backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 114 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Jan 10 at 10:51 AM

Aided by cutting edge technologies, governments demonstrate little restraint in tracking their citizens

2006 and 2007 proved to be dismal years for privacy advocates, as governments the world over showed little restraint in their deployments of the latest surveillance technologies.

Privacy International released its 2007 annual International Privacy Rankings on December 28, and the results are chilling. The report is based on the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s September 2007 1,100-page “Privacy & Human Rights” report, which Privacy International called the “single most comprehensive single volume report in the human rights field.”

Among the survey’s 47 ranked countries, not a single nation improved its rating over 2006’s rankings; each country either maintained the previous year’s classification or fell further towards a “surveillance state.” Well over half of the ranked countries were ranked at or below a ranking of “systemic failure to uphold [privacy] safeguards,” with a significant number of countries featuring “extensive” or “endemic” surveillance societies.

The temptations of surveillance seduced even the most stalwart of privacy-supporting countries, with the “adequate safeguards against abuse” ranking dropping from five countries – Greece, Germany, Belgium, Austria, and Canada in 2006 – to just one: Greece.

Concerns over border control and threat of terrorism dominated surveillance-oriented initiatives, with “all citizens, regardless of legal status,” increasingly “under suspicion.” Globalization and technological progress are the biggest enablers, and 2007 saw the rise of a number of international agreements that allow for surveillance outside normal judicial limits.

Most notably, Privacy International named the United States as the “worst ranking country in the democratic world” in terms of statutory privacy protections and enforcement. The United States’ lack of constitutional privacy protections, plus the FTC’s inadequate attention towards privacy matters, the growth of biometric databases, and implementation of ever-more pervasive ID systems, led Privacy International to classify the US as an “endemic surveillance society” with rankings that placed it lower than both India and the Philippines.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 2:12:47 PM , Rating: 4
This is one of the reasons I'll be voting for either Paul or Obama in the next elections...




RE: Election
By djcameron on 1/7/2008 2:22:24 PM , Rating: 3
Paul would be a good choice for privacy issues, but I'll betcha Obama turns out to be just like all the others.


RE: Election
By Wightout on 1/7/2008 4:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that...


RE: Election
By Ryanman on 1/7/2008 6:26:03 PM , Rating: 4
Is this really anything of a surprise?
We constantly have FitCamaro and Mdoggs on here saying that they're willing to sacrifice freedom for security. And they're not the only ones either, just the ones I notice.
When are you all going to understand that you're LOSING more security than you're gaining? Are you really more scared of a religious fanatic with an AK than a power-hungry president? Which one has more power? The terrorist can kill a couple people, while the president can enslave you... tell you what you can and can't do on a wide scale. Those who dismiss an argument like this as conspiracy theories need to read a history book. And, time permitting, the report that's mentioned in the article.

Wake up Americans. Your rights are leaving. They're leaving slowly, they're leaving secretly, and while you have your money you won't care. But once that's gone what will you have left? Everyone needs to think about their priorities when we "elect" our officials, or we're all going to find ourselves singing Newspeak in no time.


RE: Election
By FITCamaro on 1/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Election
By mdogs444 on 1/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Election
By FITCamaro on 1/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 3:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
In all honesty, I'd rather them tax us more and have a balanced budget, than have republicans spend money that didn't exist yesterday.

I hate taxes, but the policies of Bush are much more harmful to the economy / currency.


RE: Election
By mdogs444 on 1/7/2008 3:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
Bush is not a true conservative, or a fiscal conservative. Hes a republican by means of social policy (with the exception of trying to give amnesty to illegals), but he is by no means a fiscal conservative. In fact, he actually spends like a democrat.


RE: Election
By BMFPitt on 1/7/2008 4:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, he actually spends like a democrat.
He couldn't help it... That huge Democratic majority in Congress from 2001-2006 kept sending him giant, pork-filled spending bills.


RE: Election
By ksuWildcat on 1/7/2008 4:12:09 PM , Rating: 3
LOL! I always find it ironic that Republicans complain about Democratic spending, while racking up a huge national debt themselves.


RE: Election
By murphyslabrat on 1/7/2008 4:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
The Republican's are right, the Democrats do spend a lot. However, it isn't their fault for being politicians, it really comes down to the United States citizens not being willing to cut expensive social programs. Though, Republican's are not innocent either, they too are politicians.


RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 4:13:36 PM , Rating: 3
Democratic majority? I think you need to look at who controlled congress before you post.

Also, the republican party has turned away from being fiscally conservative. The only presidents who have had a balanced budget in recent history were all democrats. Record deficits were reached under the recent republicans.

BTW, I'm an independent.


RE: Election
By ksuWildcat on 1/7/2008 4:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that BMFPitt was being sarcastic...


RE: Election
By Murst on 1/7/2008 4:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
Doh... it sure does sound like it ;)

My bad.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 3:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
> In all honesty, I'd rather them tax us more and have a balanced budget, than have republicans spend money that didn't exist yesterday.


Ideally, we'd like to not have to choose between just those two options.


RE: Election
By FITCamaro on 1/7/2008 4:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO.

If you honestly think they'll balance the budget by taxing us more, you're sadly mistaken. Universal health care alone will cost hundreds of billions of dollars on top of what we're already spending. Then theres the whole "give a women who's just given birth $5000 for each baby" that Hillary wants to do.


RE: Election
By mdogs444 on 1/7/2008 4:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah the "baby bonds" - how stupid. So not only do the middle & upper class have to pay the health care and welfare costs for the poor - we always have to give them $5k for each of the 12 kids that they have in the ghetto? how stupid. Good thing that will never get enough mustard to pass.


RE: Election
By clovell on 1/7/2008 4:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's not an entirely bad idea - I mean that 5k would cover the per capita CO2 tax the UN is tossing around.

[obligatory monday /sarcasm tag]