Loss of Privacy

For a mere $3.99 a man saved the websites that are set to be deleted by buying a cheap ‘low end box’ type VPS server and spidering the BBC websites. After collecting the information, he bundled it together and has offered it up in a 1.88GB torrent.

It is inexplicable in this day and age of cheap storage why the BBC wants to just delete the information given that such valuable information will be lost forever.

Instead of moving the sites to, say, bbc.co.uk/archive and employing a little bit of .htaccess redirection, the BBC (and their technology partner, Siemens) would rather just delete the lot.

According to Boing Boing user GregS:

It’s not just trivia like schedules of Monarch of the Glen that they’re deleting. Read the Adactio post that Cory’s post references. For instance one site slated for deletion is http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/ “An Archive of World War Two Memories – written by the public”, which has 47,000 stories and 15,000 photographs contributed by the public. That’s a potentially very valuable resource to future historians, especially in a decade or two when most of the generation that lived through that war will be gone. It’s a disgrace that something like that would be discarded just to save a bit of disk space.

Among other worthy sites set to be deleted are:

• The website commemorating the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave act,
• The website for the summer of British film,
• The website chronicling composers of the year,
• The website documenting wildlife explorers on location,
• The website of last year’s Electric Dreams, a programme all about the changes in technology over time…

You can help save a bit of history by downloading and seeding the torrent. Depending on your local laws, you may also be able to host the file.

Finally, if you desire a strong and independent BBC then I implore you to make your feelings known to your local MP and directly to Jeremy ‘Cunt’ Hunt, Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. You may also wish to communicate to Mark Thompson (BBC Director General) and the BBC Trust your desire to see a stronger BBC position in negotiations with the government around the cuts to the BBC’s funding.

Whatever you do, make sure you help keep this information alive.

You can read the BBC’s response here.

8 year old Mikey is stuck on the TSA watch list and can’t get off. No one seems to know why he’s on the list, but there’s also no recourse to get off the list. Mikey has been on the list since he was 4 months old.

After years of long delays and waits for supervisors at every airport ticket counter, this year’s vacation to the Bahamas badly shook up the family. Mikey was frisked on the way there, then more aggressively on the way home.

“Up your arms, down your arms, up your crotch — someone is patting your 8-year-old down like he’s a criminal,” Mrs. Hicks recounted. “A terrorist can blow his underwear up and they don’t catch him. But my 8-year-old can’t walk through security without being frisked.”

It is true that Mikey is not on the federal government’s “no-fly” list, which includes about 2,500 people, less than 10 percent of them from the United States. But his name appears to be among some 13,500 on the larger “selectee” list, which sets off a high level of security screening.

Although the TSA claims that there are no children on the list, he shares a name with someone who is. Thus, this little boy is harassed every time he flies.

The TSA need to revisit all the names on the list and add photos and more detailed information to those who are on the list. It should be obvious that an 8 year old boy is not a terrorist and does not resemble the person who is on the list. The TSA also need to admit their mistake and remove Mikey from the “random” screenings that he endures every time he flies.

In the backlash over not putting Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on the watch list, now, all it takes is a single credible tip to place you on the terror watch list. This new rule makes it easier to ensnare innocent people.

But civil liberties groups argue that the government’s new criteria, which went into effect over the summer, have made it even more likely that individuals who pose no threat will be swept up in the nation’s security apparatus, leading to potential violations of their privacy and making it difficult for them to travel.

“They are secret lists with no way for people to petition to get off or even to know if they’re on,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

While the government has slowed the growth of the list and the list is said to contain mostly non-Americans, it is still reason for concern. A multimillion dollar upgrade to the TIDE system was not ready on time and has failed readiness tests. Still, the government plans on launching the TIDE2 system in January.

It is yet to be seen how effective the new system will be or if ordinary innocent people in the US and abroad will be trapped in an ineffective system with no recourse at their disposal.

Beginning January 1st, residents of Massachusetts will have to give up a little bit more privacy in the state’s efforts to combat misuse of prescription drugs.

Under a law passed last summer, they will have to show a driver’s license or another approved ID before the druggist can give them prescriptions ranging from addictive opiates to certain medicines for diarrhea. Their purchases will be recorded in a massive database that will include their names, addresses and the kinds and amount of pills they take.

The law is similar to legislation passed in 33 states and being initiated in another 10 states. Studies suggest the programs can help combat prescription drug abuse, but the law has other consequences that play against the national debate about the size and reach of government.

All of the information is stored in a database overseen by DPH, whose job it is to filter the information and look for inconsistencies.

Margaret Clapp, chief of pharmacy at Massachusetts General Hospital, said the new law triples to quadruples the amount of data collected by the state.

It will require more clerical work for doctors and druggists as the number of prescriptions monitored expands from the current 3.5 million a year to an estimated range of nine to 11 million.

Did you catch that? 9 to 11 million prescriptions will be monitored in the state of Massachusetts alone. This law is said to be able to keep track of people who are “doctor shopping” as well as doctors who are over prescribing medications.

The new law, which some pharmacy chains are already following ahead of the Jan. 1 implementation date, requires reporting on all prescription drugs listed under federal drug Schedules III through V, which include scores of more commonly prescribed drugs.

While pharmacists worry that they will feel the wrath of angry customers who have no idea that the law even exists, the law isn’t mandatory, creating more inconsistencies in the system.

Doctors and pharmacists aren’t required to consult the database.

The medical society also is concerned about confidentiality, particularly if police can access the information. Ryder worries that patients who take medications for mental health treatment are especially vulnerable in that regard.

According to the DPH regulations, access to the database will be limited to “authorized and authenticated individuals.” Law enforcement agencies will be able to request data involving a criminal investigation or prosecution. Such requests will be made to the attorney general, the state police or the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency.

So, essentially, this law is useless. It’s meant to track millions of prescriptions and quadruple the current database, but isn’t required. When something is suspicious, law enforcement still need to access the data through an intermediary and, likely, a warrant. How exactly does that change anything and how does it help abuse of prescription medications?

It is difficult to see how this law does anything other than force individuals to show approved ID and link their ID to their medications. 11 million is a large number of prescriptions and if common, non-abused drugs are in this database, what is its real purpose?

Peoria, Arizona is pursuing the idea of forcing customers to give up their fingerprints in order to get some medicines labeled as likely to be abused and involved in cases of fraud.

Peoria law-enforcement officials this month proposed an ordinance that would require anyone filling prescriptions for drugs such as OxyContin and Percocet to show ID and be fingerprinted at the pharmacy counter, including anyone picking up a prescription for a family member or friend.

Dan Pochoda, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, called it an “overreaction.”

Indeed it is a huge overreaction and an invasion of privacy. There are many people who take certain drugs on a regular basis and do not want to be in some database simply because they might need this medicine to live.

Pochoda of the ACLU said that to collect fingerprints of everyone filling a prescription is “like saying we’ll take a blood sample of every person, and later if they are a suspect we’ll use it.”

Details of the plan will be presented to Arizona State Board of Pharmacy in January. Currently, the state tracks certain prescriptions in an effort to track “doctor shoppers” and abuse drugs such as those containing pseudoephedrine.

Peoria City Attorney Steve Kemp is pushing for the measure to be made into law. While prescription fraud cases have increased in the city of Peoria, it is still relatively small compared to legitimate prescriptions. It is also not understood how the data will be collected or stored. What drugs would be on the list requiring fingerprints has also not been released.

Medical privacy would also be of concern. How would HIPAA laws be protected? Will the fingerprint database be connected to other pharmacies. Will it simply be added to the current criminal database? If there are two databases, who would be authorized to have access to it? If something like this were made a law, your fingerprints would likely be accessible to police, pharmacies, doctor’s offices, and insurance companies.

This proposed ordinance would be a huge infringement of individual rights. It will not have the desired effect that government officials are hoping for. Those who are going to abuse these drugs will simply drive a few miles down the road and get their prescription filled in another city or simply steal the drugs. It will only affect, and hurt, honest citizens who must take the medications that the city deems to be on their abusive list.

If passed, the city only need to sit back and wait for the first person denied their medication because they refuse to give up their fingerprints to sue after suffering without their medication. Given the fact that most fingerprint scanners are easily fooled, this program is doomed to failure. Hopefully, the city of Peoria realizes this before implementing it.