The idea is that the Office of Naval Intelligence will deploy PANDA at its National Maritime Intelligence Centre in Maryland, where the new tech will be able to monitor tracking information covering much of the watery globe.
As well as information fed in by US warships, monitoring stations, patrol aircraft and so on, the US intelligence community is also known to make extensive use of radar spy satellites able to scan vast swathes of ocean from orbit and pick out any ships.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
News: New Datamining System to Detect 'Deviations' on the High Seas
From the Register: The US Navy is to use new computer monitoring software to detect 'deviations' in normal behaviour at sea. Dubbed 'PANDA' (Predictive Analysis for Naval Deployment Activities), the system will examine data on worldwide shipping movements for evidence of unusual and threatening behaviour:
News: New Policy on UK DNA Retention
From the Guardian: Police have announced that they are to retain the DNA of those released without charge. Home Office Ministers say they want a 6 year limit (having previously sought a 12 year limit) for retaining profiles. Ministers are also advocating indefinite retention of those arrested on suspicion of terrorism or other national security provisions. Those convicted of any offence remain on the database for life. The Tories say they would implement the Scottish system whereby the profile of those unconvicted of any offence is destroyed on release from prison:
The national DNA database is already the largest in the world, with the profiles of 4.5 million people already recorded. They include 850,000 DNA profiles of people who have never been charged with or convicted of a crime. The need to find a new regime follows a landmark ruling in the S and Marper case by the European court of human rights, which ruled that the Home Office's current regime of "blanket and indefinite" retention of innocent people's DNA was illegal.
News: ICO to Fine Companies £500,000 For Serious Data Breaches
From Panopticon Blog: The Information Commissioner is to get powers to deliver civil penalty notices on a data controller for a serious contravention of the data protection principles if the contravention is:
1) Deliberate or reckless
2) Of a sort that is likely to cause substantial damage or distress
The post makes two criticisms: first, the proposed cap of £500,000, as large as it might seem, compares less favourably with other regulator's powers to fine up to 10% of an organisations turnover. Second, as the government ultimately pays for many of the organisations in question, imposing large fines may have 'a slightly unreal quality to it'.
1) Deliberate or reckless
2) Of a sort that is likely to cause substantial damage or distress
The post makes two criticisms: first, the proposed cap of £500,000, as large as it might seem, compares less favourably with other regulator's powers to fine up to 10% of an organisations turnover. Second, as the government ultimately pays for many of the organisations in question, imposing large fines may have 'a slightly unreal quality to it'.
Comment: Murderer Requests Wikipedia Anonymity
Following up on the news that a convicted murderer wants Wikipedia to remove references to his crime. There's a controversy over what laws the various different versions of Wikipedia fall under - a German privacy law coming into tension US right to free, truthful speech. I'm not interested in this legal question so much as I am the more general question of what rights of privacy anyone ought to be entitled to from Wikipedia.
Some have pointed out that the identity of the actor's killer is a matter of public record, and so some might want to claim that placing this information on Wikipedia makes no difference to the individual's privacy. I find that unconvincing - clearly wikipedia has more prominence than a court record. Where the issue is the criminal's ability to get on with day to day life I'm sure the appearance of the information on Wikipedia makes a material difference.
Surely some information which is interesting and publicly verifiable ought not to appear on Wikipedia because of its intrusiveness. For example, I imagine the past romantic relationships of public figures could be established on at least some occasions, but unless it reveals something of legitimate interest to the public (such as a politician caught in a possible conflict of interest) such material should not be published. Likewise public figures' children, except where they are notable in their own right (as a child actor, say), should basically be left alone. (I assume this is the present policy - Obama's children do not have pages, despite the vast amount of press coverage of their first day of school, their new puppy etc.)
So where does this murderer fit in? As far as I have seen, nobody has argued for any legitimate public interest in the killer's identity - nothing hangs on who did it, it isn't necessary to any understanding of why the actor died, say. As such, I can't see any need for the information to appear in the article.
Some have pointed out that the identity of the actor's killer is a matter of public record, and so some might want to claim that placing this information on Wikipedia makes no difference to the individual's privacy. I find that unconvincing - clearly wikipedia has more prominence than a court record. Where the issue is the criminal's ability to get on with day to day life I'm sure the appearance of the information on Wikipedia makes a material difference.
Surely some information which is interesting and publicly verifiable ought not to appear on Wikipedia because of its intrusiveness. For example, I imagine the past romantic relationships of public figures could be established on at least some occasions, but unless it reveals something of legitimate interest to the public (such as a politician caught in a possible conflict of interest) such material should not be published. Likewise public figures' children, except where they are notable in their own right (as a child actor, say), should basically be left alone. (I assume this is the present policy - Obama's children do not have pages, despite the vast amount of press coverage of their first day of school, their new puppy etc.)
So where does this murderer fit in? As far as I have seen, nobody has argued for any legitimate public interest in the killer's identity - nothing hangs on who did it, it isn't necessary to any understanding of why the actor died, say. As such, I can't see any need for the information to appear in the article.
News: Murderer Requests Wikipedia Anonymity
From EFF: Lawyers Stopp and Stopp have sent a 'cease and desist' letter to the German and English language versions of Wikipedia requesting that the page about German actor Walter Sedlmayr, remove all mention of their client's murdering him.
Under German law, as 15 years have elapsed, he has returned to having the status of any other private citizen and, it is argued, is entitled to anonymity in order to facilitate 'reintegration into society'.
Under German law, as 15 years have elapsed, he has returned to having the status of any other private citizen and, it is argued, is entitled to anonymity in order to facilitate 'reintegration into society'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
