2003 Privacy and Human Rights Survey Released 205
Privacy Digest writes "Out-Law.com, UK - Global privacy report is the most comprehensive ever . The Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International on Friday released their sixth annual Privacy and Human Rights survey which claims to be the most comprehensive survey on privacy and data protection ever published. The report reviews the state of privacy in over fifty-five countries around the world. Key topics include Total Information Awareness, the public response to the U.S.A.-Patriot Act, traveller profiling, biometric identification, and other new technologies of surveillance. Privacy and Human Rights 2003: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments is available free online or it can be purchased from the EPIC Bookstore."
Does it make any mention of ... (Score:4, Funny)
YOU INSENSITIVE CLODS!
Re:Does it make any mention of ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Does it make any mention of ... (Score:2, Interesting)
I know it's really to enforce groupthink, and keep the illusion that everyone who reads this site has the same beliefs and values.
My post wasn't meant to be funny, or at the most in an ironic sort of way. It's kind of like saying "I love freedom of speech, so everyone shut the fuck up".
Left-leaning? (Score:2)
Yeah yeah, don't do anything serious with the results...
still, people get the government they deserve.
Re:Left-leaning? (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop it (Score:4, Interesting)
But...
Privacy is not a basic human right. Not like freedom to not be murdered, beaten, or starved. There are a lot of human rights violations going on right now, but certain levels of tracking don't even show up on the human-rights-violations radar.
Sure, denial of privacy can reach extreme levels, to the point where it becomes a concern. But I think this report is a little knitpicky.
Re:Stop it (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about you, but if every book I buy, every movie I watch, every phone call I make, every e-mail I send is being watched, catalogued, and analyzed, it infringes on my liberties, and doesn't make me very damned happy.
The government does not have the right or the duty to effectively stalk its' citizens because it's "afraid".
Ben Franklin still said it best: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Kierthos
Re:Stop it (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but if every book I buy, every movie I watch, every phone call I make, every e-mail I send is being watched, catalogued, and analyzed, it infringes on my liberties, and doesn't make me very damned happy.
Yes, but from where do you infer the right to *be* happy? What can be taken away from you, while it may be called a 'right', is a privilege. We choose to call things 'rights' even though they can be taken away. For example, what right to
Re:Stop it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
You forget the option of simple, benign (or morbid) curiosity. Understandably so, since neither business nor goverment would ever have that as its motive, but it *is* a valid motivation (witness the popularity of tripe like Big Brother).
Re:Stop it (Score:5, Informative)
The government is afraid of its citizens. The citizens are afraid of their government. All Osama needs to do, now, is just to sit on the sidelines and cheer for both teams. The "war on terrorism" is really a red herring for more fundamental issues, where personal liberties are being stripped away in some futile attempt to protect us from ourselves.
Why is it that in some small towns, people are content to not even have locks on their doors out of no fear of neighbors? It seems they may soon want to install locks, but this time out of fear of government.
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
It's not even that complicated.
Power corrupts. It's that simple. Power has been abused since the beginning of time, and as long as power exists, it WILL be abused.This is why I advocate limited government. Logically, the smaller the government, the less destruction they are capable of.
At the root of the issue, government wants bigger government. It's only natural. What business executive wouldn't want to incr
Re:Stop it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop it (Score:2, Insightful)
Really?
The Constitution enumerates some rights. In that regard it may be more "precise" than the Declaration of Independence. But that is the maximum extent of that precision. The Constitution itself states that other rights exist even if not enumerated
Re:Stop it (Score:2, Interesting)
I've even heard El Rushbo say, "you don't have a right to privacy." Even Rush d
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
1. Smoke lots & lots of marijuana until you are 100% paranoid and think that everyone is out to screw you
2. Top it off with some crack so you have no idea what's going on
3. Start writing laws based on your paranoid delusions
4. Give yourself a payraise every year
Hey, a "Profit" scheme without the "?????" step.
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
I'll tell the government all my secrets if the government tells me all their secertes. Guess who's got more to hide?
Re:Stop it (Score:5, Insightful)
All "basic human rights" fall under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So while privacy may not be itself such a right, I don't feel I can act freely when my actions are monitored.
Re:Stop it (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stop it (Score:3, Interesting)
Would you be posting differently if you had an ID card in your pocket, even though that card is in NO way related to your slashdot account ?
There's a difference between being spied upon and being identifieable. Stop being paranoid
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
I don't consider ID cards a threat; I do consider TIA a threat, as well as an example of how unimportant privacy in the eyes of our government, or at least certain members of it. Slashdot login aside, am I still being paranoid?
If you want to talk about specific policies or events, ask an
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
the point I'm trying to make is that when u say I consider a high degree of privacy necessary for a free society you're linking privacy of an individual to a society. The two are indeed inseparable, but it's a two edged sword : to preserve presonal privacy, indeed you sacrifice some freedom at the level of society (e.g. society can not spy on you). On the other hand, to preserve freedom as a society, you sometimes have to s
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
Similar problems
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
I don't know where you are from, but where I live, I'm simply not likely to be arrested !
IMHO, that's what it is all about ! The USA has created a totally paranoid society where everyone is afraid of everything, including their privacy (or the potential losing of it). Apart from the times where I'm on slashdot, I rarely, if ever, feel threatened, watched upon, or being deprived in anyway of my privacy. The
Re:Stop it (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh? I think you just conveyed it pretty clearly. It's basic psychology...it's also why staring at animals in a zoo makes them edgey. You know, in nature the animals that stare the most are called predators.
Funny, how the government seems to be staring quite a bit, lately. Why is everyone so edgey?!?
Another aspect to privacy is that who hold
Re:Stop it (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that when the extreme levels happen, and becomes a concern, it is more often than not too late to make effective change.
..an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure seems to ring pretty clearly here.
Re:Stop it (Score:5, Informative)
The guys who wrote the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights [cirp.org] almost half century ago seemed to have different opinion than yours
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Re:Stop it (Score:3, Insightful)
Minnesota (and elsewhere) wants to make all medical information available in a statewide database. Who has access to it? Some say that the state will only allow access to statistics without any identification of the "patient". How long will that last?
The gov't isn't very secure. We all know that. Do you trust them? I barely trust the hospital. Who else gets this info? Insurance companies? Hospital
Re:Stop it (Score:2, Insightful)
"Sorry Mr. Doh, your claim has been denied since your shopping history indicates that you gave yourself diabetes with excessive amounts of ice cream and chocolate sodas."
Far-fetched? Maybe...
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
It is. The poster was making either a misinformed or manipulated statement. Minnesota is making that information available in a purely anonymous way. The MN state government doesn't even have names or SSNs or any identifying information for each set of information. Just info on the reason the person was at the hospital.
This is perfectly justifiable, and possibly good, since it would help in infection control. If a large trend of people in an area started ge
European Convention on Human Rights (Score:5, Informative)
Just to get a more official view:
Quoted from European Convention on Human Rights [coe.int] (available in several languages)
Re:European Convention on Human Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow. Couldn't they have given the government a little wiggle room? I mean, talk about tying them up in a straight jacket to protect citizens' rights!
Seriously though, thats 6 holes big
Re:European Convention on Human Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
The European countries have also agreed to follow the "Universal Declaration Of Human Rights", mentioned in an earlier article, so the government can't do arbitrary interference.
I don't think that such basic conventions can be too detailed, because it will depend on the current technology. It may give the government a little more wiggle room, but they still have to have a proper justification. Saying that "we will keep your mails, just in case we need them later" violates the intention of Article 8. The
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Gee, sure looks kind of like privacy to me
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
I also find it ironic how many peeps constantly nitpick over their rights where I often have the impression that their private life is often a carbon copy of TV shows and coorporate propaganda/commercials.
A lot of people consider their privacy insanely important. I know that my privacy is hardly interesting for anyone. Just a population statistic. Many are confusing freedom with privacy.
If the powers that be want to trample your privacy, my guess is that they'd just have to sneak
Why is privacy a basic human right? (Score:3)
"...If Parliament and the public at large have been slow to react, it is probably because for most people, most of the time, privacy is a pretty abstract concept. Like our health, it's something we tend not to think about until we lose it -- and then discover that our lives have been very unpleasantly, and perhaps irretrievably, altered. But though
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
Please reply with all of your information please. We want to know, and you do not have any right to stop us from knowing.
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
>
> Please reply with all of your information please. We want to know, and you do not have any right to stop us from knowing.
Privacy is not a basic human right. But in answer to your question "no". There is no contradiction here.
It's not a basic human right, because the State (Specifically, the Executive branch, empowered by laws passed by the Legislative branch, but only insofar as such laws pass Constitutional muster as evaluated by th
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
Debatable. But it is a right guaranteed to US citizens by the fourth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is more important (as far as the US is concerned at least).
Of course, free speech isn't a "basic human right" either, at least not to those who are usually consulted to define what such rights are.
Re:Stop it (Score:2)
"Out in public". Interesting term you use.
When you own a chunk of copper, and have property rights to every square foot of land through which it runs on the way from your house to your friend's house, then you have the right to total privacy
The right to privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the constitution only protects your privacy from government intrusion. But a right can be considered to exist without being legally codified. Suppose I steal your private correspondence and read your most personal thoughts. Or plant surveillance gear in your bedroom for my own malicious gratification? Wouldn't you feel that your rights had been vi
Hoping for a positive outcome (Score:4, Interesting)
The average American consumer is still oblivious to the erosion of privacy that has occured over the last decade. Only radical action and broad support will stop this continuing trend.
Re:Hoping for a positive outcome (Score:2)
Re:Hoping for a positive outcome (Score:2)
Timing (Score:2)
Re:Timing (Score:2, Informative)
It's the new airline screening system that assigns you a security risk level based upon certain screening data.
More info is here [eff.org].
Re:Timing (Score:2, Informative)
(little blurb from the article)
Virtual dragnet programs like TIA and CAPS II are based on the premise that the best way to protect America against terrorism is to for the government to collect as much information as it can about everyone - and these days, that is a LOT of information. They could incorporate not only government records of all kinds but individuals' medical and financial records, political beliefs, travel history, prescriptions, buying habits, communicatio
Individual rights and Government (Score:4, Insightful)
Naive me. (Score:2)
no (Score:2)
Re:Naive me. (Score:2)
WTF does that mean? The populace are giant, fluffy, sugary monsters from the mind of Dan Akroyd, and created by Zuul?
Re:Individual rights and Government (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Individual rights and Government (Score:2)
LOL! Good one, ianfs.
The government is so large that it can largely do what it wants without voter retribution. Even if people vote out Bush in 2004, they'll still vote in a Democrat. So, either way, we get even bigger government and fewer freedoms. I find it very interesting that Democrats argue for both civil liberties and nationalized health care, when the latter is a huge power grab by the government. The Republicans argue for smaller government and fi
Re:Individual rights and Government (Score:2)
I think that's one of the big misconceptions the public has. Rights aren't given to us by the government (although they are supposed to be secured by it), those rights are inherently and originally ours..."inalienable" as someone once put it. Once people start taking ownership of those rights they'll take issue with the government saying, "We'll need to take your rights BACK for a while so we can make them extra-secure."
(I realize it was just a
Re:Individual rights and Government (Score:2)
No, the relationship between the government and the people is distorted through POWER. The fact that the majority gets to choose who obtains power does not, in any way, remove the element of power from government.
It is power, and power alone, which allows government to abuse its position. You can change the way campaign conributions work, or t
How are things in Libertopia? (Score:2, Insightful)
In soviet russia (Score:3, Interesting)
In Russia (especially in Moscow and St. Petersburg) illegal collection and distribution of data on private persons and organizations is quite commonplace. Quite popular are databases on purchase/sale of cars, car owners, passport data and foreign passport data of Russian citizens, data on real estate (purchase and sale of apartments, their parameters, location and proprietors), databases of taxpayers, information about people wanted for crimes and those who have been previously convicted. CDs with such databases are easily available on the streets and the Internet. The CD can cost from USD10 to USD1,500 depending on the subject, amount and accuracy of the data. In the beginning of 2003 a mobile phone company Mobile Telesystems (MTS) suffered a massive security breach that led to the sale of CDs with MTS's entire database of several million customers. By law, MTS was required to share information about their customers with the police and government agencies. MTS claimed that the database had been stolen and that the company had started its own internal investigation without seeking help from law enforcement agencies. The company refused to provide details as to the results of this investigation. Widespread speculation and comments from an MTS spokesperson indicate that the data was leaked by a low-paid employee from one of these government agencies
Re:In soviet russia (Score:2)
Also the fact that about 1/3 of the snail mail I sent to Russia arrived OPENED, about half did NOT arrive. The rest came horribly delayed, some as late as 1 year after, and yes with signs of tampering. If I ever sent photos, more often than not they were removed or some were missing.
KGB, or whats left of it, LOVES international mail. I don't exactly know why, maybe they expect money, or credit card info
Soviet America scene (Score:2, Interesting)
Scene from Soviet America, next year:
I'm sorry, sir, you are not allowed to travel. No, we cannot tell you why, that would be a violation of security; we can only tell you that you are not allowed to travel. Please return home and avoid transit. We will alert you in the future if you are allowed to travel.
What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:4, Insightful)
If your credit card number or password gets stolen, you can stop it and have a new one issued. If you fingerprint gets lifted and misused, what are you to do? Amputate your finger?
--
*Art
Re:What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're confusing the ID with the biometric data. There's no need to steal your ID. A cast can be made of your finger, and a latex glove with your fingerprint used. Then you're royally screwed, because you can't get a new finger.
This problem is inherent in ALL biometric authentication -- you only have one set of biometrics which
Re:What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are people out there that would do that sort of thing without a second thought.
Anyone seen Demolition Man? The character played by Wesley Snipes escapes from the cryo prison by using a pen to extract an eyeball from one of the guards.
Re:What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:2)
Two words - gummi bears [theregister.co.uk].
Re:What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:2)
And that's really not so hard [extremetech.com] to do [mail-archive.com]!
And remember, if you think it's hard for a stranger to get hold of your fingerprints, what do you think you leave behind when you use a fingerprint scanner?
Re:What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:2)
No, because people who steal your identity can, for all practical purposes, become you. The only real way to accurately establish identity is to have some basic information on a person which is only verifiable in the context of that person's family and friends.
For example, I can declare that I am Neil Watson and forge your signature, fingerprints, retina, etc. However, my true identity is someo
Re:What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:2)
would you like there to be databases of where you are during the day usually? or what part of the city you usually visit?
the dangerous things about these are that they are mostly 'good' things though. but think a about a country that has a system like this in action, how easy it would be to take the people that think otherways and jail them up? for example, if in a country that had such an identification system an
Re:What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:2)
Yes, I did see Minority Report but, you can't take a move with a giant plot hole seriously.
Re:What's wrong with biometrics? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because systems which cannot fail are more difficult to fix when they do fail.
Also, when somebody is identified for harassement by a system which is widely believed to be perfect and immune to failure, it's a lot harder for the victim to explain why it's the system, and not them, who is at fault.
Ironic for us in the UK... (Score:3, Interesting)
www.theinquirer.net [theinquirer.net]
>THE UK GOVERNMENT has announced plans to keep an electronic file on every child in England in a range of new child protection measures announced by prime minister Tony Bliar.
>The children's files together with their unique e-number will be managed by local authorities in a "local information hub". The file will contain the name, address and date of birth of each child, together with the name of the school attended and whether the child is known to such agencies as the police, social services or educational welfare. Where multiple agencies are involved the file will denote which one profesional will have overall reponsibilty
Yet again... launched to "protect" the children... and yet another place where incorrect information can have devastating consequences for the parents of a child if a mistake is made during data entry...
Teacher notices bruises on child's torso... entry in database... social services could now be investigating for child abuse when it could have been a simple injury from a fall... but the reason might not have been entered later after investigation by the teacher however that entry will be there forever... Same child misses school several days in a row for a perfectly valid reason some months later... yet again social services could put 2 and 2 together later on and make 5...
What's the bet's they'll try and fly this kite by saying "the innocent have nothing to fear"??? If there's anything to go by from previous cases... the innocent have everything to fear when social services get it in their minds that there could be abuse when there isn't...
Re:Ironic for us in the UK... (Score:2)
The main aim of this initiative is to make a single person responsible for each child, as recently a number of cases have come to light where children have died as a result of neglect despite the fact that they were known to social services as being at risk. The idea is to stop children
Sums it up (Score:2)
OT - Patriot Act (Score:4, Insightful)
Bot, I hope I don't make The List with this post. I'm sorry John, I didn't mean anything by it.
Citizens and "foreigners" (Score:2)
You're leaving out huge chunks of "we the people" here, namely US residents who're not citizens of the US. This includes both people
Re:Citizens and "foreigners" (Score:2)
Re:US Citizenship Eligibility (Score:2)
Strange as it may sound to you, not everyone wants US citizenship. If you hold citizenship with another country that gives you better benefits, there's little point in changing. Also, you may want to hold a different citizenship to allow your kids to choose.
Wrong again. This used to be the case, but is no longer so. Go to California and ask the children of
Best Way to Protect Our Privacy Is... (Score:3, Funny)
Doing illegal things lead to all of us paying the penalty by losing our rights. The more responsible we behave, the more rights we'll have. Pretty simple stuff.
Very Dangerous Illusion (Score:2)
Such a freedom is not worth squat. It can also be paraphrased "freedom of agreeing with the government", and is present in pretty much every state on this planet.
It is the freedom and right to do WRONG things that signify freedom. Not the right to follow the masses and do what you are expected.
Re:Very Dangerous Illusion (Score:2)
Freedom to commit rape, murder, theft, etc. isn't something I'd want anyone to have.
The victoms who endure rape or theft of their belongings probably won't feel that they've gained more "freedom" if the government condones such "WRONG things".
Patriot Act (Score:4, Informative)
The real reaction to this act from conservatives is more interesting and diverse. Some share the views of Attorney General Ashcroft. Others oppose it just as strongly as the geek community -- many of the articles about the act on the conservative National Review site describe it with terms like the "so-called", "wrongly-termed" or "misnamed" Patriot Act. A director of the Cato Institute raised many interesting questions [nationalreview.com] about the act, to which the Justice Department wrote up a reply [nationalreview.com].
Also worth looking at is the Justice Department's own Patriot Act Web site [lifeandliberty.gov]. From here you can view the text of the act itself as well as all the arguments for it and rhetoric used to justify it. A valuable resource for any of us trying to formulate counterarguments about why this act needs to go away.
IP Database (Score:2)
We know the Truth - don't we (Score:3, Insightful)
Subject: Why I joined ACLU
I believe that we British should support the American Civil Liberties Union.
In fact - the people of ALL countries should - the ACLU are fighting for the Rights of everyone on this matter.
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are
Re:Of Course, (Score:4, Informative)
RTFA!!! [privacyinternational.org]
Re:Of Course, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of Course, (Score:2)
It's much easier than that:
Report by China on Human-Rights abuses in the United States [china-embassy.org]
Re:Of Course, (Score:4, Insightful)
If the liberation of Arab women is so important to the current administration, then does that mean we'll be invading Saudi Arabia next?!!!
Re:Of Course, (Score:2, Insightful)
And it's not a bad thing to be a
Re:Of Course, (Score:2)
Re:Of Course, (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't mean this report was written to throw eggs at the USA. Read the article instead of the \. comments. I know, less amusing in many ways, but still.
The USA scores badly on *some* points, better on others. It's still a pretty good country to live in compared to a lot of places in the world.
The real issue is, finding your government is messing with your privacy is like being underground and having your canary dying on you. It's a worrying sign, or it should
Re:In soviet russia... (Score:3, Funny)
Trust me on that one...my phone was tapped 24/7 in Russia, I still get taped when I call back there. It's the "click"...and at times you can hear them breathing...or music in the background. Sometimes they pick up before the phone connects, sometimes after. I suppose they enjoy the chats I have with my gf...
This whole article is worth shit though. I'd dare not call it a study. They quote laws that are not at all enforced. Russia has NO PRIVACY AT ALL. Yet it's n
Re:In soviet russia... (Score:2, Informative)
The alternative, simpler, explanation would be that the Russian telephone network simply experiences much more interference, such as cross-talk interference, and other anomalies..
Regardless what purve
Re:Traveller Profiling? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with airport security is that we're giving so much power to some of the stupidest people alive. This isn't an insult, but a fact. Conventional airport security guards are no brighter or better paid than mall security guards.
I hear about an episode where some 65 year old woman who'd had a mastectamy is taken into the back and strip searched for setting off the metal detector. A
Re:Traveller Profiling? (Score:3, Insightful)
I seem to remember a shocking act of terrorism in the United States that killed 168 people, committed by someone I doubt would fit into your description of what the "predominance of the terrorists look like" -- his name was Timothy McVeigh [indystar.com].
If you can judge a wise man (or a terrorist) by
Re:Traveller Profiling? (Score:2)
You're making the assumption that you know what all current terrorists look like -- in fact, I think you're going so far as to say they are all Arab. It is that assumption which I disagree with. In fact, I remember that the media floated the suspicion early on that those who bombed the Oaklahoma Federal Building were "Arab terrorists", and then had to quickly change tunes when that turned out to be basel
Re:Traveller Profiling? (Score:2, Interesting)
Profiling seems like a great idea when you look at it as an abstraction - sacrifice some rights of a very small group of people to improve everyone's safety. Sure, why not? It's a whole different story when you take it on an individual level. I'm an Arab, and an American citizen, and I've lived in the United States since I was two years old. Most people assume that I'm white just looking at me; shit, I don't even speak Arabic. I'm no more a terrorist than your theor