“The impact, the researchers say, came not from firing workers engaged in theft, but mostly from their changed behavior. Knowing they were being monitored, the servers not only pulled back on any unethical practices, but also channeled their efforts into, say, prompting customers to have that dessert or a second beer, raising revenue for the restaurant and tips for themselves.”
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration will remove airport body scanners that privacy advocates likened to strip searches after OSI Systems Inc. (OSIS) couldnâ€™t write software to make passenger images less revealing.
A very good example of privacy rationality.
A secret report obtained by Newsweek lays out the diabolical plans of al Qaeda’s bomb guru: evading airport scanners by surgically implanting explosives in a terrorist’s love handles.
“undetectable by conventional security measures” – so how to fight it? Right: “The key is to get inside the enemyâ€™s camp.” Thats probably the best way to protect the public from additional surveillance and search procedures.
Who needs to be stopped for a search if a Police Officer can scan you from the comfort of his car?
â€œThis technology has shown a great deal of promise as a way of detecting weapons without a physical search,â€ said New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly during his State of the NYPD address on Tuesday.
The gun scanning technology will help lessen the need for NYPDâ€™s use of Stop and Frisk procedures that allowed officers to stop New Yorkers for random street interrogations or searches. In 2011, about 600,000-plus New Yorkers were stopped.
See the video to learn how it works.
The headline is nice and the intention is also very interesting:
That is the premise for the webcam that a top government official here [in India] has installed in his office, as an anticorruption experiment. Goings-on in his chamber are viewable to the public, 24/7.
Zwar inzwischen zurÃ¼ckgezogen, aber die Idee ist wirklich … interessant: “Should Employers Be Allowed to Ask for Your Facebook Login?“
The EU has evaluated the data retention directive (DRD) and come to the conclusion that is serves its purpose and is working efficiently. However if one looks at the draft report (via vorratsdatenspeicherung.de), a few questions remain, mainly concerning the methods of the evaluation and some particular statements.
As a consequence, the evidential value of retained data must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in the light of all the relevant factors of a case. ….. Since law enforcement resources are limited the fact that retained data are used, signify they were deemed relevant. …. The retention of data is considered proportionate if it has considerable law enforcement relevance. (pp. 7)
AufgepaÃŸt, liebe Kinder: Ein neues Video zum Thema Datenschutz – mit Google-CEO Eric Schmidt in der Hauptrolle. Sehr nett, wenngleich auch – wie kaum anders zu erwarten – etwas holzschnittartig.
Ab sofort gibt es das aktuelle White Paper der Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) zum Thema Browser Uniqueness. Das Ergebnis in aller KÃ¼rze:
EFF UNVEILED RESULTS FROM THE “PANOPTICLICK” BROWSER
PRIVACY PROJECT, which demonstrated that more than
8 in 10 people use browsers with unique, trackable
signatures. Having a distinct browser signature means your
individual movements on the web may be easier to track,
and several companies are already selling products that
claim to use browser fingerprinting to help websites
identify users and their online activities.
Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 2-3 July 2010
Registration is free, but places are limited; please contact Barbara Prainsack at email@example.com by 15 June 2010 at the latest.
Forensic uses of DNA technologies have become crucial elements of national systems of criminal justice. In addition, as a result of growing transnational mobility and the global use of information and communication technologies crime and crime prevention issues are increasingly addressed by agencies and policy actors beyond the national state. In the European context, the so-called PrÃ¼m regime obliges law enforcement authorities in all EU countries to render their forensic DNA databases searchable for other member states by 2011 (at a match/no match basis). This also means that countries which do not yet have centralized forensic DNA databases need to establish them by that date. In sum, the importance of forensic DNA databasing will continue to increase in the political and public arenas across Europe.