What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
44 Comments
- norman619, on 03/23/2009, -0/+17That was a zombie. He didn't count.
- supersonicjim, on 03/23/2009, -9/+24Young black men aren't vulnerable, if anything they're invulnerable. I shot one 5 times the other day and he wouldn't die.
- faskill, on 03/23/2009, -1/+16There are some databases that aren't illegal and these should pose some of the largest privacy concerns. Imagine a company gathering every bit of info about you, not for legal purposes, not for safety purposes, but wholly to sell it the highest bidder. There is a database company in the US - ChoicePoint - that is a data aggregate company (more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choicepoint ).
I was just curious, do any across the pond know what their local equivalent would be? And if you don't, should you? - austroLogi, on 03/23/2009, -0/+13This ***** doesn't affect black people or minorities any different than it affects white people, buried for the race card.... again
- mixmatosis, on 03/23/2009, -0/+7The Guardian, Monday 23 March 2009
Ten ways to track a UK citizen:
• National DNA database Profiles on four million people, over half of whom are innocent. Lists 39,000 children and nearly 40% of all young, black men in England under 35. Ruled unlawful by European court of human rights.
• National identity register Designed to store biometric and administrative data linked to ID card use. Will contain an audit trail of citizens' interaction with services. Intelligence agencies and police get largely unrestricted access.
• ContactPoint Index of all children in England. Complements the adult ID register. Inadequate security, privacy concerns and no effective opt-out.
• NHS detailed care record Holds GP and hospital records in remote servers; care providers can add comments, without proper accountability. Secondary user service holds summaries of other treatments to help NHS research. Lack of opt-out contravenes human rights and data protection laws.
• Common assessment framework Children's welfare needs; can include sensitive and subjective information.
• ONSET Tries to predict which children could become criminals; triggered by referrals to a youth offending team.
• Work and Pensions department data sharing To hold 85m records, will be one of the largest databases in Europe. Based on national insurance numbers. Could be linked to ID register.
• Audit Commission's fraud scheme Under Serious and Organised Crime Act (2007) is absolved from confidentiality breaches.
• Home Office's interception modernisation programme Will track all email, text and internet traffic; covers itemised phone bills and mobiles.
• Treaty of Prüm framework Allows law enforcement information to be shared between EU member states without proper data protection. - BooLag, on 04/23/2009, -0/+6And yet history shows that time and time again, governments do just that.
- Barackalypse, on 03/23/2009, -1/+7Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement. Next time try and hit the central nervous system.
- zebraz, on 03/23/2009, -0/+6"vulnerable people, such as young black men, single parents and children, being victimised."
See how biased this is ?
"young black men "
How about "old black men"...guess they don't matter
Or young black women.
Guess only young black men are vulnerable.
"single parents" ?
What the heck are "single parents" ?
See how predjudiced this whole article's premise is ?
As if only certain people are vulnerable.
Just plain dumb.
Anyone can be a victim.
Anyone is vulnerable.
It is not separated into sex and ethnicity. - iXam, on 03/23/2009, -0/+6Why not scrap all *illegal* government activities?
- cawpin, on 03/23/2009, -0/+5"pass it on to another company within it's own group which in turn can pass it or sell it on to third parties."
Um, no. If that company is considered "internal" and they can give them the information, then that company is also covered by the nondisclosure agreement. Otherwise it's the same as a money laundering man-in-the-middle scheme, which is illegal. - Barackalypse, on 03/23/2009, -0/+5Everyone is vulnerable, whether you become a victim or not all depends on what the current Government decides it wants to go after. It might be the Jews, it might be the gun owners, it might be the obese, it might be people that read a book critical of the Government, you just don't know, and that is just one reason why these databases should not exist.
- robbob, on 03/23/2009, -0/+5The crime is the databases are in Access
- Wavemancali, on 03/23/2009, -0/+4At the end of the article:
"Are you aware of being on a particular database? Have you been affected by being on a database in the past? Do you think there are reasons why government databases might be a good thing? Tell us about your experience by filling in the form below."
Of course filling the form and hitting the submit button puts you into the BBC database :) Classic. - Frostek, on 03/23/2009, -0/+4I presume that the reason why 4 out of 10 black men under the age of 35 are in the police database and have their genetic information recorded is because they've all been arrested.
If a white man of any age is arrested, it's exactly the same process.
Also, it's inaccurate in implying that you can't be removed from the database in the event of innocence. It's not completely straightforward, but it can be done. - norman619, on 03/23/2009, -0/+4The constitution only protects your privacy from the federal government not from non-gervernmental entities.
- Frostek, on 03/23/2009, -1/+5You forgot to mention the bit about how we have so many CCTV cameras (even though many of them are privately owned), when the US virtually made an industry based around television programs showing criminals, or "amusing events" recorded on their own CCTV cameras...
- chriscalifornia, on 03/31/2009, -0/+4Last time I checked, breaking the law has consequences. Just because they're the government doesn't mean they should just get away with a little bad press.
- borez, on 03/23/2009, -0/+4Arr, I was reading the Telegraphs version at the same time.
OK... That's white middle class journalism for you. - borez, on 03/23/2009, -0/+4Not if sign an agreement ( next time pick up a store card application and take a look ) that has a clause in the small print which frees up your data after it's passed onto a company within it's own group. They're free to do what ever they want then... and they do.
Store cards are not about giving the customer anything, I mean if you work out how many points actually need for that free chicken or whatever you'll find you'll have spent thousands to get them. They're a data mining tool, nothing more, nothing less.
@norman619: OK, one example, If I'm a smoker or an excessive drinker and I try to take out life insurance my broker already knows this because he's linked into a database that is telling him I bought 200 cigarettes last week, or three bottles of whiskey etc. and therefore your premiums skyrocket - TheAuditor, on 03/23/2009, -3/+6Cue for 'OMG Britain is such a police state', '[Vague reference to 1984]' and '[Moron who has not lived in Britain giving a completely unjustified opinion on why it is such a police state, and a bad place because of aforesaid reason]'. Please, Opinion != Truth.
- MtheoryX, on 03/24/2009, -0/+3To the people bitching about borez's example, you're correct. In that instance it WOULD be fraud if you didn't already tell that info.
But here's an example that is more frightening:
Say you are totally healthy. No pre-existing conditions, no current illness.
If the datamining uncovered patterns of spending indicating a less than healthy diet (regardless whether you actually had an unhealthy diet or not, and regardless what they consider "less than healthy"), they could jack your premiums because you may, one day, become a bigger risk for heart disease or diabetes. This is regardless whether you eventually do develop the disease. And of course, they wouldn't tell you about your potential risk, they just charge you more money.
Just an example that doesn't involve any fraud on your part to still get burned by this mining. - Merrell0, on 03/23/2009, -1/+4http://digg.com/design/One_in_four_government_webs ...
Different article, same news, do we really need two of these on the main page? - BotaXero, on 03/23/2009, -0/+3I fail to see how it makes young blacks vulnerable, that's a stretch. Still, I don't agree with having everyone's DNA on file, no matter what race they are.
- duckyinc, on 03/23/2009, -1/+4Pretty useless call if you ask me, the government is just going to make it legal.
- dirtyhipster, on 03/23/2009, -0/+3I like how this exact article except by the telegraph is only 5ish diggs below the original one.
- MrTankJump, on 03/23/2009, -1/+4@borez
That's a terrible example. Your insurance broker should know that, and if you don't tell him, it's fraud. The fact that you are an excessive smoker/drinker causes you to be more susceptible to health problems, which would cost the insurance company more money to take care of your ass.
Now if you said, I buy a lot of cigarettes for charity, but never smoked one in my life(lol) and now my insurance rates are high because of it, then there would be a problem. - ementalo, on 03/23/2009, -1/+3Our local equivalent is the government, they put all the info together from censuses and electoral roll, then they sell it for companies like 192.com to use
- oninbonin, on 03/23/2009, -0/+2Groceries and Pharmacies do that here in the states (You have a barcode on a keychain and they scan it) and has worried me ever since it's inception. If the government wanted to scapegoat me, it would make it all the easier to do so knowing such trivial information from these databases.
- BotaXero, on 03/23/2009, -0/+2I know ChoicePoint well, they kept telling Mercury I had a speeding ticket for 90 in a 65 when I was aquitted by the courts and my DMV record was clean. Apparently they think they know my driving record better than the DMV.
- TheLD, on 03/23/2009, -0/+2You can opt out from all the information compilations that are sold to 192. The main one is the electoral roll which can be opted out by ticking a box when you register to vote.
- Frostek, on 03/23/2009, -0/+2This one is better presented.
- borez, on 03/23/2009, -3/+5We have a similar system in the UK that people stupidly fall into and that's the one of store card reward schemes. People are too stupid to realise that if you sign up to one of these so called reward schemes that offer you points or discounts etc. that you're actually giving these companies data on your shopping habits, what bank you use, how much you spend, your address and all manor of other personal info.
People think they're protected because the company doesn't sell or pass on your data. Wrong. Although ( within the agreement and by law ) the company can't pass it on or sell it to a third party, it CAN ( and this is where they trip you up) pass it on to another company within it's own group which in turn can pass it or sell it on to third parties. They in turn collect and mine data about you from all sorts of sources eg banks, insurance brokers, stores, websites etc.
The data mining companies sole job is to amalgamate your data into one big picture of your life and sell it to whoever will pay money, regardless of who they may be. - borez, on 03/23/2009, -2/+3That's the Telegraph for you.
- godsdead, on 03/23/2009, -1/+2So after stealing our billions, the answer is to "scrap" what they have found out? why not refine?
or for ***** and giggles open the databases up to the public =D - ego_slam, on 03/25/2009, -0/+1The biggest problem with this argument is that even if they did put on a grand show complete with piles of servers and hard drives being destroyed with pounds of thermite, you just KNOW that there would be back-ups of the information. Knowledge is power, and no one is willing to give it up...no one.
- norman619, on 03/23/2009, -2/+2You are talking to people who still don't get that commentators are not journalists.
- oninbonin, on 03/23/2009, -1/+1Are you naive or joking?
- norman619, on 03/23/2009, -2/+2How is others knwoing your spending habits detrimental to you? I'm just curious. I see people saying the same things as you just did who don't bother to explain how this appearantly harmless information can come back to bite you in the rear.
- norman619, on 03/23/2009, -2/+2borez:
So you are saying it doesn't let you misrepresent yourself when you are trying to get life insurance? Are your SERIOUS?! In some places that would be viewed as fraud. - hinchb, on 03/24/2009, -1/+1look how stupid you are
- zmigliozzi, on 03/23/2009, -2/+1Who deemed these databases illegal? Prejudice people?
- WDAndrew, on 03/23/2009, -3/+2Oh man, haha.
- ReubenIra, on 03/23/2009, -5/+3Also try using a larger caliber hand gun or rifle. Shoot at vital spots.
- unrequited, on 03/23/2009, -4/+2Wow. Just wow.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is