Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Censorship

Annual Big Brother Award Winners Announced 438

SteamyMobile writes "Privacy International announced its Sixth Annual Big Brother awards today. These are awards given to the governments, business and individuals who are doing the most to bring us closer to Orwell's world of 1984. Normally this award is reserved for the British, but there are so many great candidates from other countries this year that they had to acknowledge that. So, who won, and who shall we nominate for next year? This certainly is an area with some tough competition lately."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Annual Big Brother Award Winners Announced

Comments Filter:
  • I'm disappointed.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Motherfucking Shit ( 636021 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:28AM (#9841567) Journal
    that John Ashcroft didn't take the "Worst Public Servant" prize.

    I realize that this is an international competition, and certainly the idea of tracking kids and trying to determine which of them are most likely to become criminals (this was covered previously on Slashdot, but I can't manage to find a link) is abhorrent. But I believe Ashcroft is most deserving of "Worst Public Servant," worldwide.
    • by Motherfucking Shit ( 636021 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:31AM (#9841579) Journal
      Actually, it appears that I misread, this isn't an international competition, but a British award which branched out this year due to egregious offenses in other nations. But my comment about Ashcroft stands.
    • by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:45AM (#9841640) Journal
      But I believe Ashcroft is most deserving of "Worst Public Servant," worldwide.

      Oh, please. If you really want to take a worldwide competition, I can immediately name a few serious contenders - such as Fidel Castro (Cuba), Kim Jong Il (Norh Korea) and Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe). South America and Central Africa probably offer abudance of these, but I have no knowledge of their leader names. While I'm not a fan of Bush administration, I really can't understand the contemporary American trend for self-loathing ("oh dear, with the Patriot Act we are now the worst dictatorship of the world").

      Maybe you wanted to name Ashcroft "the worst public servant that at least actually tries to serve the public"?
      • by grepistan ( 758811 ) <duncan_c AT tpg DOT com DOT au> on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:53AM (#9841675)

        You make a very good point, but the competition wasn't to find the worst government agency, but the most invasive one. I'm not sure that Mugabe, for example, really has the resources to fingerprint everyone entering Zimbabwe. They are pretty keen on political violence and the like though.

        But come on, Ashcroft tries to serve the public? I'm not sure who he is serving, but I don't think cracking down on dissent and launching paranoid security measures is in the public's best interest.

        • by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @04:11AM (#9841746) Journal
          You make a very good point, but the competition wasn't to find the worst government agency, but the most invasive one. I'm not sure that Mugabe, for example, really has the resources to fingerprint everyone entering Zimbabwe. They are pretty keen on political violence and the like though.

          You don't need to take fingerprints to be invasive. All you need is a local mullah, local Commitee For The Defense Of The Revolution or local secret police agent down in every village, spying on everyone. Then you have a state with no privacy whatsoever, without any computers or fingerprints, just some bamboo sticks, a couple of firearms and loooots of local agents. That's how Pol-Pot dictatorship was working (and maoist China, and stalinist Soviet Union, and Castro's Cuba etc.; with the only difference that the stick was not always made of bamboo).

          But come on, Ashcroft tries to serve the public? I'm not sure who he is serving, but I don't think cracking down on dissent and launching paranoid security measures is in the public's best interest.

          If a waiter serves me a juicy steak, eating it might not be in my heart's best interest and this steak might shorten my lifespan for a few months, but still the waiter serves me, because the juicy steak is precisely what I want. After all, the waiter wants to get a tip. In a democratic state, politicians offer the public stuff that might not really be in the public's best interest, but this is what the public wants. After all, they want to get reelected.
          • Name a single thing that Ashcroft has done that the public wanted. afaik, everything he has done has been to advance his own agenda. just listen to his 9/11 commission opening statements - he was trying to push the patriot act from the day he took office!
            • by Trelane ( 16124 )
              Actually, I'm pretty sure most of you here would appreciate him working to protect abortion providers and track down anti-abortion killers. It was discussed in a profile of Ashcroft that Newsweek published back last year.
          • by Hatta ( 162192 )
            After all, the waiter wants to get a tip. In a democratic state, politicians offer the public stuff that might not really be in the public's best interest, but this is what the public wants. After all, they want to get reelected.

            No, what they offer is flowery language and lip service to what the public wants. That and one or two concessions to what the public really wants near election time. Then they just push whatever their corporate masters want in the intervening years. It's all just sleight of hand
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:57AM (#9841690)
        Maybe you are right - one has to compare the US with nations like Zimbabwe, or Cuba, or North Korea in order to acknowledge: "yep, it could be worse" ... well.

        Doesnt that frighten you? For me, it scares the hell out of me. And I am not even a US citizen.

        And to be honest: I think the difference between Ashcroft and Mugabe is not that Ashcroft tries to serve the public - the only difference is this: everybody knows that the dictator of some African nation is only serving his own fortune - and we would expect better from officials of a democratic nation.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        None of the people you mention constantly claim to be "leader of the free world" while constantly removing their nations freedoms under the smokescreen created by the press at whatever "terrorist" incidents have occured.

        "oh dear, with the Patriot Act we are now the worst dictatorship of the world"

        Nope, but you're definitely among the worst of those claiming to be a democracy but acting like a dictatorship, and that list is pretty damn short.
        • by Anonymous Coward
          Nope, but you're definitely among the worst of those claiming to be a democracy but acting like a dictatorship...

          Um, no.

          For example, the Republic of Zimbabwe claims to be a democracy, but people who vote for the opposition get beaten, imprisoned, and sometimes murdered. I don't see Democrat voters being dragged away by gangs of Republican blackshirts yet.

          Then there's the People's Republic of China, where the People get sent to labour camps by their Republic if they choose the wrong religion. Last time
          • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 30, 2004 @05:30AM (#9841982)
            You are right - the list of nations that claim to be democratic and act otherwise is pretty long.

            But the list of nations that claim to be the best democracy whatsoever and that feel entitled to liberate other countries on the fly [killing thousands and thousands - without couting them btw] ... while acting otherwise; well that list is much shorter.

      • by Trent05 ( 70375 )
        Good call.

        I wonder why there aren't "Animal Farm" awards.
      • I love the doublethink that most Americans have about Cuba. Human rights abuses by Cuba on Cuban soil are heinous crimes but human rights abuses by the US on Cuban soil (Camp X-Ray) are a good thing.

        But, hey, it's only hypocrisy, right?
      • I think the problem is that none of the people you list have much world wide reach. The U.S. has soldiers and FBI agents in a remarkably large number of countries around the world thanks to the excuse of the "War on Terror" in particular.

        The U.S. has declared its willingness to take preemptive action against anyone and any country it "suspects" of being a threat to the U.S. or its citizens.

        Ashcroft has been bending the Patriot Act to give him jurisdiction over anything he considers to be a criminal act a
  • My favourites (Score:3, Insightful)

    by manavendra ( 688020 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:30AM (#9841574) Homepage Journal
    #1: US-Visit [dhs.gov]. This security program requires that most foreign visitors traveling to the United States on a visa have their index fingers digitally scanned and a digital photograph taken, so that immigration officers can verify their identity before the visitors are allowed entry into the United States - yeah right! that should stop Osama Bin Laden from getting in !!

    #2: British gas [house.co.uk] - privacy rules prevented it from helping an elderly couple who were found dead of hypothermia in their home last winter, weeks after their gas service was cut off due to nonpayment of a 140-pound ($255) bill. - yes, this can happen only in good ol' england

    Also rans:

    1. Vodafone - which blocks customers from logging onto adult websites through their phone handsets
    2. Lloyds TSB - which has been demanding that customers present themselves at their local branch office with proper photo ID or face having their bank accounts frozen.
    • Re:My favourites (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Veridium ( 752431 )
      You beat me on mentioning British gas.

      Man, what kind of a sick culture do we have that things like that go on? I know, I know, I know that there are many worse humanitarian crimes happening around the world in terms of magnitude, but this is pretty damned depraved.

      I guess I shouldn't blame my culture, since I'm a yank and not in England, but something tells me American corps would pull something like that if they could get away with it. Maybe I've just grown too cynical.
      • Re:My favourites (Score:3, Informative)

        by Veridium ( 752431 )
        After reading this:
        http://www.eurosceptic.com/sources_of_information/ articles/Elderly_couple_died_after_gas_was_cut_off .htm [eurosceptic.com]

        It really doesn't seem fair to blame British Gas. I agree with the other posters after reading about this incident, I don't see why British Gas gets the award.
        • Re:My favourites (Score:5, Insightful)

          by JonnyCalcutta ( 524825 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @04:52AM (#9841859)
          I completely disagree. But then it wasn't really explained well enough, I think for non-Brits to understand the problem.
          Yes, maybe BG were justified in cutting them off and maybe they followed the procedures to the letter, but after cutting off the gas supply to a couple who are both over 85 years of age they informed no-one. They then claimed that they wanted to tell someone in authority but were prevented by the Data Protection Act (the law in the UK that companies must follow when dealing with data they hold about private citizens). Now this might be strictly true, or actually a bit of a grey area, but these are peoples lives they are dealing with - old people who are perhaps not as able to look after themselves as well as they used to. Perhaps they couldn't get out the house to pay their bills - perhaps they could, but to say that you couldn't inform anyone because of the Data Protection Act is a bit like saying you couldn't drag someone out of a burning building because you would be guilty of 'breaking and entering'. Its strictly true but in spirit its not.

          In the UK we call these kind of people 'jobsworths' - the kind of person who says things like 'I'd love to help you, but its more than my job's worth'

          • Re:My favourites (Score:3, Interesting)

            by gl4ss ( 559668 )
            well if the award is about being inhumane or whatever like that then they would be worth it.

            but giving them an award about INVADING PRIVACY when they stood from doing that way too far.. it's just stupid.

            those elderly people should not have been living on their own anyways if they were unable to pay the gas and after that unable(or too shamed) to ask for help they should have been deemed unfit to take care of themselfs anyways...

            this is a case where the society *should* have acted more like a big brother.
    • Re:My favourites (Score:2, Interesting)

      by beuges ( 613130 )
      The South African government passed laws about 2 years ago, requiring that all personal bank accounts be verified in person by the accout holder by providing an original ID book, as well as proof of residential address, in the form of an account (phone, electricity, water, etc) or a tax return. Accountholders who did not provide the information by the deadline (which was June30 or something) faced having their accounts frozen.

      Of course, in the weeks before the deadline, everyone realised that a very tiny
    • Invasive? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pjt33 ( 739471 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:48AM (#9841654)
      I agree that British Gas was in the wrong, but how is failure to act "invasive"? Or is "Most Invasive Company" a misnomer for "Worst Company"?
      • Re:Invasive? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Keebler71 ( 520908 )
        Exactly... it sounds to me that British Gas behaved exactly as any privacy group would -hope- they would. They didn't divuldge customer payment info to a third party. Obviously, when under scrutiny, British Gas claimed that they were simply upholding privacy law. The only rationale I can see for awarding them a negative award is out of pure spite because the company correctly actually cited a specific example of a negative consequence to privacy laws.

        Makes you wonder about this organizations credibility

    • Re:My favourites (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alasdair ( 213627 )

      #2: British gas - privacy rules prevented it from helping an elderly couple who were found dead of hypothermia in their home last winter, weeks after their gas service was cut off due to nonpayment of a 140-pound ($255) bill.

      So British Gas gets an "Invasive" award for not passing personal information to the state? But Margaret Hodge gets a "Worst Public Servant" awards for requiring the National Health Service to pass personal information to the state?

      This is having your cake and eating it. The defence

      • bzzzt wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ewe2 ( 47163 )

        Since when did the sharing of information guarantee that the use of it would be for the good of all? Someone knew and did nothing, how would sharing make a difference?

        There have been well-publicised instances where knowledge of a potentially fatal situation was shared by government departments and their contracted private counterparts, and the only difference was that each party blamed the other instead of claiming they had no information. One example of this fresh in many Australian minds is the story of

  • U.S.-Visit? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sinnfeiner1916 ( 793749 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:36AM (#9841595) Homepage
    How is this "big brother"ish? We are just supposed to let foriegners in willy-nilly to trapse about and not know anything about them? Hello!! Defense of borders is part of maintaining soverignty...since when is that "orwellian?" The fact that the US has computers to help just means that we have a better chance than the Roman Empire. This is not a troll, I really believe this is a basic, common-sense thing. Maintaining the integrity of the borders is a basic function of ALL government.
    • Re:U.S.-Visit? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:44AM (#9841634)
      We are just supposed to let foriegners in willy-nilly to trapse about and not know anything about them?

      No, that's why you have passports and visa requirements. Why do you need fingerprints and a mugshot?

      ..since when is that "orwellian?"

      Since the data will be kept in a database in a "foreign" country where the person whom the details refer to has no legal recourse to oversee the data. How will I know who will use the data in the US-Visit database? How can I stop them when I'm not in the US? I can't.

      Defense of borders is part of maintaining soverignty

      Great, you're correct, but US-Visit does nothing of the sort. You do realise that none of the September 11th hijackers used false documents to enter the US, right? They all used their own passports issued in their own names. They would have been allowed entry under US-Visit; the only difference is that their fingerprints and mugshots would have been in a database. What use would a fingerprint have been to the authorities at 9am, September 11th, 2001?
      • Since the data will be kept in a database in a "foreign" country where the person whom the details refer to has no legal recourse to oversee the data. How will I know who will use the data in the US-Visit database? How can I stop them when I'm not in the US? I can't.

        There is also the problem of the US lacking any data protection legislation. Hence US based entities making a big song and dance about "privacy policies". This means that there is no requirment for such data to be kept secret or even accurate.
        • Re:U.S.-Visit? (Score:3, Informative)

          by dcw3 ( 649211 )
          There is also the problem of the US lacking any data protection legislation.

          What exactly would you call this?
          http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/privstat.htm
      • How will I know who will use the data in the US-Visit database?

        Seeing as the data consists of a picture and finger scan, it'll most probably be sold to advertisers of skin care products, using advanced image analysis tehniques to determine what products certain individuals might need.

        "Hey, this kid has acne! Let's send him some sample treatments!", or "This dude has dry skin, let's sell him some moisturizer!"

        What, you don't think the dermatology industry doesn't have its well-cared-for hands on the

      • No, that's why you have passports and visa requirements. Why do you need fingerprints and a mugshot?

        While I doubt the grandparent post has personal need of either, obviously figerprints and a mugshot are used to identify criminals after the fact.

        Since the data will be kept in a database in a "foreign" country where the person whom the details refer to has no legal recourse to oversee the data. How will I know who will use the data in the US-Visit database? How can I stop them when I'm not in the US? I ca

      • Re:U.S.-Visit? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Keebler71 ( 520908 )
        You do realise that none of the September 11th hijackers used false documents to enter the US, right? They all used their own passports issued in their own names. They would have been allowed entry under US-Visit; the only difference is that their fingerprints and mugshots would have been in a database. What use would a fingerprint have been to the authorities at 9am, September 11th, 2001?

        Only partially true, try a google news search for "9-11 false passport". Their passports may have been in their name

    • Re:U.S.-Visit? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
      -- Benjamin Franklin, "Historical Review of Pennsylvania", 1759

      "Maintaining the integrity of the borders is a basic function of ALL government."

      which is why the US has always operated a visa system.

      did you know that "for our convenience" our records will be kept? we can be tracked while in your country? ooooh, let's go relax in florida where we can be spied on...
      i have friends
      • i have friends in the states i would love to visit. i love shopping in the states. but i will not go to the states if i am going to be treated like a criminal before i even get there.

        In the United States, when a person seeks certification to become a teacher, the person has to have a background check, a mug shot, and a finger-printing. This is done for the safety of children in school. Naturally we don't want child molestors in our schools, or psychotic killers either. However, I have never felt that I was

      • Keeping people out (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Craig Ringer ( 302899 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @06:44AM (#9842224) Homepage Journal
        Agreed.

        It's not just keeping tourists and individuals visiting family out either. It's pushing conferences and conventions away.

        My father and his (Belgian) wife visited the US during the recent "Freedom Fries" period. My stepmother was delayed at EACH DOMESTIC AIRPORT for a full luggage and personal search. She got funny looks at cafes when she spoke. It was apparently really creepy.

        It wasn't just that either, though. Even when not with my stepmother, my (Australian) father mentioned that he was often made to feel very uncomfortable and "foreign," especially when at hotels, airports, etc.

        They left the country three days into their planned three week trip, cancelling attendance at a conference and several workshops. Not that long after they got back (having continued travelling around Europe), the news of the VISIT stuff came out.

        Neither they, nor I (who visited in a saner time), intend to visit the USA again. My god, what if Australia does something policically unpopular while I'm there!

        My father, before he left, was in the early processes of planning a conference on group psychology and outdoor education, with a tentative venue of Three Springs in the US. They are now seeking a European venue.

        This isn't even computer / IT / security related stuff. They're not moving because they're afraid their delegates might be refused entry or arrested and held without charge. Nope, they're moving because they're not willing to go back - and NEITHER ARE MANY OF THE POTENTIAL SPEAKERS.

        So yeah, I think this will cause serious, long term harm. I don't think it can harm good will and trust for the USA - that's all gone anyway - but it can help isolate its professional communities more, force Americans to travel overseas more to visit conferences and professional events, and harm tourism severely.

        What gets me is that it doesn't even help security. It's like a statement that "we believe that our citizens will feel more secure if we treat all foreigners like criminals."
    • How is this "big brother"ish? We are just supposed to let foriegners in willy-nilly to trapse about and not know anything about them? Hello!! Defense of borders is part of maintaining soverignty

      I don't recall any reports of the US building a "wall" to protect its borders with Canada and Mexico. It's rather pointless to have all this "security" at ports when someone can simply walk across the border anyway.
    • Well, yes, maintaining borders is the function of all gouvernment.

      Just a little comparison.

      Eastern Germany was a bad orwellian Tyranny. About 200 people died on it's borders in the 28 years of the wall and the Iron curtain was up.

      Well, that's about the number of people dying on the American-Mexican border every month.
  • Speed Cameras (Score:5, Informative)

    by fbrain ( 758421 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:41AM (#9841620)
    The Department for Transport won runner-up for its electronic vehicle-identification program, currently under development. Known as the Spy in the Dashboard, the program will embed microprocessor chips into cars. The chips would automatically report any instances of speeding, illegal parking and other grievous offenses to authorities, who would follow up with a summons.

    We already have cameras logging every vehicle that drives into London, cameras logging the time it take you vehicle to drive between two points and issuing a sumons, car tax cameras that issue a sumons when its out of date, GATSO camera that automaticly issue sumons, Digital GATSOs and so much more! Also in the area I live in (Bristol) the police equip old ladies with speed guns, and they take down your number plate if your speeding, you don't get a fine just a nasty letter.

    Are there any things like this in the states?

    BTW. Some guy got his fined nulled because they took a picture of him face on and he was in the car with his lover, this played on some european privacy law.
    • by RMH101 ( 636144 )
      you may have noticed the increase in "Please allow for the short delay in dispensing petrol whilst we record your car registration number" signs at petrol stations in the UK. what you might not realise is that if you're in Birmingham, they're hooked up to the automatic licence plate id scheme, and ALL car regs are sent to the Birmingham Metropolitain Police - 3000 per hour. You don't have to have been doing anything wrong, they just get a free intelligence feed allowing them to further track your progress
    • Re:Speed Cameras (Score:5, Informative)

      by panurge ( 573432 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @04:00AM (#9841704)
      Yes, there are. Despite the Constitution, data protection is weaker in the US than in Europe. Although the UK does not have a Constitution, as a member of the EU it is required to subscribe to the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which the last time I heard wasn't ratified by the US. (In fact, there is a real issue with EU law not allowing personal data to be sent to insecure countries, and I am amazed that UK corporations are allowed to outsource customer service to countries like India because of it.) IN the US, private corporations keep detailed records on you, and the US Govt. spends approx. $40 billion a year on various security agencies, though, as the Senate has recently reported, a lot of it is wasted.

      This isn't a troll, just statement of fact, and I can't resist adding another fact. Years ago in the 80s, I used to work with two Englishmen who had spent a roughly equal amount of time (months)working in the US and the Soviet Union, in the Detroit auto industry and at Akademgorodok. They both insisted that there was actually more individualism and freedom in the bit of the Soviet Union they had visited than in the US. A lot less material prosperity, perhaps, but more real freedom to be an individual. I know this is heresy, but I'm just reporting. I also wonder if the climate that far East was very different from Moscow.

      I found it difficult to argue with this point of view because the only country in the world where I have ever had a gun pointed at me is the US, and that by a security guard; and the only countries in the world where I have ever been fingerprinted and sniffed for drugs are the US and Mexico. (I won't get started on Mexico, except to say that every time I think of the place, the words "shit" and "hole" spring to mind.)

      • In fact, there is a real issue with EU law not allowing personal data to be sent to insecure countries, and I am amazed that UK corporations are allowed to outsource customer service to countries like India because of it

        I believe the clause states something along the lines of "either the country must have equal data protection laws in place, or the company must make a special effort to comply with UK data protection laws no matter where the data is". Without the latter part of the clause, they would not

      • It's not the UN Declaration on Human Rights that's relevant, but the Direction on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data.

        OTOH, the government which passed the corresponding legislation into English law was the current Labour government, yet I'm not convinced that Labour's Big Conversation website compiles, despite that fact that when I pointed this out to my (Labour) MP she replied that their legal advice is that it does comply. There doesn't appear to be a single legal

    • Re:Speed Cameras (Score:4, Informative)

      by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @04:29AM (#9841799)
      Also in the area I live in (Bristol)

      I live in Bristol as well. Note that they include "illegal parking" in the list of offences.

      As any Slashdot reader who's spent any length of time in Bristol (UK) will know, the local traffic wardens are vicious. I've seen people who weren't causing an obstruction towed away at 7:30AM on a Sunday. They've towed cars away while the owner was watching - even in cases where the owner was a woman with a young child. Once the wheels leave the ground, the car is towed - even if you show up to protest.

      Oh yes, and they don't always check that the vehicle is actually parked illegally. There are (anecdotal) cases of legally parked cars being towed away.

      And now cars will automatically report when they're illegally parked? Ouch.
    • Re:Speed Cameras (Score:3, Informative)

      by AGMW ( 594303 )
      And the latest scam from the UK government? They are talking about charging drivers by the mile, with different rates depending on where you are and at what time of day - so more expensive in congested areas.

      The kicker is they are intending to use GPS [bbc.co.uk] in everyone's cars to see where you are. Nice little earner for the State! I wonder if they thought it'd be nice to know where everyone is first, then thought about charging for road use second!

      This really deserves a Big Brother award.

    • Are there any things like this in the states?
      Someone told me that they did try Gatso cameras in certain states, but it turned out they had some problems not encountered in Europe. It seems that these cameras make excellent targets to practice ones drive-by shootings on, for one. :p
  • Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZorbaTHut ( 126196 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:41AM (#9841621) Homepage
    "British Gas was cited as the Most Invasive Company, after it declared that U.K. privacy rules prevented it from helping an elderly couple who were found dead of hypothermia in their home last winter, weeks after their gas service was cut off due to nonpayment of a 140-pound ($255) bill."

    How is this invasive? It sounds like the exact opposite. I'll admit it's a bit obsessive, but behavior like this is exactly what privacy is all about.

    Turn it around - would it be better if British Gas had notified all the welfare groups when the bill didn't arrive? "Hello, welfare groups! These people might be poor! Sic 'em!" Isn't this just a step away from notifying alcoholics-anonymous and drug rehab clinics whenever they see evidence of beer or pot?

    I have to admit, I really don't see what British Gas could have done here better, aside from keep providing gas despite these people not paying.

    Now, "most unfeeling", sure, I'll buy that. But this is about as far from invasive as it gets.
    • don't worry, the guys in charge of the awards are probably just fucktards. they probably haven't even read 1984 and just like to use it to prop up their dumb-fuckery.
    • Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by L-s-L69 ( 700599 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @04:23AM (#9841787)
      The case in question was a little more complex. The couple where not poor, they where in fact quite wealthy. They where however elderly and obviously confused. British gas was negligent in not helping them and used the data protection excuse to try to remove responsibility. Also to aid the removal of data protection laws that limit what they would like to do with our information.
    • Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lxdbxr ( 655786 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @04:45AM (#9841845) Homepage
      "British Gas was cited as the Most Invasive Company, after it declared that U.K. privacy rules prevented it from helping an elderly couple who were found dead of hypothermia in their home last winter, weeks after their gas service was cut off due to nonpayment of a 140-pound ($255) bill." How is this invasive? It sounds like the exact opposite. I'll admit it's a bit obsessive, but behavior like this is exactly what privacy is all about.

      As I understand it the reason they got the award was not for killing those old people, or invading privacy as such, but rather because in an attempt to shift blame they tried to say that the Data Protection Act [informatio...ner.gov.uk] meant they could not inform Social Services that they had cut off the gas in the depths of winter. This was a bullshit excuse as the Information Commissioner pointed out, and was one of several cases (see the Soham murders [bbc.co.uk]) where various incompetents found it convenient to blame their stupidity on the Act.

      In my opinion the DPA is one of the best pieces of legislation to have been created in the UK in the past 20 years. Unfortunately the current UK government, together with the EU Commission and us.gov is working to essentially destroy the act by having the USA declared a "Safe Harbour" for data transfers - ridiculous as there are almost no personal data protections in the USA at all (especially for non-US citizens).

  • The funny thing is the article submitter's URL links to a site with porn made for mobile phones. The article mentions how Vodaphone blocks porn websites from being displayed on mobile phones unless the user has the block removed.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:46AM (#9841642)
    I watch 24/7 webcams from dorm girls...

    That's what big brother is about, isn't it.
  • Don't worry. In my eyes they are all winners. It's like the person playing with his gun and accidently shoots himself. But he misses and survives so can't be a "Darwin Award" recipient. You either make it closed to 1984 or you don't.
  • Suck this (Score:3, Funny)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:48AM (#9841652) Journal
    Normally this award is reserved for the British

    Yeah, well atleast we can still swear on TV, drink at 18, protest without being pepper sprayed and burn our (and your) flags ;)
  • Stupidest IMHO (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mirko ( 198274 )
    The Department for Transport won runner-up for its electronic vehicle-identification program, currently under development. Known as the Spy in the Dashboard, the program will embed microprocessor chips into cars. The chips would automatically report any instances of speeding, illegal parking and other grievous offenses to authorities, who would follow up with a summons.

    Most cars have electronic injection, instead of sneakily lurking on them until they commit a money-costing fault, it'd be much more intell
  • Automated tickets (Score:5, Insightful)

    by centipetalforce ( 793178 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @03:54AM (#9841677)
    "The chips would
    automatically report any instances of speeding, illegal parking and other grievous offenses to authorities, who would follow up with a summons."
    Grievous offences? Like what, smoking reefer? Talking on the cell phone? Operating an unlicensed ham radio? Talking to yourself? Picking your nose? Of all things Ive read in the article, this is the most disturbing. Not just because it presumes guilt before innocence, but also because the sole purpose of it is to generate revenue. They really don't give a fsck about whether you're driving fast and safe or slow and dangerous... it's all about pumping money from your pocket into their hands. What really makes me sick is it's not about safety at all, its all about the green.
    • I think the "grievous offences" bit was added by the big brother guys as an oh-so-witty sarcastic aside.

      "...don't give a fsck about whether you're driving fast and safe or slow and dangerous"

      This is the idiotic argument that the Clarkson brigade bring up all the time in the UK over speed cameras. It basically boils down to "I'm a good driver, I should be allowed to speed". Breaking the speed limit is illegal and dangerous - why should anyone be able to decide they're good enough to not obey the law.

    • That's nothing, a friend was asked to sign a 'government' housing contract that said he could be evicted for:

      Using the house for imorral perpouses( I read this as praying to the wrong god, or at the wrong time of day).

      Taking any flamable substance into the house (I read this as, the house must be flodded with freon gas, and he must not let any air in, god help anyone who spontaionlasly combusts, or frats).

      Being known to the police, or something to that effect, basicly, if you talk to the police, without
    • The only thing that bothers me about that is the tracking. Frankly, I'm increasingly feeling that on the roads there is a need for better enforcement of the rules. (Note: I'm a cyclist. Getting almost killed by f**ing idiots every day tends to make me a bit of a road nazi).

      So long as the device is not and CAN NOT be used for tracking (either real time, at pre-placed points, or after the fact if no offense is recorded) and it does not bypass the right to contest the penalty, then yeah - I can deal with such
  • Vaguely on topic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi@yahoA ... inus threevowels> on Friday July 30, 2004 @04:59AM (#9841876) Journal
    So when is Slashdot going to post a comprehensive privacy policy, with questions answered like, "How anonymous is Anonymous Coward?", "When does Slashdot sell/give/release my info to third parties?", "Under what circumstances are posts edited, removed or otherwise tampered with?"

    It seems odd that there is no mention of this in the FAQ, yet we have a 'YRO' section.

  • Most Appalling Project was awarded to Britain's National Health Service electronic medical records program, which aims to computerize patient records in a way that some have protested is insecure and will compromise patient privacy.

    How is this most appalling project? Sounds to me like a perfectly legitimate move from paper filing to electronic filing. I understand that people are paranoid about hackers, but there are several ways to do this right that would be at least as secure as paper trails. It doesn't
    • The problem occurs when you have a situation like Switzerland did a few years back; the results of AIDS tests were mistakenly made available to health insurance companies without the consent of the individuals involved. I don't remember the exact specifics of the case, and am open to corrections, so caveat emptor.

      Health insurance is mandatory here, meaning that nobody can refuse you basic coverage, and paid by the private individual, with the cost dependent on your age, sex, where you live, and your healt
  • Runner-up in this category was mobile-phone company Vodafone, which blocks customers from logging onto adult websites through their phone handsets in order, the company says, to protect mobile-phone-toting, porn-seeking children.

    This is a tad harse when you consider that the government has basically told all mobile phone service providers in the UK that they should block adult content to all minors "voluntarily" or face laws that force them to do so.

    All the other providers are, unsurprisingly, geering u

  • by waldorf+statler ( 730457 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @05:58AM (#9842076)
    Privacy is a lot like network security. It can only be fully gained by complete isolation. A computer accessible only by sneaker-net is the most likely to be categorized as private and secure.

    Privacy had a different definition 50 years ago because the duality of information sharing had not been realized. When we are able to type a few keystrokes and expect that megabytes of information be returned to us in milliseconds from someone else's hold on data, why shouldn't we expect to sacrifice our hold on data to a proportionate degree? Privacy, as we know it, is not possible now. It is not possible because our growing need as individuals for information and knowledge absolutely and completely overrides what we have known as privacy.

    Privacy advocates mean well, and it's good to have a voice saying "No cameras in my bathroom, please" and "No, my social security number should not be tattooed on my forehead" but the line between utility and futility for these arguments is constantly shifting toward futility. As technology progresses there will be more arguments that need to be made, but many traditional arguments will continue to suffer loss of relevance.

    Government agencies can know whatever they want about me. I don't care. If I had something to hide from them, then those agencies have the duty (What was it called? Oh yeah, a law) to know and act on that knowledge.

    Yes, I use the discount cards at the grocery store. I don't understand why SafeWay needs to know how many bars of soap and frozen pizzas I buy, but I don't care.

    If privacy really is such a big necessity, then one must realize that it's a two-way street and that expectations of knowledge-sharing on the part of others needs to be curbed.

  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Friday July 30, 2004 @06:04AM (#9842104)
    When people have a problem with something they go to their government (usually the highest one) and say "Hey Fix it, this is bad!" so after the government hears a lot of people say it is a problem so they find a way to fix it. In many of these cases it requires us to loose rights and privacy. It is not really the governments fault they try to listen to the people and react to their needs.
    Lets use an example in America. Americans are going "We Need better education!" And they will wright to their congress person and to president. (While education is primarily controlled by the state and local governments). So these people are hearing a lot of people complaining about different things because in each state and counties there are different issues. Hearing that Education is important to the US Voters and hear that a lot of people want federal control of education. So the federal government makes a set of generic rules, that no one really likes because it mixes a lot of different needs and many are contradictory into one law (No Child left behind act.). This brings up the question on why are all these concerned people not going to their state and local government trying to bring there concerns to them where there is a better chance of getting a better solution, deals with the concerns of the area, which is cheaper, and is enacted a lot quicker.

    If people stopped dumping all there problems on big government and start solving it for themselves and if there is really nothing they alone can do about it then go to the local government and work up. Yes it is more work but there is a better chance of finding a solution to the problem that may not be evil.
  • From TFA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pipingguy ( 566974 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @06:17AM (#9842134)

    "...We are seeing a race to the bottom..."

    Sounds familiar...

    Every time I read the buggy whip analogy from someone that has a good-paying job I am reminded of Boston and tea for some reason. I'm one of those guys that realizes that a large part of the "white collar" workforce is pretty much daycare for adults.

    Face it, high-paying jobs that are not manual labour-related are being eliminated by software (if not yours yet, just wait a bit) because 11 or 13 of the best thinkers sat down and figured out everything about your job and the best way to do it. Then they put all that stuff into software. Push buttons much?

    Replacing manual labour is one thing; replacing your thought processes is another (after all, software designed by geniuses in your field can do a better job than you could ever do).

    The sooner we come to terms with this the better. It's easier to ostritch though and assume that the displaced will all become rock stars or move onto the mythical future world where people can devote their energies towards inventing stuff and getting creative and get everyone else to make the stuff they imagineer.

    I still don't know where I fit in in this new economy. Am I replaceable by a simple shell script as the T-shirt says [thinkgeek.com], and if so, why am I working? To fulfill some antiquated. puritan-inspired notion of work ethic and keep my nose to the grindstone so that I please my masters?

    Someone please enlighten me without referencing "want fries with that?" or saying that I (and millions of others) will just "move on to the idea economy". Everyone knows that there can only be so many idea people.

    Bah, maybe I'm just being too pessimistic and should lighten-up.

    = =
    No sig, Pepsi.
    • by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @07:14AM (#9842328)
      It is true that this world is run by those who wish to see you enslaved, and who have devised a system where if you play by the rules, you lose.

      But that doesn't mean you have to play by them.

      There are lots of ways out. If you have locked yourself into a certain set of parameters which you feel are impossible to break, then you are probably chumped. But if you have a working brain, a back, two legs and a set of hands, then you can pretty much do whatever you want. I'm an example, and I know of many others who have worked out the puzzle and live their light comfortably and without fear. --Little known secret; the economy is so big and complex that long ago it became a matter of belief; the health of the economy is based entirely on what people believe. This is true whether everybody agrees or not.

      Anyway, just ask yourself, "What do you want to do?" Pick the creative endeavor which fascinates you and takes the least effort; (and by effort, I'm not talking about elbow grease, which you'll need; I'm talking about the get-up-and-go factor. That which you are supposed to be doing in this life will drive you and not the other way around. Once you find it, everything will run smoothly.)

      Once you settle down and figure out which way your internal loadstone is pointing, go out and follow it. Couldn't be simpler.

      The universe will provide you with the means. I see it work like this every day. You have to have faith, and you have to recognize that opportunity isn't just knocking, it's pounding at the door. Don Juan called it the, 'cubic centimeter of opportunity'. True; being able to jump at the moment is important, but Don Juan was always a little too morbid for me; it's also true that there are lots of cubic centimeters flying around all the time. And slow-moving cubic meters, too. The trick is believing that you are worthy, which the instant you move to get involved in your path, you are.

      Intent and Faith are two of the most powerful and misunderstood tools humanity has ever had access to. Part of the control system has been to fool all the nerds into believing that such things don't exist. Once that was achieved, people instantly became cattle.

      Are you a man or a burger? Make up your mind, because whether you want to hear it or not, somebody is going to want fries with that. And they'll get them too if you don't wake up and get the heck off the grill.

      Oh, and the clue you have that I'm not full of shit is that I'm not asking for $29.95

      I'd wish you good luck, but you don't need it.


      -FL

  • by zensmile ( 78430 ) on Friday July 30, 2004 @07:30AM (#9842423)

    It sometimes amazes me the bullshit that I read on a daily basis. Lately, there has been this odd reoccurrence in the media that has left me a bit aghast. It seems that the old fear of Orwell's (in the book 1984) was that jack-booted government thugs would come down and "re-educate" the masses who did not go along with their ideology. It was a common theme that has been analyzed repeatedly over the past 20 years.

    But what is really amazing to me is the group responsible for the actual indoctrination and re-education of the masses. Twenty years ago, it was the government and some vast right-wing organization who were painted as the evil ones. But in reality it is the lefties and their hydra-like organizations. Just look at two instances of political correctness and the big-brother speak that flourishes:

    CSULB students angered by flyer [csulb.edu] - In this instance, the students are to under go cultural sensitivity indoctrination. "...mandatory attendance for all organizations at the Cultural Awareness Fair."

    Mascot Mishap [statenews.com] - This is a similar instance of a politically correct "no-no". The people involved wiil be re-educated and shown the true meaning of happiness through being politically correct. "Members of the foundation agreed to...attend a sensitivity training session to learn about diversity."

    It seems that if you don't think and act like the hive mind on the left...you are doomed to "re-education" and indoctrination of some sort. For those that do not follow these PC rules...you will be branded a harbinger of hate and a bigot.

    Here is another example...

    "At the conference, students in the college learned the importance of firm handshakes and direct eye contact when meeting with potential employers. When a student of color raised concerns that her culture does not encourage such interactions, a comment by Springfield school district's Director of Human Resources Roger Jordan was perceived to be culturally insensitive. Jordan said he had explained what he calls "the blemish effect," which is something that might distract a potential employer during the interviewing process, such as cultural differences. He said the meaning was misconstrued and that he did not intend to propose that the student's culture was a blemish."

    I really don't get it. They are being taught how to conduct themselves in an interview and possibly land a job here in the States. They don't like the fact that what they are being taught does not jibe with their culture in their own country, so they take offense and are probably hyper-sensitive about the entire situation. Of course, the school will use the following tactics to "right any wrong" that was committed:

    * The creation of a 5-year plan to address the issues;
    * standardized and enforced procedures for handling complaints;
    * and diversity training for staff and faculty.

    I think that my biggest problem with the whole situation is that the school actually has a "Bias Response Team". Political correctness run amok. Common sense is missing in this whole situation and the diversity police (or the Bias Response Team, in this case) come to the rescue and mandate forced re-education. Lovely.

  • by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavis&ubasics,com> on Friday July 30, 2004 @08:01AM (#9842640) Homepage Journal
    Our australian friends can read Orwell's 1984 [gutenberg.net.au] at Project Gutenberg of Australia [gutenberg.net.au].

    Us poor sods in the USA have to wait, what, another 70 years or so? Who knows anymore. It's safer and easier to assume we can't do something than it is to assume that we can...

    -Adam

Your password is pitifully obvious.

Working...