Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Big Brother Awards for Privacy Invaders 144

Posted by CmdrTaco from the put-on-your-foil-hats dept.
Dozix007 writes "The Register reports that the shortlist for this year's Big Brother awards for nasty privacy invaders has been released. The awards include: Worst Public Servant, Most Invasive Company, Most Appalling Project, Most Heinous Government Organisation and Lifetime Menace Award - now renamed the David Blunkett Lifetime Menace Award. Pressure group Privacy International, which organises the awards, said it was overwhelmed by nominations for Blunkett, the Home Office and national ID cards but they had been recognised in previous years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Big Brother Awards for Privacy Invaders More

Big Brother Awards for Privacy Invaders

Comments Filter:

  • I didn't believe I could win! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2004 @12:58PM (#9614456)
    But I'd like to thank my parents, George W. Bush, that Senator that beat me after he died, Bob Jones University, Muslims all over the world, and of course God, for making this possible!

    John Ashcroft

    • Re:I didn't believe I could win! (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually Ashcroft was beaten by the WIDOW of the Governor who died.Although his name remained on the ballot the electorate voted knowing his wife was actually running.If it wasn't for the sympathy vote Ashcroft would be just a senator from Missouri and not your favorite Attorney General.
      • Actually Ashcroft was beaten by the WIDOW of the Governor who died.Although his name remained on the ballot the electorate voted knowing his wife was actually running.

        Oddly enough, it still wasn't legal for the dead man's name to be on the ballots. To be on the ballot, one must be a resident of the state, to be a resident one must be alive.

        LK
      • The dead senator was Mel Carnahan. He was beaten by Mel's widow, Jean Carnahan (who IIRC decided not to seek reelection in the special election that followed).

    • Re:I didn't believe I could win! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:41PM (#9614724)
      and of course God, for making this possible! -- John Ashcroft

      1. It's a British site, so you're not nominated.

      2. Look up Matthew 25:12. I always get blamed for things I had nothing to do with....

      God

      • Well God this fellow is apparantly laboring under the delusion that he's one your boys. Hows about a lightning bolt or two to disabuse him of the notion? Nothing fatal mind you, just a "sign" that even he can't miss.

        If that doesn't work, those cartoon trapdoors that lead straight to the hotplace are pretty funny. Let him hover a second or two over it so the paprazzi can get a nice wild take shot.

        Ah just forget it. The devil would probably toss him back out the trapdoor for being a takeover risk.
        • 1. It's a British site, so you're not nominated.

          2. Look up Matthew 25:12. I always get blamed for things I had nothing to do with....

          God

        Dear God,

        Stop whingeing. If you're really God, you're omnipotent and can do anything you want. Clearly, you're an underachiever.

  • Website, Awards and Justice (Score:5, Informative)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @12:58PM (#9614466) Homepage Journal
    Here is the website for The 2004 UK Big Brother Awards [privacyinternational.org], for those of you who want to skip over that puny Register article. My thoughts on this subject is that it's a great idea to shine a huge spotlight on those who would infringe upon privacy, to give them a taste of their own medicine. Of course I don't condone tapping their phones, blackmailing the execs or sending boxes of poo to their doors (like on Six Feet Under's recent arc [hbo.com]). This award show will do just fine, in an almost biblical manner of sinning the sinner.

  • I know... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zorak Man ( 732141 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:00PM (#9614470)
    I'm sure MS will be on that list. They managed to get an OS on my computer that I didn't want.
    • What about Gilette? I read an article saying that they were using small cameras on store shelves and RFID tags in their products to take photos of people who picked up one of their products.

  • We Need One of These for the USA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by burdicda ( 145830 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:01PM (#9614476)
    Where is the US equivilent ????

  • Privacy in the UK? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by 7Ghent ( 115876 )
    I find it rather laughable that they even consider corporate privacy in a state where cameras track your every move and there's no legal guarantee of any kind of privacy at all. I mean, fuck- Britons live in Orwell's 1984 made flesh.

    • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Spad ( 470073 ) <slashdot@Nospam.spad.co.uk> on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:21PM (#9614599) Homepage
      They hardly track my every move - they're primarily used after the fact to identify people or to follow people attempting to evade the police.

      They're all in public places, I have no expectation of privacy in a public place and I'm not committing any offences, it really doesn't bother me.

      The nation ID card, OTOH, is a minor problem for the government - at last count almost 80% of population were against them and 30% said that they would go to prison rather than carry the card (Numbers subject to statistics).

      • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Spad ( 470073 )
        And really, how the fuck is the grandparent comment Insightful?

        Stereotyped - probably, Flamebait - yes, but Insightful - barely.

      • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Dude, you have to pay a television tax. People go around with antennaes in hand and vans to observe what households have televisions running and whether or not they've paid their television tax.

        You guys have cameras observing you every second that you're outside your home. Regardless of your justification, that's just wrong.

        And you guys are worried about a national ID card? Jesus.. a bit schizophrenic, eh?

        • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:34PM (#9614687)
          Dude, you have to pay a television tax. People go around with antennaes in hand and vans to observe what households have televisions running and whether or not they've paid their television tax. ...in exchange for which they get television which (hold on to your hat here) **doesn't suck**.

          • ...in exchange for which they get television which (hold on to your hat here) **doesn't suck**.
            We have public television that doesn't suck here, too, we just don't spy on our citizens' televisions to pay for it.

            Oh, and everyone, it's fundraising time at WGBH [wgbh.org], which produces so many of those wonderful PBS shows. Please consider donating.

        • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:41PM (#9614728)
          No. They don't have vans and shit, that is just scare tactics.

          What they do is monitor who buys TVs, and if someone buys a new TV that doesn't have a TV license, they pay them a visit. I know I had to give my name and address when I bought my TV and that was for TV licensing purposes (it isn't a tax, more like a mandatory TV subscription, the price isn't that bad now with several channels and radio stations, as well as the website and interactive stuff being paid by the fee, but 10 years ago the BBC was really badly managed financially).

          For that, we get advert-free television that is meant to be politically unbiased. It doesn't have any pressures from advertisers at least. OTOH it sucks when you want to have a piss and there are no ad breaks.

          The cameras aren't observing *me*. Yet. And they are only in city centres and shopping centres for the main part.
          • As well as annoying people who buy TVs, they send letters and pretend policemen to every address which doesn't have a TV licence. They often send letters to addresses which don't even exist.

            At work we have received licence demands for the following:
            A car park
            An orchard
            A barn
            A storage cupboard

          • I love the BBC (Score:3, Interesting)

            by poofyhairguy82 ( 635386 )
            it isn't a tax, more like a mandatory TV subscription

            and let me take the opportunity to thank all of you Britons for pay this fee to keep the BBC around. As an American, I trust the BBC news more than any organization; especially for news about American.

            Also I love fun comedies like The Office [amazon.com]. Jolly good show!

          • TV Detection (Score:2, Interesting)

            by stuarth ( 520357 )
            My understanding was that a TV *does* emit radio waves, and that they can and do track them. They also do it the easy way - look for TV sales, look for houses with no TV (in this day and age???) and hassle them (I had no TV for a few years and got a good few "reminders"). When they think they can make money at it - they DO get the detector vans out though. Student flats - hand held detector wandering from floor to floor (Students are very poor at getting licences, but most have a TV). S.
      • They hardly track my every move - they're primarily used after the fact to identify people or to follow people attempting to evade the police.

        They're all in public places, I have no expectation of privacy in a public place and I'm not committing any offences, it really doesn't bother me.

        So, in the UK its ok for the government not to know where you are... as long as you never leave the house!?! :-\

        All I'm doing is using the Parent Post's logic...

        -B

        • Re:Privacy for shut-ins... (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The government doesn't know where anybody is, fucktard.

          CCTV cameras (at the moment) aren't facially recognising people as they walk around. They are recording what's going on, and if a crime happens then the recording is replayed to help with the investigation. Also many cameras might be linked to a viewing room, just so that trouble can be identified and police dispatched quickly to the scene.

          Now if face recognition systems were attached to the CCTV systems, or if it was used to find more than just crimi
          • Hold on a second... placing a camera where it is lucrative to do so is becuase a lot of people are breaking the law there and you can fine them all. If a lot of people are all breaking the law in a specific place... doesnt it make sense to put the camera there?

            Now personally I don't like the speed limit laws anyway, but you should blame the laws and not the enforcement of them. I mean, the whole idea is that if a lot of people are speeding it's a dangerous location and therefore should be more heavily mon
            • ... doesnt it make sense to put the camera there?

              Exactly. It only becomes evil if they take it one step further out, i.e., they identify a nice, long, straight, wide section of road, purposedly set a low speed limit fully knowing people aren't going to respect it, and then add automatic surveillance.
            • A sharp, blind corner in a heavily populated area that one or two people a day speed around is a LOT more dangerous than a 55 to 35 transition coming off a major highway, but guess where the police will set up their speed traps and speed cameras?

              Quantity and quality are not the same thing.

      • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        They're all in public places, I have no expectation of privacy in a public place and I'm not committing any offences, it really doesn't bother me.

        It's a question of scale. Yes, a police officer could have investigated you a century ago by following you through public streets. Would you be comfortable with a separate police officer assigned to every citizen, following you every day from the moment you leave your home?

        That's the scale we're talking about now; there is no similar limitation of policing

        • ... everyone who passes within the cameras' view is monitored ...

          Not for any meaningful definition of "monitored". While I agree they _could_ monitor every single person that appears on the camera, it is currently not feasible to pull off such a feat. It would require massive amounts of manpower (on such a scale as to totally dwarf DDR's STASI I would think) or else it would require computer algorithms that we simply do not have yet.

          • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:1, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            That's true to a large degree, but the cameras are not just real-time views requiring constant viewers; they're recording the scenes for review at any time. Additionally, there is plenty of effort being devoted to such algorithms.

            It's not unlikely in the very near future to see the system generating pathways of movement over time, linked to individual identifiers, tracked from camera to camera and purchase to purchase. The purchase-to-purchase tracking is already trivial to implement.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Yeah, because it's not like they don't package up lots of public video from the UK and make television shows out of them wherein private UK citizens are shown throughout the world doing things in which they were recorded... so much for privacy when Discovery or FOX makes a two hour television special featuring videos from your government public surveillance cameras.
      • France have had personal ID cards for years and really, I don't see where it is a privacy problem.
        Moreover, it proved so much useful (sic!) that it is no longer mandatory and is now replaced by the use of passeports, which are not mandatory to have, unless you want to travel outside the country.
        In North-America, people use your driving license as an ID card. So can somebody explain why having ID cards is a problem in the first place, whatever kind of ID it is?
        • There are two major problems:

          1) It is actually a tax - they intend to charge every man, woman and child in the country $100 for a compulsory card, and presumably another $100 if you lose it (My friend had to pay $50 for a new driving licence when hers was stolen)

          2) Every criminal in the country will have any number of fake ones, but legit people will be harassed because they left the only one they have in their other handbag/wallet/why.

          The biggest benefit is that the unemployment problem will be solved by

        • I think the main problem is they way the UK Government want to go about implementing the things.

          Firstly although compulsary, I bet it wouldn't be the government who pay for it. I can just about stomach some sort of compulsary ID, but I draw the line at having to pay for yet another thing you have no choice in.

          Secondly it's the privacy issues. Personally I quite like the idea of one solitary ID card being absolute proof of ID, rather than the current slew of various options, not all of which are accepted

      • "They [CCTV cameras] hardly track my every move - they're primarily used after the fact to identify people or to follow people attempting to evade the police."

        To identify thieves, and then completely ignore them, in the usual manner of UK police. (yes I've got clear CCTV footage of a theft including peoples' faces, no nothing was ever investigated)

        And no, they don't track your every move unless you happen to be interesting|drunken|funny enough that they'll film you and show it on national television for

      • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Long-EZ ( 755920 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @09:14PM (#9617654)
        I've noticed a lot of UK citizens are not bothered by the massive amount of government surveilance. They offer the same reasons that I've heard in the US. "The cameras are in public places where there is no expectation of privacy." "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I'm not worried about it." "We all feel safer with the government watching everyone." "Crime rates decrease."

        But nobody seems to realize it's a slippery slope, or at least nobody is talking about it. Governments, by their very nature, become more powerful and subsume the rights of individual citizens. Did it occur to you that your government decided they wanted mandatory national ID cards with biometric data after everyone so easily rolled over on the issue of nearly constant surveilance?

        An equilibrium will be established between people's demand for individual rights and people's acquiescence of those rights under the (usually mistaken) belief that they will be more secure. The UK citizens have given up more rights than US citizens, but we're on the same path. The US Supreme Court recently decided that citizens can be required to identify themselves when asked by police officers, which reminds me of old movies with Nazis demanding, "Your papers please." Cameras are an increasing part of everyday life in the US. Not so much at the government level, although many urban intersections have cameras spying on us, nominally under the guise of traffic enforcement. But many businesses large and small are installing cameras that not only record images from the business property, but also in the public and private areas in the vicinity.

        I value my privacy, and I resent the invasion of it. I DO have some expectation that I can walk down the street without my every move being recorded. And yes, I'm willing to surrender some degree of security, either real or imagined, for that modicum of privacy. I do NOT believe the government has the right to spy on me, simply because I'm not doing anything wrong. Universal surveilance seems to be based on the presumption of guilt. Why else would the government watch everybody, unless it's to catch the citizens whom it presumes to be guilty?

        Crime has many complex social causes. It cannot be cured by restricting people's rights. At every point, the goverment assures the citizens, "If you just give up one more right, we'll make you safe." As soon as the citizens accept the loss of that right, there is the government asking for another. "If everyone would carry national ID cards with biometric data.... If only we had a national DNA database.... If only all citizens took government supplied mind control drugs...."

        If fear of a criminal element is the lever used by government to obtain power from the people, why would anyone think the government will ultimately be successful in reducing crime? In the US, crime rates are highest in the areas where rights are restricted the most. Whether crime or the loss of rights came first is a subject of intense debate, but the correlation between crime and the loss of individual rights is not seriously debated by anyone. I think in most cases, a breakdown in the social fabric resulted in crime, then the government used people's fear of crime to restrict citizen's rights. But the loss of rights has certainly not resulted in lower crime rates. In many cases, the loss of some rights have resulted in a documented and obvious INCREASE in crime.

        You want less crime? Invest in education and a fair and prosperous economy, then wait a generation. Short term fixes like registering citizens, heavy surveilance, and the general loss of rights are not the answer.

    • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I've lived in both the US and the UK. Hate to tell you, but despite the excessive amount of security cameras in public, you guys still come out number one when it comes to repression.

    • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hattig ( 47930 )
      As someone who has been attacked viciously in the UK under the gaze of CCTV, and the CCTV footage being instrumental in getting the offenders locked up, I can't say I mind CCTV.

      What I'd mind is if it was used proactively, e.g., for tracking people without their knowledge using face recognition systems. I believe a person has the right to go about their day without being tracked and logged in databases "Citizen #45932842 logged at Market Square 8:23:23" and so on.

      • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tanguyr ( 468371 ) <tanguyr+slashdot@gmail.com> on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:45PM (#9614766) Homepage
        There was a pretty interesting bit on the BBC ("car wars" i think) that showed how london police cars are fitted with cameras that automatically scan car registrations and will notify the PC if it spots a vehicle with either outstanding tickets or no insurance. Despite some false positives, it seemed to work pretty well.

        CCTV raised a lot of concerns when it was first rolled out, but now that it's here people seem to have accepted it - even more, people seem to appreciate it given the added sense of security and the positive effect on violent crime rates. Still, before we all get all warm and cuddly, we should remember that, at the end of the day, it's a system for surveillance of the general public. Just because the people jogging the joystick today aren't abusing it (it even caught that shocking bit of police brutality in Manchester a while back) doesn't mean the next bunch won't.
        • If you have been hit by an uninsured driver, you will gladly put up with it.
        • ondon police cars are fitted with cameras that automatically scan car registrations and will notify the PC if it spots a vehicle with either outstanding tickets or no insurance

          They might tell you this, but this is actually impossible as there is no existent database that lists all insured vehicles. There cannot be, as "drive any vehicle" insurance is available, and you then don't have to notify them of the registration details of any vehicles you drive but do not own yourself.

    • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thumperward ( 553422 ) <thumperward@hotmail.com> on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:42PM (#9614743) Homepage
      If by "your every move" you mean "your every move in busy urban areas" you'd be half-right. This is, of course, nothing like 1984.

      There is overwhelming public support for cameras in city centres. As a nation of Crimewatch viewers, Brits see cameras (rightly) as aiding their safety rather than as an evil gummit mind-control scheme.

      Seriously, there's nothing like misplaced ideology to mess up a country's administration. An absolute right to privacy in public is every bit as bad for the general public as the police state is.

      - Chris

    • Re:Privacy in the UK? (Score:4, Funny)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @02:00PM (#9614879)
      Britons live in Orwell's 1984 made flesh.

      Now, come on... Britain in 1984 was not only a privacy-free surveillance state, it was completely cut off from the rest of Europe and locked into a destructive alliance with the United States. You're exaggerating things enormously here.

    • no nO NO (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @02:03PM (#9614906) Journal
      The cameras you speak of are only in public areas, where there is simply no expectation of privacy at all anyway. Is a camera somehow more invasive than other people? Maybe a little, by the fact that it makes a (near) perfect, permanent recording, whereas peoples' memories are "fuzzy." It is also more invasive by the fact that the government is doing it, although police walk around in public areas too, so...

      No, 1984 would require surveilance in the privacy of your own home, tracking your sexual habits, hobbies, et cetera. Keeping track of everywhere you go, your political opinions, and taking action against you for them. It will be 1984 when your television records YOU.

      • If the police were really interested in stopping crime, they would put cameras in every corporate board room in the country instead.
      • 1984 would require surveilance in the privacy of your own home, tracking your sexual habits, hobbies, et cetera. Keeping track of everywhere you go, your political opinions, and taking action against you for them. It will be 1984 when your television records YOU.

        OK, what if it's not my television, though? What if it's my computer? What if my web browser, my cookies, my SPYWARE starts tracking and compiling all of the above? What then? Does it have to be the government doing the tracking? What if the
        • Good point! I can't believe this didn't get modded up; I guess you were a bit too late. Too bad, because it's a very interesting point.

          Cheers.

    • And because the situation is bad, they can't identify the problems, ridicule them, and perhaps, within the next century actually fix one or two?
      If you aren't part of the solution, you're usually on the problem side.

  • Spoilt for choice... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eamacnaghten ( 695001 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:04PM (#9614493) Homepage Journal
    The judges are simply spoilt for choice here. It would cost a fortune to manufacture the number of awards needed...

  • Just a thought... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Munelight ( 192694 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:05PM (#9614501)
    "If you are interested in attending the awards you need to register at UKBBA@privacy.org"

    I wonder if you have to give them your real name. :)

  • Spread them around! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JohnFromCanada ( 789692 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:07PM (#9614513)
    I had never heard of this list however the more publicity it sees the more awareness it raises. It is very interesting and I am not currently using any products from any of the mentioned companies and will now know to avoid them in the future. If more lists like this were in the popular media, companies would be at least held a little more accountable for there actions by those customers who care about such issues and do not have the time to gather the information about them elsewhere.

  • The Title (Score:3, Funny)

    by Zorilla ( 791636 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:07PM (#9614514)
    News Article Title: Big Brother Awards for Privacy Invaders

    What's wrong with this title, people?

    "Hello, Big Brother? I'd like to report YOU! Oh, hang on, there's somebody at my door."

  • whois david_blunkett (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:14PM (#9614549)
    David Blunkett [wikipedia.org]. British politician, now in charge of Homeland Security for the U.K. I'm sure that in spirit it would be translated to the "John Ashcroft Lifetime Award" for U.Sians, but the position Blunkett holds is probably more akin to Tom Ridge's.

    • Re:whois david_blunkett (Score:5, Informative)

      by MancDiceman ( 776332 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @02:59PM (#9615413)
      No, not quite. He's in charge of the Home Office. The Home Office is not like "Homeland Security". It's much, much, MUCH bigger than that. Homeland Security is basically the equivalent of MI5/Special Branch which whilst coming under the juridstciotn of the Home Office is tiny in comparison to the rest of the organisation.

      Think of it this way - you have lots of functions that are carried out by various ministries - the MoD looks after Defence, the Foreign Office sorts out diplomatic affairs (and intelligence agencies), Dept of Health looks after the NHS, etc., etc.

      Anything that is left over, goes to the Home Office. This includes all law enforcement (at all levels), part stake in MI5, and anything else nobody else is prepared to take responsibility for. It is a MASSIVE department, dwarfing every other UK government department.

      Blunkett, whilst in charge of the Home Office has introduced some interesting laws. Nearly all of them specifically remove civil liberties from the UK citizen, and he has announced an ID card that will eventually replace driver's licenses, passports, etc. and will carry biometric data. A corresponding matchup of the data is held on government computers, it's use is ill-defined, in short, it's a hideous idea that is being lobbied for by a company that stands to make a lot of money out of it.

    • David Blunkett. British politician, now in charge of Homeland Security for the U.K. I'm sure that in spirit it would be translated to the "John Ashcroft Lifetime Award" for U.Sians, but the position Blunkett holds is probably more akin to Tom Ridge's.

      David Blunkett isn't quite John Ashcroft's opposite number (he's Home Secretary, as opposed to Attorney General [wikipedia.org]). However, he does sometimes seem to think he's a judge [bbc.co.uk].

      The reason Blunkett is recognised by this award is that he's trying to introduce a compul

  • list of co's/orgs that sell your info to marketers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scupper ( 687418 ) * on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:14PM (#9614555) Homepage
    I'd like to see an annual list of organizations, companies, banks, utilities that sell your address and phone numer to marketers. I expect if I sign up for a "club card" at Safeway or some other retailer, that my info is potentially up for grabs, but when I signed up with Sierra Club, my junk mail exponentially grew, and I OPTED OUT!! of the sharing info option. I think they probably kill more trees than they save. I've received 3 renewal notices from them since February of this year, and my membership expires in August!

    • Re:list of co's/orgs that sell your info to market (Score:4, Interesting)

      by maximilln ( 654768 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:28PM (#9614646) Homepage Journal
      Did you check the option to opt-out of the list of opt-out people? Did you check the list to mark your information as inherited opt-out? You know, if you give your info to the marketing division, they might share it with the collections division, who might share it with the membership division, and somewhere along the line the "private" bit on your data didn't line up in the database, and someone in the corporate affairs insurance services division closes a deal on 50,000 new leads. :)

      I've always been suspicious of that opt-out crap, too. Like all the spam mail that says "click here to be (re)moved from the list". Removed from one list, added to another.

    • Your mistake: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gr3y ( 549124 )

      Never give a charity with no purpose your address.

      I once gave my address to The March of Dimes Foundation, but that was a mistake [kuro5hin.org].

      At present, the only charity with my current address is the local NPR affiliate, and they haven't abused it to my knowledge.

      • Well, locally [sierraclub.org], the Sierra Club chapter is actually accomplishing some things I support, but the national organization is a whole different enchilada. I see them as no more than a lobbying firm that harvests revenue and legitimacy from the local chapters, where the real work is getting done.

        Hell, they almost lost the whole org to a board take over [csmonitor.com] led by former leader of Greenpeace, Capt. Paul Watson.

        • there's no doubt about it. Nonprofits exist to give a collective voice and purse to a group of people who would otherwise be mute or dependent on patronage.

          I don't know what to do about it, except not donate. Various groups exist that track overhead spending by nonprofits, and more than a few nonprofits seem to exist solely for the purpose of employing their executives, which to me is a complete violation of trust. Unfortunately, there's nothing anyone can do but withdraw their support.

          So I have a pers

    • Nettle spells it out just the way I feel about being , as he describes it "Carpet bombed by non-profit organizations" in his blog entry
      " Nettle vs. Aclu Part 1 [nettle.com]", "Part 2 [nettle.com]" AND "Part 3 [nettle.com]"

      An excerpt from "Nettle vs. ACLU"

      However, what I was amazed to find is that the ACLU automatically gave my name and address to third parties -- and did it so swiftly that I was already receiving mailings from third parties before I received my ACLU membership packet.

    • even the ACLU ?? (Score:3, Informative)

      by schwaang ( 667808 )
      In the most recent ACLU Northern California Chapter newsletter (pdf) [aclunc.org], on page 2 there is an opt-out form that says:

      Sometimes, as part of our member recruitment program,

      we exchange or rent our list of members' names to like-minded organizations and publications.

      If you pick your jaw up off the floor and keep reading through the tears, a bit further down it says:

      ...no organization will ever see the names of the members on our list unless an individual responds to their mailing.

      That probably doesn't qual

  • Most Invasive Company - LloydsTSB ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:16PM (#9614569)
    The bank insists "that customers report to a branch with documents to prove their identities".

    The article does not explain under what circumstances the bank requires this, perhaps to open an account.

    So why is this invasive? Would the judges rather have the bank naively believe anything a potential con-artist tells them over the phone?

    In this age of identity theft, this might be a bank to consider. Apparently, they take a persons true identity seriously.

  • Ok, one question ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by spellraiser ( 764337 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:18PM (#9614584) Journal

    Contenders for Worst Public Servant are Margaret Hodge for her support for a database of children and "good behaviour" orders for children as young as eight.

    So, how come Santa Claus is not on the shortlist? Let's put that #1 record keeper in the world on a list for a change. Let's see how he likes the taste of his own medicine!

  • And the winner of the irony award... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:29PM (#9614652)
    Anyone notice that you have to register in order to attend the event? Other than filling the organization's mailing list, what's the legitimate purpose for making privacy advocates identify themselves?

    I think they should take a look in the mirror.

  • National ID card? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ggambett ( 611421 )
    Can anyone in the US what's the big deal with a national ID card? In this part of the world and in many other countries there are national ID cards and nobody cares. I understand you use your SSN and driver's license for what we use the ID card. So what could be the problem in having one?

    Not trolling, I always wanted to understand your point of view about this.
    • You have, of course, a legitimate question, but I want to point out that the controversy over ID cards in this story is in the UK, not the US.
    • At present in the UK there is no requirement to carry an ID card. The basis of UK law is that everything is permitted unless specifically prohibited (reverse is true in many countries) and one is free to go about one's business without having to identfy yourself.

      The major problem is that there is no good reason for introducing ID cards. The Home Office makes arguements in favour that do not stand up.

      Briefly, they won't prevent terrorism, they won't prevent benefit fraud, it won't cut down on illegal work

      • You are overrating some parts of anglosaxon law system.

        The basis of UK law is that everything is permitted unless specifically prohibited (reverse is true in many countries)

        This was even truth in comunistic countries. I agree that this was (probably) inventeted in UK as a rule, but it is common thing in most of the even semicivilized (read: dictatorship countries) world .

        UK invented many of things in legal systems that we take for granted, but you should be aware that nothing lasts forever! For i

        • For instance, UK legal system does not allow you to go to second instance court in many cases - which is, from continental point of view, serious abuse of human rights (IIRC, if you are trialed by jurry, you can't complain to their decision; they allowed this recently, but only in some extremely rare cases).

          Er, well, whilst it is true that in the UK you cannot appeal on a question of fact (ie you cannot appeal the jury's decision on guilt or innocence) you can certainly appeal on a question of law. So

  • The real big brother awards link... (Score:4, Informative)

    by RALE007 ( 445837 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @02:47PM (#9615315)
    The link in the description is only an article at the register.com. The actual website for the US awards can be found here [privacyinternational.org] and links for big brother awards for other nations can be found here [bigbrotherawards.org].

  • Blunkett (Score:2, Insightful)

    by twem2 ( 598638 )
    Yeah, I know he's blind and good for him to get to the position he's got, but it doesn't change the fact that he's an authoritarian socialist statist who's ideal society seems to be based upon the Soviet system but with more technology.

    He deserves a special prize for his efforts to increase state control and reduce individual liberty and privacy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close