Angry Villagers

Some people in Broughton in Buckinghamshire, incensed at Google Street View's invasions of privacy, blocked a photographer's car when he was driving around the village taking pictures. Presumably they are not satisfied by Google's offer to take down photographs on request.

And surely there is something a little back to front about this attitude to privacy. At the end of the day my privacy is just as violated by an offending picture if I'm unaware of it - Google's policy seems to imply that 'privacy' is a subjective matter, which does no harm as long as the person in question knows nothing about it.

MEP's Recommendations

Mathias Vermeulen, also working on the Detecter project, has interesting news over at his blog the Lift. The Members of the European Parliament have made a series of recommendations for protecting privacy, security and freedom from censorship on the internet.

More Corporate Spying

Another company has been caught spying on its employees. This time its airbus, who were monitoring staff bank accounts.

Just how common is this behaviour? Can we rely on our media to inform us? In this case the revelations emerged as a result of new management coming in and auditing the company. The former journalist David Simon who had such success writing about corruption in the modern American city in The Wire has warned that the slow death of newspapers spells great opportunities for corrupt public officials in the next 10-15 years. Could it also be a golden era for corporate spying?

How Would Sir Care to be Invaded?

An old story today but I'm interested to get people's reactions. There was a lot of outcry over the proposal to use new millimetre wave technology body scanners at airports recently. The scanners produce a very clear image of the subject's (naked) body, revealing any concealed items, such as knives or guns. Understandably, many find the idea of being subject to such a search unacceptably invasive, no matter how quick and convenient.

But what do you think of this product? This was proposed for use in prisons. It's seat that will scan the subject's 'bodily cavities' while they are still fully clothed. They call it 'Boss' - Body Orifice Security Scanner'. While I'm certainly not immune to a sense that between its name, function and resemblance to an electric chair it all seems a little bit like something out of a dystopian movie, I want to try and put aside the 'yuck factor' in figuring out what I think about this. In assessing the rights and wrongs of using this product, surely the question of what it is replacing has to be significant. If a prisoner was suspected of smuggling a mobile phone (the main problem targeted) the alternative would presumably be an even more unpleasant physical cavity search. I can't imagine anyone preferring that to sitting down in Boss.

However, I think this very 'convenience' opens the door to a further potential danger. If these are installed in prisons I would imagine that these searches will become more widespread. And while I think it's less invasive than the alternative, it's hardly neutral. Comments?

Fisk on Galloway

Robert Fisk has a piece in the Independent today on the Canadian government's odd refusal to admit George Galloway into the country on the grounds that he's 'a security threat'. These claims have grown increasingly farcical with the immigration minister's spokesman calling Galloway 'an infandous street corner Cromwell'. Now you can think what you like about George Galloway (personally I think Fisk gets it about right when he calls him a "self-publicist, friend of dictators, reality TV show performer and general silly ass"), but surely nobody actually thinks Galloway making his speeches in Canada puts anyone directly at risk? And if that's the case then the only motivation for denial of entry can have been to make a political point. Sounds to me like a poor precedent to set. Any thoughts?