Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Censorship Your Rights Online

2003 Privacy and Human Rights Survey Released 205

Posted by michael from the endangered-species dept.
Privacy Digest writes "Out-Law.com, UK - Global privacy report is the most comprehensive ever . The Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International on Friday released their sixth annual Privacy and Human Rights survey which claims to be the most comprehensive survey on privacy and data protection ever published. The report reviews the state of privacy in over fifty-five countries around the world. Key topics include Total Information Awareness, the public response to the U.S.A.-Patriot Act, traveller profiling, biometric identification, and other new technologies of surveillance. Privacy and Human Rights 2003: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments is available free online or it can be purchased from the EPIC Bookstore."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2003 Privacy and Human Rights Survey Released More

2003 Privacy and Human Rights Survey Released

Comments Filter:

  • Does it make any mention of ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:37PM (#6912875)
    ... the fact that the left-leaning pro-privacy folks at slashdot still need to refer to anonymous posters as "cowards"?

    YOU INSENSITIVE CLODS!

    • Despite the funniness, this is actually a good point. I realise that for idiots like the GNAA and all the other retarded first-post whores this is an appropriate title - maybe even a little too lenient. However, if someone posts anonymously because of valid reasons (like many in the RIAA stories) then it is a little unfair. I realise that it would be near impossible to judge which to use (it isn't a simple case of "logged in user" "logged out user") without adding an extra and pointless layer of moderation.

      • Re:Does it make any mention of ... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Why make any distinction? Thats what the moderation system is for, is it not? So you can attach a "troll" label to posts you dont like?

        I know it's really to enforce groupthink, and keep the illusion that everyone who reads this site has the same beliefs and values.

        My post wasn't meant to be funny, or at the most in an ironic sort of way. It's kind of like saying "I love freedom of speech, so everyone shut the fuck up".

    • I'd call Slashdot a right-wing community because it looks like most of them voted for Bush or Gore [slashdot.org].

      Yeah yeah, don't do anything serious with the results...
      still, people get the government they deserve.

  • Stop it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:37PM (#6912882)
    I know this puts me in danger of being modded down.
    But...

    Privacy is not a basic human right. Not like freedom to not be murdered, beaten, or starved. There are a lot of human rights violations going on right now, but certain levels of tracking don't even show up on the human-rights-violations radar.

    Sure, denial of privacy can reach extreme levels, to the point where it becomes a concern. But I think this report is a little knitpicky.

    • Re:Stop it (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kierthos ( 225954 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:47PM (#6913016) Homepage
      "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

      I don't know about you, but if every book I buy, every movie I watch, every phone call I make, every e-mail I send is being watched, catalogued, and analyzed, it infringes on my liberties, and doesn't make me very damned happy.

      The government does not have the right or the duty to effectively stalk its' citizens because it's "afraid".

      Ben Franklin still said it best: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      Kierthos

      • Re:Stop it (Score:2, Insightful)

        by untaken_name ( 660789 )
        Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

        I don't know about you, but if every book I buy, every movie I watch, every phone call I make, every e-mail I send is being watched, catalogued, and analyzed, it infringes on my liberties, and doesn't make me very damned happy.

        Yes, but from where do you infer the right to *be* happy? What can be taken away from you, while it may be called a 'right', is a privilege. We choose to call things 'rights' even though they can be taken away. For example, what right to

        • Re:Stop it (Score:2, Insightful)

          by canicus ( 670885 )
          Can you name a right that can't be taken away? The right to pursue happiness is dependent on our life, but if our life is taken, then our "right" is removed (note that this would fall under the same category you put freedom from being beaten and murdered under). The right to speech has at its most basic physical needs. What happens if our eyes are plucked out, hands cut off, and tongue cut out? Where is the freedom of speech then? Your assertion that "what can be taken away...is a priviledge" is nonsen
          • That said, speech is dependent on privacy. How can I possibly make an informed decision if I am monitored about what I buy and read? Such monitoring only takes place when one party stands to gain or cesure another party.

            You forget the option of simple, benign (or morbid) curiosity. Understandably so, since neither business nor goverment would ever have that as its motive, but it *is* a valid motivation (witness the popularity of tripe like Big Brother).

      • Re:Stop it (Score:5, Informative)

        by pmz ( 462998 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @03:36PM (#6913594) Homepage
        The government does not have the right or the duty to effectively stalk its' citizens because it's "afraid".

        The government is afraid of its citizens. The citizens are afraid of their government. All Osama needs to do, now, is just to sit on the sidelines and cheer for both teams. The "war on terrorism" is really a red herring for more fundamental issues, where personal liberties are being stripped away in some futile attempt to protect us from ourselves.

        Why is it that in some small towns, people are content to not even have locks on their doors out of no fear of neighbors? It seems they may soon want to install locks, but this time out of fear of government.

        • And what, pretell, personal liberties are currently being stripped away? I challange you to name even just one in connection with the Patriot act. The hubub about that thing is disproportionately hysteria over fact.

        • personal liberties are being stripped away in some futile attempt to protect us from ourselves

          It's not even that complicated.

          Power corrupts. It's that simple. Power has been abused since the beginning of time, and as long as power exists, it WILL be abused.This is why I advocate limited government. Logically, the smaller the government, the less destruction they are capable of.

          At the root of the issue, government wants bigger government. It's only natural. What business executive wouldn't want to incr

      • Re:Stop it (Score:3, Insightful)

        by commodoresloat ( 172735 )
        First off, there is no US law or ordinance that I am aware of that guarantees your right to "pursue happiness." The quote from the Declaration of Independence is in no way legally binding; the Constitution is much more precise about what is considered a right, and privacy is not in there (though it is clearly implied). But the original poster's point is difficult to refute -- having your email snooped pales in comparison to the kinds of human rights abuses that take place in many countries in the world (i

        • Re:Stop it (Score:2, Insightful)

          by kcbrown ( 7426 )

          the Constitution is much more precise about what is considered a right, and privacy is not in there

          Really?

          Amendment IX:

          The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

          The Constitution enumerates some rights. In that regard it may be more "precise" than the Declaration of Independence. But that is the maximum extent of that precision. The Constitution itself states that other rights exist even if not enumerated

      • Re:Stop it (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ThisIsFred ( 705426 )
        Agreed! Speaking in strictly constitutional terms, the US government was not granted the power to catalogue a citizen's preference in books, movies, or correspondence. It's not an arguable point, that power isn't mentioned in the Constitution. So, "the pursuit of happiness" need not even enter into the discussion. The Constitution definitely doesn't grant that power to the federal government. There is no argument in the matter.

        I've even heard El Rushbo say, "you don't have a right to privacy." Even Rush d
        • > Is there a decoder ring or something I need to see the Constitution as Congress sees it?

          1. Smoke lots & lots of marijuana until you are 100% paranoid and think that everyone is out to screw you
          2. Top it off with some crack so you have no idea what's going on
          3. Start writing laws based on your paranoid delusions
          4. Give yourself a payraise every year

          Hey, a "Profit" scheme without the "?????" step.
    • I will glady agree that privacy is not a right under the condition that EVERYONE agrees.

      I'll tell the government all my secrets if the government tells me all their secertes. Guess who's got more to hide?

    • Re:Stop it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IthnkImParanoid ( 410494 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:49PM (#6913037)
      I consider myself a privacy advocate because I consider a high degree of privacy necessary for a free society. The reasons are too complex for me to convey clearly, especially in a slashdot post, but consider that people behave differently when they know they are observed. Would I be posting to /. if I had a camera behind me?

      All "basic human rights" fall under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So while privacy may not be itself such a right, I don't feel I can act freely when my actions are monitored.

      • Re:Stop it (Score:3, Funny)

        by Pig Hogger ( 10379 )
        Would I be posting to /. if I had a camera behind me?
        Well, I certainly wouldn't be posting if I had my boss behind me, but since he left 20 minutes ago...

      • Re:Stop it (Score:3, Interesting)

        by selderrr ( 523988 )
        Would I be posting to /. if I had a camera behind me?

        Would you be posting differently if you had an ID card in your pocket, even though that card is in NO way related to your slashdot account ?

        There's a difference between being spied upon and being identifieable. Stop being paranoid
        • Funny, I do have an ID card in my pocket-four, in fact, not including credit cards and a health insurance card. They don't influence my internet activity, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure where I stated they would.

          I don't consider ID cards a threat; I do consider TIA a threat, as well as an example of how unimportant privacy in the eyes of our government, or at least certain members of it. Slashdot login aside, am I still being paranoid?

          If you want to talk about specific policies or events, ask an
          • hm... it's just that your nickname gives the impression you're a bigbrother nutcase

            the point I'm trying to make is that when u say I consider a high degree of privacy necessary for a free society you're linking privacy of an individual to a society. The two are indeed inseparable, but it's a two edged sword : to preserve presonal privacy, indeed you sacrifice some freedom at the level of society (e.g. society can not spy on you). On the other hand, to preserve freedom as a society, you sometimes have to s
        • The problem with ID cards is that often people who are not carrying ID are considered "suspicious". This is what is called a "slippery slope". Sure ID cards aren't bad - they dont take away any privacy do they? Except that since leaving home without ID makes you suspicious, it is effectively illegal to leave home without ID. OK, it's not explicitly illegal to leave home without ID, but without ID you are more likely to be arrested, held and questioned than when you are without ID.

          Similar problems
          • but without ID you are more likely to be arrested, held and questioned than when you are without ID

            I don't know where you are from, but where I live, I'm simply not likely to be arrested !
            IMHO, that's what it is all about ! The USA has created a totally paranoid society where everyone is afraid of everything, including their privacy (or the potential losing of it). Apart from the times where I'm on slashdot, I rarely, if ever, feel threatened, watched upon, or being deprived in anyway of my privacy. The

      • Re:Stop it (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pmz ( 462998 )
        The reasons are too complex for me to convey clearly, especially in a slashdot post, but consider that people behave differently when they know they are observed.

        Eh? I think you just conveyed it pretty clearly. It's basic psychology...it's also why staring at animals in a zoo makes them edgey. You know, in nature the animals that stare the most are called predators.

        Funny, how the government seems to be staring quite a bit, lately. Why is everyone so edgey?!?

        Another aspect to privacy is that who hold

    • Re:Stop it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dutchmaan ( 442553 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:50PM (#6913050) Homepage
      Sure, denial of privacy can reach extreme levels, to the point where it becomes a concern. But I think this report is a little knitpicky.

      You do realize that when the extreme levels happen, and becomes a concern, it is more often than not too late to make effective change.

      ..an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure seems to ring pretty clearly here.

    • Re:Stop it (Score:5, Informative)

      by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:56PM (#6913110) Journal
      Privacy is not a basic human right. Not like freedom to not be murdered, beaten, or starved. There are a lot of human rights violations going on right now, but certain levels of tracking don't even show up on the human-rights-violations radar.

      The guys who wrote the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights [cirp.org] almost half century ago seemed to have different opinion than yours ;-)

      Article 12
      No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

    • Re:Stop it (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bs_02_06_02 ( 670476 )
      Then you won't mind your medical records becoming public information? It's being done right now.
      Minnesota (and elsewhere) wants to make all medical information available in a statewide database. Who has access to it? Some say that the state will only allow access to statistics without any identification of the "patient". How long will that last?
      The gov't isn't very secure. We all know that. Do you trust them? I barely trust the hospital. Who else gets this info? Insurance companies? Hospital

      • Re:Stop it (Score:2, Insightful)

        by armyofone ( 594988 )
        And how long until it's cross-referenced with your grocery buying habits? Tons of people have opted in to shopping club cards.

        "Sorry Mr. Doh, your claim has been denied since your shopping history indicates that you gave yourself diabetes with excessive amounts of ice cream and chocolate sodas."

        Far-fetched? Maybe...

    • European Convention on Human Rights (Score:5, Informative)

      by kmarius ( 704857 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @03:03PM (#6913189)

      Just to get a more official view:

      Quoted from European Convention on Human Rights [coe.int] (available in several languages)

      Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
      1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
      2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
      • " except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

        Wow. Couldn't they have given the government a little wiggle room? I mean, talk about tying them up in a straight jacket to protect citizens' rights!

        Seriously though, thats 6 holes big

        • The European countries have also agreed to follow the "Universal Declaration Of Human Rights", mentioned in an earlier article, so the government can't do arbitrary interference.

          I don't think that such basic conventions can be too detailed, because it will depend on the current technology. It may give the government a little more wiggle room, but they still have to have a proper justification. Saying that "we will keep your mails, just in case we need them later" violates the intention of Article 8. The

    • Amendment IV

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Gee, sure looks kind of like privacy to me
      • It is exactly privacy. To the founding fathers, "privacy" meant what we mean by "going to the bathroom". "Secure in their persons" meant what we mean by "privacy".

    • Exactly my feelings.

      I also find it ironic how many peeps constantly nitpick over their rights where I often have the impression that their private life is often a carbon copy of TV shows and coorporate propaganda/commercials.
      A lot of people consider their privacy insanely important. I know that my privacy is hardly interesting for anyone. Just a population statistic. Many are confusing freedom with privacy.
      If the powers that be want to trample your privacy, my guess is that they'd just have to sneak
    • One of the best essays on what we lose when we lose privacy (due to new anti-terrorism laws) is this essay from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada [privcom.gc.ca]. In his words:

      "...If Parliament and the public at large have been slow to react, it is probably because for most people, most of the time, privacy is a pretty abstract concept. Like our health, it's something we tend not to think about until we lose it -- and then discover that our lives have been very unpleasantly, and perhaps irretrievably, altered. But though

    • Privacy is not a basic human right.

      Please reply with all of your information please. We want to know, and you do not have any right to stop us from knowing.
      • > > Privacy is not a basic human right.
        >
        > Please reply with all of your information please. We want to know, and you do not have any right to stop us from knowing.

        Privacy is not a basic human right. But in answer to your question "no". There is no contradiction here.

        It's not a basic human right, because the State (Specifically, the Executive branch, empowered by laws passed by the Legislative branch, but only insofar as such laws pass Constitutional muster as evaluated by th

    • I like the anarchist approach to these things. Each person for themselves. If you lose your privacy, that's your problem, not mine. :)
    • "Privacy is not a basic human right."

      Debatable. But it is a right guaranteed to US citizens by the fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is more important (as far as the US is concerned at least).

      Of course, free speech isn't a "basic human right" either, at least not to those who are usually consulted to define what such rights are.

  • Hoping for a positive outcome (Score:4, Interesting)

    by coolmacdude ( 640605 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:37PM (#6912883) Homepage Journal
    I seriously have to wonder how many more years it will be before this report will be merely a commemoration of lost history.

    The average American consumer is still oblivious to the erosion of privacy that has occured over the last decade. Only radical action and broad support will stop this continuing trend.
  • The timing of this is rather ironic as I read this morning that the CAPSII system will be coming online very shortly. I can't wait to see what color I am. What color are you?

  • Individual rights and Government (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ianfs ( 236640 ) <ianNO@SPAMsmallswope.com> on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:41PM (#6912948) Homepage
    It seems there's a chicken and egg senario concerning most government's and the rights given to citizens. Here in the United States the govenment is made up of elected citizens who are supposed to, ideally, work for us and pass the laws WE ask for. However, the relationship between the government and the people tends to get distorted through campaign contributions, the media, large corporations and wealthy individuals, etc... I'm not sure we've reached the level of security we want but I'm not sure it's worth our privacy. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: "Those who substitute Liberty for Security deserve neither."
    • I thought that in the US, it was the citizens that gave the government rights. Not the other way around. I'm so naive, aren't I?

      • no (Score:2)

        by waspleg ( 316038 )
        if you were naive you would believe it

    • Re:Individual rights and Government (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brahmastra ( 685988 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:47PM (#6913011)
      The relationship between the government and the people seems to be more like the relationship between a shareholder and a company. You technically have a say if you are a shareholder, but if you own only 1 share, no one gives a shit. In the case of government, it's money instead of shares.
    • ...work for us and pass the laws WE ask for.

      LOL! Good one, ianfs.

      The government is so large that it can largely do what it wants without voter retribution. Even if people vote out Bush in 2004, they'll still vote in a Democrat. So, either way, we get even bigger government and fewer freedoms. I find it very interesting that Democrats argue for both civil liberties and nationalized health care, when the latter is a huge power grab by the government. The Republicans argue for smaller government and fi
    • concerning most government's and the rights given to citizens

      I think that's one of the big misconceptions the public has. Rights aren't given to us by the government (although they are supposed to be secured by it), those rights are inherently and originally ours..."inalienable" as someone once put it. Once people start taking ownership of those rights they'll take issue with the government saying, "We'll need to take your rights BACK for a while so we can make them extra-secure."

      (I realize it was just a
    • the relationship between the government and the people tends to get distorted through campaign contributions, the media, large corporations and wealthy individuals

      No, the relationship between the government and the people is distorted through POWER. The fact that the majority gets to choose who obtains power does not, in any way, remove the element of power from government.

      It is power, and power alone, which allows government to abuse its position. You can change the way campaign conributions work, or t

  • Ah yes, the place all geeks pine for. Well, the government wouldn't do much intrusion simply because it wouldn't be funded. But private citizens would have access to all sorts of spying mechanisms. You would have to use anti-spying mechanisms to defeat it.

  • In soviet russia (Score:3, Interesting)

    by civilengineer ( 669209 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:45PM (#6912993) Homepage Journal
    Quoted from article:
    In Russia (especially in Moscow and St. Petersburg) illegal collection and distribution of data on private persons and organizations is quite commonplace. Quite popular are databases on purchase/sale of cars, car owners, passport data and foreign passport data of Russian citizens, data on real estate (purchase and sale of apartments, their parameters, location and proprietors), databases of taxpayers, information about people wanted for crimes and those who have been previously convicted. CDs with such databases are easily available on the streets and the Internet. The CD can cost from USD10 to USD1,500 depending on the subject, amount and accuracy of the data. In the beginning of 2003 a mobile phone company Mobile Telesystems (MTS) suffered a massive security breach that led to the sale of CDs with MTS's entire database of several million customers. By law, MTS was required to share information about their customers with the police and government agencies. MTS claimed that the database had been stolen and that the company had started its own internal investigation without seeking help from law enforcement agencies. The company refused to provide details as to the results of this investigation. Widespread speculation and comments from an MTS spokesperson indicate that the data was leaked by a low-paid employee from one of these government agencies
    • Unfortunatley the fact that phone taps are common place in Russia is ignored. Posted on that earlier...

      Also the fact that about 1/3 of the snail mail I sent to Russia arrived OPENED, about half did NOT arrive. The rest came horribly delayed, some as late as 1 year after, and yes with signs of tampering. If I ever sent photos, more often than not they were removed or some were missing.

      KGB, or whats left of it, LOVES international mail. I don't exactly know why, maybe they expect money, or credit card info

  • Soviet America scene (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I like the part about CAPS II may deny people boarding based on their composite score.

    Scene from Soviet America, next year:

    I'm sorry, sir, you are not allowed to travel. No, we cannot tell you why, that would be a violation of security; we can only tell you that you are not allowed to travel. Please return home and avoid transit. We will alert you in the future if you are allowed to travel.

  • What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Neil Watson ( 60859 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @03:04PM (#6913201) Homepage
    Can some one please explain to me what is evil about biometric identification? If having a retina or finger print on my ID prevents people from pretending to be me, isn't that a good thing?

    • Re:What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @03:10PM (#6913275) Homepage Journal
      Can some one please explain to me what is evil about biometric identification? If having a retina or finger print on my ID prevents people from pretending to be me, isn't that a good thing?


      If your credit card number or password gets stolen, you can stop it and have a new one issued. If you fingerprint gets lifted and misused, what are you to do? Amputate your finger?

      --
      *Art
      • My ID has a copy of my finger print. I still need to produce my finger to prove I am the person on the ID. If my ID card is stolen how will the person use it without my finger?

        • My ID has a copy of my finger print. I still need to produce my finger to prove I am the person on the ID. If my ID card is stolen how will the person use it without my finger?

          You're confusing the ID with the biometric data. There's no need to steal your ID. A cast can be made of your finger, and a latex glove with your fingerprint used. Then you're royally screwed, because you can't get a new finger.
          This problem is inherent in ALL biometric authentication -- you only have one set of biometrics which

        • I can see it now - news reports of people being mugged for their ID cards, and having relevant digits / organs / limbs amputated as part of the crime.

          There are people out there that would do that sort of thing without a second thought.

          Anyone seen Demolition Man? The character played by Wesley Snipes escapes from the cryo prison by using a pen to extract an eyeball from one of the guards.
        • If my ID card is stolen how will the person use it without my finger?

          Two words - gummi bears [theregister.co.uk].
      • If you fingerprint gets lifted and misused

        And that's really not so hard [extremetech.com] to do [mail-archive.com]!

        And remember, if you think it's hard for a stranger to get hold of your fingerprints, what do you think you leave behind when you use a fingerprint scanner?

    • If having a retina or finger print on my ID prevents people from pretending to be me, isn't that a good thing?

      No, because people who steal your identity can, for all practical purposes, become you. The only real way to accurately establish identity is to have some basic information on a person which is only verifiable in the context of that person's family and friends.

      For example, I can declare that I am Neil Watson and forge your signature, fingerprints, retina, etc. However, my true identity is someo
    • it means that there's an collection of all that information, did you watch "minority report"?

      would you like there to be databases of where you are during the day usually? or what part of the city you usually visit?

      the dangerous things about these are that they are mostly 'good' things though. but think a about a country that has a system like this in action, how easy it would be to take the people that think otherways and jail them up? for example, if in a country that had such an identification system an
    • "Can some one please explain to me what is evil about biometric identification?"

      Because systems which cannot fail are more difficult to fix when they do fail.

      Also, when somebody is identified for harassement by a system which is widely believed to be perfect and immune to failure, it's a lot harder for the victim to explain why it's the system, and not them, who is at fault.

  • Ironic for us in the UK... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @03:07PM (#6913244)
    That this article and report comes out just as "tone" launches the idea of an e-file for every child in the UK...

    www.theinquirer.net [theinquirer.net]

    >THE UK GOVERNMENT has announced plans to keep an electronic file on every child in England in a range of new child protection measures announced by prime minister Tony Bliar.

    >The children's files together with their unique e-number will be managed by local authorities in a "local information hub". The file will contain the name, address and date of birth of each child, together with the name of the school attended and whether the child is known to such agencies as the police, social services or educational welfare. Where multiple agencies are involved the file will denote which one profesional will have overall reponsibilty

    Yet again... launched to "protect" the children... and yet another place where incorrect information can have devastating consequences for the parents of a child if a mistake is made during data entry...

    Teacher notices bruises on child's torso... entry in database... social services could now be investigating for child abuse when it could have been a simple injury from a fall... but the reason might not have been entered later after investigation by the teacher however that entry will be there forever... Same child misses school several days in a row for a perfectly valid reason some months later... yet again social services could put 2 and 2 together later on and make 5...

    What's the bet's they'll try and fly this kite by saying "the innocent have nothing to fear"??? If there's anything to go by from previous cases... the innocent have everything to fear when social services get it in their minds that there could be abuse when there isn't...

    • The part of the plan which you're ignoring (and which the Inquirer has tucked away in a single sentence) is "Where multiple agencies are involved the file will denote which one profesional will have overall reponsibilty.".

      The main aim of this initiative is to make a single person responsible for each child, as recently a number of cases have come to light where children have died as a result of neglect despite the fact that they were known to social services as being at risk. The idea is to stop children
  • EPIC and Privacy International are based in the US and UK, respectively, because most countries would shut somebody like them down.

  • OT - Patriot Act (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @03:21PM (#6913392)
    One of the primary "selling" points of the Patriot Act was that it would be used against "foreign" suspects. However, to my knowledge, the Patriot Act has thus far been used primarily against US citizens (big surprise). Is anyone aware if the Patriot Act has in fact been used against a foreigner yet? And, if so, what the ratio of Patiot Act vs. Citizens and foreigners is?

    Bot, I hope I don't make The List with this post. I'm sorry John, I didn't mean anything by it.

    • One of the primary "selling" points of the Patriot Act was that it would be used against "foreign" suspects. However, to my knowledge, the Patriot Act has thus far been used primarily against US citizens (big surprise). Is anyone aware if the Patriot Act has in fact been used against a foreigner yet? And, if so, what the ratio of Patiot Act vs. Citizens and foreigners is?

      You're leaving out huge chunks of "we the people" here, namely US residents who're not citizens of the US. This includes both people

      • The US Constitution is very specific in not granting many rights to citizens that it doesn't also grant to the people -- about the only exception is participating in federal elections.
        Not even that--it is states who put the citizenship requirement on voting (they just happed to all do the same thing).

  • Best Way to Protect Our Privacy Is... (Score:3, Funny)

    by SilentMajority ( 674573 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @03:23PM (#6913430) Homepage
    The best way to protect our privacy is to stop doing things that gives our government or entities like RIAA arguably "justifiable" reasons to strip away our privacy rights.

    Doing illegal things lead to all of us paying the penalty by losing our rights. The more responsible we behave, the more rights we'll have. Pretty simple stuff.
    • If I read you correctly, then stating your argument in my own words, you're saying that in order to protect freedom, we must wield it responsibly and not do anything that shows we aren't worthy of that freedom.

      Such a freedom is not worth squat. It can also be paraphrased "freedom of agreeing with the government", and is present in pretty much every state on this planet.

      It is the freedom and right to do WRONG things that signify freedom. Not the right to follow the masses and do what you are expected.
      • Depends entirely on what you mean by "WRONG things".

        Freedom to commit rape, murder, theft, etc. isn't something I'd want anyone to have.

        The victoms who endure rape or theft of their belongings probably won't feel that they've gained more "freedom" if the government condones such "WRONG things".

  • Patriot Act (Score:4, Informative)

    by Experiment 626 ( 698257 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @03:34PM (#6913561)
    A lot of people assume because Ashcroft is a conservative and the most vocal opponent of the Patriot Act in the mainstream press, the ACLU, is liberal, that the Patriot Act controversy falls along typical liberal vs. conservative lines. Actually it is much more a question of libertarian vs. authoritarian than liberal vs. conservative.

    The real reaction to this act from conservatives is more interesting and diverse. Some share the views of Attorney General Ashcroft. Others oppose it just as strongly as the geek community -- many of the articles about the act on the conservative National Review site describe it with terms like the "so-called", "wrongly-termed" or "misnamed" Patriot Act. A director of the Cato Institute raised many interesting questions [nationalreview.com] about the act, to which the Justice Department wrote up a reply [nationalreview.com].

    Also worth looking at is the Justice Department's own Patriot Act Web site [lifeandliberty.gov]. From here you can view the text of the act itself as well as all the arguments for it and rhetoric used to justify it. A valuable resource for any of us trying to formulate counterarguments about why this act needs to go away.

  • To me, perhaps one of the biggest threats to privacy is something quite simple: an elaborate IP database cross-referenced with personal information found on the Internet. This is like getting someone's telephone transcripts. This information is available all over the Internet, but are there any known companies that are compiling IP Databases?

  • We know the Truth - don't we (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Garry Anderson ( 194949 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @05:50PM (#6915106) Homepage
    This is a prior posting of mine that was received favourably :-)

    Subject: Why I joined ACLU

    I believe that we British should support the American Civil Liberties Union.

    In fact - the people of ALL countries should - the ACLU are fighting for the Rights of everyone on this matter.

    Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.

    It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?

    Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:

    Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

    Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!

    Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).

    The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.

    The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.

    INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

    This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

    Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"

    This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.

    It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.

    They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

    This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

    "Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".

    This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).

    This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.

    So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?

    It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.

    As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.

    Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.

    The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.

    They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close