by being shot (purposefully) or by being run over (accidentally). So, traffic stops are dangerous from the police perspective, and probably creates some citizen-police tensions as some police are on guard during them. Video minimizes unnecessary, dangerous, and potentially explosive contact.

    Finally, I feel personally that this will lead to *less* invasive search, not more, because I don't have to worry about a cop searching my car for drugs, guns, or whatever he thinks I might have now that he had a valid reason to pull me over.

    -- p

    • Re:traffic laws enforced by cameras (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Carbonite ( 183181 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @01:46PM (#5592189)
      As we all know, being pulled over for traffic offenses is biased. Minorities and those driving tricked-out racer cars are more likely to get pulled over.

      I agree that drivers of "tricked-out racer cars" will get pulled over more often than someone driving a beige Volvo, for example. This doesn't necessarily mean that the type of car increase the chance of being stopped. Driver of these "race cars" tend to race them. They tend to drive above the speed limit, sometimes, way above. This makes them likely targets for traffic stops.

      The issue of minorities being targeted leads into the issue of racial profiling. It's still very unclear to what extent racial profiling is practiced or even if it exists at all (during traffic stops). Studies have produced results to show both prove and disprove its existence. I believe that the vast majority of police practice behavior profiling, not racial profiling. If minorities are being pulled over in disproportionate numbers, could it be possible their behavior is the cause? I honestly don't know but it does seem to be very politically incorrect to suggest such a theory. Perhaps an automated system could prove useful data for this debate.
    • SO your sitting at a stop light and notice the trck approaching you from the rear is not slowing down. As a intelligent being, you move into the intersection and get out of the way.

      Now the automated system is sending you a ticket. One that will be near impossible to get out of, because, you know, computers don't make mistakes.

      A human being can make a judge ment and say, perhaps they shouldn't be ticketed.

      How many times will the system ticket you if you are speeding? If I am speeding, I get a ticket and then slow down. An automated system would ticket me over and over and over.

      So now an automated system is trusted more then you are.
      This is already a problem in stores. You are leaving a store, then suddenlt some infernal machine is beeping and flashing. So now you are in a position of proving your innocences to the shop keeper*. as a personal note, I will not stop because of that, nor will I let anybody stop me and check my bag as I leave a store. I urge others to do the same.

      Traffic cameras are only used as an alternate tax.
      • Now the automated system is sending you a ticket. One that will be near impossible to get out of, because, you know, computers don't make mistakes.

        I have driven for 15 years, and had three jobs that required driving 8 hours a day. I have _never_ run a red light to "avoid" someone behind me coming up fast. Have you? It's a straw man, in my opinion.

        How many times will the system ticket you if you are speeding? If I am speeding, I get a ticket and then slow down. An automated system would ticket me over an
        • I have been in cases where I have been stopped at a red light and run it - divided road, I was in the right lane, another car was in the left lane, and an ambulance running hot was coming up behind. I checked the intersection, gunned it, ran the light, and immediately pulled over on the other side to make a hole for the ambulance. I conjecture the driver of the ambulance appreciated my efforts.

          So there are the rare occasions that it is needful to run a light.

          Also, Montana did have a speed limit, even duri

        • I have driven for 15 years, and had three jobs that required driving 8 hours a day. I have _never_ run a red light to "avoid" someone behind me coming up fast. Have you?

          No, I haven't been in that situation, but I do run red lights. About three times a week; corner of Goddard Ave and Flood St, in Norman, OK. I ride a motorcycle. Anybody who rides is well familiar with the fact that lights with sensors frequently don't trigger on motorcycles; if my bike doesn't trip the sensor, I don't get a green light.

      • SO your sitting at a stop light and notice the trck approaching you from the rear is not slowing down. As a intelligent being, you move into the intersection and get out of the way. Now the automated system is sending you a ticket.

        so the camera records you driving into the intersections, followed by a truck out of control. guess how difficult it will be to prove you didn't break the law on purpose?

        An automated system would ticket me over and over and over.

        i'd expect such a system to give an visu


      • SO your sitting at a stop light and notice the trck approaching you from the rear is not slowing down. As a intelligent being, you move into the intersection and get out of the way.

        You are probably safer to be in a car that is rear-ended than a car in from the side in the middle of an intersection. And if your car is rear-ended, then the driver in back is guilty, by legal definition. If you drive through a red light into the middle of an intersection, then you may be at fault for a collision.
      • > SO your sitting at a stop light and notice the trck approaching you from the rear is not slowing down. As a intelligent being, you move into the intersection and get out of the way.

        > Now the automated system is sending you a ticket. One that will be near impossible to get out of

        Unless, as an intelligent being, you think of writing back pointing out the truck in the photo evidence. It's not like these systems work with no manual intervention at all.

    • This isn't really about enforcing traffic laws by video - it's about the inner London congestion charging.

      I fully agree that snapping speeders is an excellent idea. If you're doing 120 mph in a 70 zone, then you should be photographed, and ticketed.

      What PI are talking about is the fact that every driver who enters central London is photographed. While this is ostensibly in order to catch offenders who haven't paid their (£5) congestion charge for that day, the result is that the time and location of
      • If you're doing 120 mph in a 70 zone, then you should be photographed, and ticketed.

        No, you should be stopped, questioned as to why you are going so fast, and possibly arrested.

        What if I'm doing 120 because I am not cognitively aware that I am going 120? Say, I'm drunk?

        So, in my drunken stupor, I get photographed, and get a speeding ticket mailed to me three to six weeks later. But that night, after the picture was taken, I also mowed down 4 pedestrians and fled the scene. Now, is it possible that

        • I kind of agree... but given that you can't have cops everywhere, speed cameras do act as an incentive to people (even drunk ones) NOT to speed in the first place.

          Whatever else you have against cameras, they're cheap and at least partially effective at stopping speeders (ignoring the fact that ours are purely an incentive since 99% of them have no film in anyway).

          But the key difference in terms of this argument is that they only go off if you're speeding. Whereas the congestion charge ones photograph ever

  • Big Brothers Big Sisters of America [bbbsa.org]

    Meet the 2002 National Big Brother and Big Sister of the Year

    Richard Gandarillas and Devin Little Brother Devin is determined that his match with Big Brother of the Year Richard Gandarillas will be the longest one ever in the history of Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America.

    "He is a Big Brother you can talk to. We have a lot of fun together, and he also helps me with my problems," says Devin. "He talks to me about things that can help me now and in the future."

  • Kazaa (Score:4, Insightful)

    by silvakow ( 91320 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @02:03PM (#5592338)
    How did kazaa not make the list? They collect demographic information from every computer that is on its network.

  • We ALREADY know about MS, people! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @02:15PM (#5592436) Homepage Journal
    Instead of beating the dead horse, induct them into the Hall of Fame already!

  • Which state is UK again? (Score:3, Funny)

    by YetAnotherName ( 168064 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @02:17PM (#5592460) Homepage
    It's near Oklahoma and Utah, right? I mean, I hardly recognize this "Governor Tony Blair."

    --
    No, I'm not Amero-Centric.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." -- Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards

Close